US history questions, south-north

I too, was taught that Southerners were a bunch of backwards racist assholes.

In US History 1, they were racist sons of bitches who treated slaves horribly.

In US History 2, they were racist sons of bitches who wouldn't let black people vote.

In English 3, even though he was writing about slavery in the Royal Navy, Olaudah Equiano's book showed us how evil and racist the South was.

Got this whole 'The south sucks' thing going on in the public schools.

Can't say that slavery is something good, but come on, everyone knows that the entire Southern economy was based off of it. Instead of working with the South to try to make an economy without slaves, we just invaded them.

And look what happened when we freed the slaves. The system promptly returned to the antebellum state, except instead of being owned by the owner of the plantation, they were sharecroppers working his land and giving him a good portion of their crops. Except now instead of the slaveowner feeding them, they sell their share of the crops to buy food. Only difference.

Of course, the South isn't completely free of blame, but the Civil War wasn't some glorious war for the liberation of black people, it was a huge loss of lives caused by politics, and it shouldn't have happened at all.

The South did have a this big prison in a town called Andersonville in Georgia. The guys who ran it were total assholes and got hanged at the end of the war. They deserved it immensly. 14,000 of 50,000 Union soldiers died there. My grandfather's grandfather was imprisoned there after being wounded in battle, but he survived until the end of the war.
 
Altron said:
Can't say that slavery is something good, but come on, everyone knows that the entire Southern economy was based off of it.
Click to expand...

I don't know that. I know it was based on the same things all national economies are based on...supply and demand.


Instead of working with the South to try to make an economy without slaves, we just invaded them.
Click to expand...

The north didn't want the South to have a strong economy. In the words of the Great Despot himself, "We cannot allow the South to go in peace. Who would pay for the government?"

And look what happened when we freed the slaves. The system promptly returned to the antebellum state, except instead of being owned by the owner of the plantation, they were sharecroppers working his land and giving him a good portion of their crops. Except now instead of the slaveowner feeding them, they sell their share of the crops to buy food. Only difference.
Click to expand...

My uncle was a sharecropper until he died in 2002. He was white.

The system did not "return" to antebellum status. Reconstruction destroyed the South, as planned. Read your history and show me I'm wrong.

Of course, the South isn't completely free of blame, but the Civil War wasn't some glorious war for the liberation of black people, it was a huge loss of lives caused by politics, and it shouldn't have happened at all.
Click to expand...

You speak the truth here.

The South did have a this big prison in a town called Andersonville in Georgia. The guys who ran it were total assholes and got hanged at the end of the war. They deserved it immensly. 14,000 of 50,000 Union soldiers died there. My grandfather's grandfather was imprisoned there after being wounded in battle, but he survived until the end of the war.
Click to expand...

And the Union army didn't have POW camps?

I will submit that Union POWs were treated exponentially better than were Confederate POWs. Given time and inclination, I'll prove it.

Don't believe the movie either...it was produced by yankee liars.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
I don't know that. I know it was based on the same things all national economies are based on...supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the major crop was cotton, and all the cotton was produced by slavery. Not having slaves was very bad for the economy.

My uncle was a sharecropper until he died in 2002. He was white.

The system did not "return" to antebellum status. Reconstruction destroyed the South, as planned. Read your history and show me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that black people were no better off after the war than they were before.

And the Union army didn't have POW camps?

I will submit that Union POWs were treated exponentially better than were Confederate POWs. Given time and inclination, I'll prove it.

Don't believe the movie either...it was produced by yankee liars.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the Union soldiers were really nice to Confederate prisoners, just that Andersonville was a very bad prison to be in and I know this because a member of my family was a Union soldier and was in Andersonville.
 
Altron said:
Yes, but the major crop was cotton, and all the cotton was produced by slavery. Not having slaves was very bad for the economy.
Click to expand...

No, all the cotton was NOT produced by slave labor. Less than half, in fact.

My family lived in the South as far back as I can trace. Not one ever owned the first slave. We didn't starve. My g-g-g-grandfather fought proudly for the Confederate Army, serving the TN 63rd Infantry, Fain's Regiment 74th. He didn't own a slave. He raised 9 children. None starved.
 
Altron said:
What I mean is that black people were no better off after the war than they were before.
Click to expand...

Most claimed they were worse off. Most stayed loyal to their former owners. Thousands served voluntarily in the Confederate Army. But your history teacher didn't want you to know that.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Most claimed they were worse off. Most stayed loyal to their former owners. Thousands served voluntarily in the Confederate Army. But your history teacher didn't want you to know that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because that doesn't demonize the Confederacy. There are agendas that need to be pushed, c'mon man!

IIRC, he was in the 8th Ohio regiment.
 
The slavery issue:

The reason the south fought agaisnt ending slavery was economics feed em house em and they pick the cotton, with no slavery you had to PAY them.

It's the same reason nike makes their shoes in china it's cheap and the fat cats have more money in their pocket, when slavery did end the cotton industry did not end, just the profit margins where slimmer.

Slavery was on it's way out anyway, it was no longer socially acceptable, but the emancipation proclomation hastened it's end by 10-15 years.

