Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I also say the Confederacy lasted more than four years and gave clear examples of how it would be if it had lasted officially, hence the Civil Rights Movement of the '50's and '60's.
No, no, no. This won’t do at all. The above is a ghastly cocktail of anachronism and sectional prejudice, served with just a dash of humbug.
You are taking no account of the psychological consequences of conquest and impoverishment. You can find all the evidence you could possibly require of fear of the Negro in the ante-bellum South, but hatred is a different matter. There was actually very little reason for the typical Southerner to hate Negroes before Appomattox. The best examples of race hatred were to be found further North, as evidenced by the poisonous sentiments often published in Midwestern newspapers. And the greatest massacre of Negro non-combatants during the war happened, of course, in New York City.
Nobody, but nobody, can say with any confidence what the Confederate States of America would have been like in 1961. It is fascinating to speculate, but anyone who speculates with the kind of certainty which you appear to display is deluding himself.
Bill
P.S. I wholly agree with you about humanity’s general lack of enthusiasm for change.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Human beings are a funny thing, aren't they? But after belonging to two distinct Federal organizations who resisted change with all of their historical might, I have seen the beginnings of forced change taking place, as everyone in both organizations have been dragged into the 21st century, kicking and screaming. I am referring to the United States Army and the United States Postal Service. And thanks, Bill, for agreeing. It's us old duffers who dislike change the most that often have to put up with it, whether we like it or not, in our families, our jobs and even out telly programs! Until that time, I remain, faithfully and unchangeably, your friend, the stubborn colonial.
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
“Us old duffers”? Speak for yourself. I’m 47, and in a good light I could almost pass for 50. But I personally find change extremely stimulating. It’s routine and the lack of change which does my head in.
But back to the matter in hand. Do you really have your mind completely closed to the possibility that the C.S.A. might have evolved in ways which might not have been quite what the people of 1861 would have expected?
Sorry, my gout is acting up something fierce tonight, and I feel VERY old at 52. And I'm sorry, but to most of the young people on the planet, anyone over 40 is in the 'old duffer' catagory. Like I said, I think its the gout talking.
I congratulate you on the ability to embrace change. You and my wife would get along very well. While I dreaded moving to my next military assignment (change and all that, don't ya' know) my wife could not wait for the 'next adventure in moving!'
I base my opinion (and it is that and nothing more) on my belief and observation that most people hate change. I believe this was a central feature of those in the South, not an evil thing, not a good thing, but just the way it was.
Having observed this myself in most human beings all over the country and not just the South, I still believe that secession was not so much revolution as it was rebellion against change. The inference I get from the writings and speeches of the times seems to reinforce my view. I fear if left unchanged, that secession if successful, would have simply reinforced the views the South held on slavery as vindication that it was right and it would continue the grand, old, peculiar institution for many a year to come.
That's how I view it, anyway.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Sorry, my gout is acting up something fierce tonight, and I feel VERY old at 52. And I'm sorry, but to most of the young people on the planet, anyone over 40 is in the 'old duffer' catagory. Like I said, I think its the gout talking.
I congratulate you on the ability to embrace change. You and my wife would get along very well. While I dreaded moving to my next military assignment (change and all that, don't ya' know) my wife could not wait for the 'next adventure in moving!'
I base my opinion (and it is that and nothing more) on my belief and observation that most people hate change. I believe this was a central feature of those in the South, not an evil thing, not a good thing, but just the way it was.
Having observed this myself in most human beings all over the country and not just the South, I still believe that secession was not so much revolution as it was rebellion against change. The inference I get from the writings and speeches of the times seems to reinforce my view. I fear if left unchanged, that secession if successful, would have simply reinforced the views the South held on slavery as vindication that it was right and it would continue the grand, old, peculiar institution for many a year to come.
Look at South Africa and how long it took before real change took place there, in spite of world condemnation and sanctions.
That's how I view it, anyway.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Neil,
That..is well said.
You brought up South Africa. Which is in many ways totally different and unique in itself. The situation there was so very much different than the world believed. But I would like to say I admire S. Africa in the way they handed over power. That was virtually unheard of and I'd never dreamed I'd see it in my lifetime. I'm still amazed in fact.
Yes, South Africa was amazing in that one sense, although it did not go without some kicking and screaming, but the point is, it did finally go and let loose from power. As you said, amazing.
Now if we could just see Isreal and Palistine do something just like it, I would be really impressed!
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