Lincoln was a president, take away the whole war thing, and the end to slavery which he is credited for in some history books, he was a fairly mediocre prez.


My history question is why was the south more against the civil rights movement than the north (in the 50's and 60's),
 
Altron said:
I too, was taught that Southerners were a bunch of backwards racist

assholes.

In US History 1, they were racist sons of bitches who treated slaves horribly.

In US History 2, they were racist sons of bitches who wouldn't let black people vote.
Click to expand...
1, My great uncle, was he last slave owner in my family. (that I know of)
His main man, was like, if not his best friend. He just didn't know anything
about business, economics, how to do things like even try to get a loan
for a house, deal with sales men, READ, .....
So, he stayed on and trusted my uncle.
My uncle made sure that he had what he needed, and what 'wanted', taught
him about how business works, and how people are....
The guy had his own house, and their family is still very close with ours.

2, Now about the vote.....
There was a time when only land-owners could vote....
then wemen...

Altron said:
What I mean is that black people were no better off after the war than they were before.
Click to expand...

SouthernN'Proud said:
Most claimed they were worse off. Most stayed loyal to their

former owners. Thousands served voluntarily in the Confederate Army. But your history

teacher didn't want you to know that.
Click to expand...

paul_valaru said:
My history question is why was the south more against the civil rights movement than the north (in the 50's and 60's),
Click to expand...

IMO, it wasn't over-all...There were just men in certain positions of power
that said things that didn't necessarily reflect the majority.
 
paul_valaru said:
Lincoln was a president, take away the whole war thing, and the end to slavery which he is credited for in some history books, he was a fairly mediocre prez.
Click to expand...
History is written by the winners.

paul_valaru said:
My history question is why was the south more against the civil rights movement than the north (in the 50's and 60's),
Click to expand...
Simply not true. There were and are just as many (if not more) bigots in Boston as there were and are in Birmingham. Segregation was just as prevalent (if not more) in the north as in the south. The north wasn't as obvious about keeping the blacks from voting, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
paul_valaru said:
The slavery issue:

The reason the south fought agaisnt ending slavery was economics feed em house em and they pick the cotton, with no slavery you had to PAY them.

It's the same reason nike makes their shoes in china it's cheap and the fat cats have more money in their pocket, when slavery did end the cotton industry did not end, just the profit margins where slimmer.

Slavery was on it's way out anyway, it was no longer socially acceptable, but the emancipation proclomation hastened it's end by 10-15 years.

Lincoln was a president, take away the whole war thing, and the end to slavery which he is credited for in some history books, he was a fairly mediocre prez.


My history question is why was the south more against the civil rights movement than the north (in the 50's and 60's),
Click to expand...

Feed and house. Feed, house, and clothe. Feed, house, clothe, care for, medicate, heat (on the cold months). Feed, house, clothe, care for, medicate, heat ... the entire family .... even when they weren't working. Not much cotton getting picked in december, I'l wager.
I wonder just exactly how much money that added up to in a year. Versus hiring migrant workers for just the harvest. I wonder.
 
There's also the idea of an 'investment'.

If you got a slave who works hard, you're gonna make sure that he's got plenty to eat so he keeps working hard. You're not gonna drive him harder than he can take, because you don't want him to die, because you paid a good price for him.

Wage slavery, OTOH, as demonstrated mostly in Northern cities in the late 1800s until the early 1900s, there was not that idea. You hired immigrant workers, worked them until they dropped, then fired them and left them to fend for themselves, because there's always new people getting off the boat.

I'm not saying any kind of slavery is good, but I don't like how Lincoln is credited with singlehandedly ending slavery. If anything, I would say that people like the Progressives in the early 1900s who broke up the big monopolies and wage slavery deserve that credit.
 
Slavery has been demonstrated to be a money loser. The quality of work & energy put forth to drive slaves is greater than the losses under a decent wage. However, it's hard to find 500 people to pick cotton on a daily basis without quitting.

Lincoln is not the devil & the North is full of idiots...same as the south.

In the end, Abe did the right thing. Without the war, we'd be more like Europe. *shudders* As far as SnP thinking I'm a supporter of the North...he's mistaken, both sides were wrong but ultimately, cohesion is, and should remain, the reigning champ.
 
And now you've got that fucking fiasco called the EU. who's only reason for existance is to try and combat the US powerhouse. And dozens of nations and cultures hundreds or years older than the US piss away their identity, their pride, and even their economy and money in the race for the power supplied by the all-mighty greenback.

What a fucking waste.
 
It was a coup for the Euro but still a bit of a surprise to see Germany trade the Deutsche mark for the Euro, since the mark was a strong, important currency in the world.
 
Professur said:
And now you've got that fucking fiasco called the EU. who's only reason for existance is to try and combat the US powerhouse. And dozens of nations and cultures hundreds or years older than the US piss away their identity, their pride, and even their economy and money in the race for the power supplied by the all-mighty greenback.

What a fucking waste.
Click to expand...


It will be as ineffective as the UN...Just a waste of space and money...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top