The Confederacy: America's worst idea

People that say blacks need to get over slavery cant get over theiy lost the civil war.

 

sorry genius but the slaves in the south were free in 1863. the 13th amendment was for the slaves in the north.

 

True the slaves were set free in 1863....But as today the Blacks still have that chip on their sholder mentality.

And all Whites who don't feel sorry for them, are classified as Racist.

And allways will be as though Whites owe them.

FACT​

 

What I said was tr00.

 

The South lost because they were inferior to the real America.

The South deserved to lose because they were morally inferior and because they were traitors to their nation.

 

They are classified as racist because they apply traits to people based on race. The term has nothing at all to do with the civil war or slavery.

Yes, lets all cry a million tears for the loss of slavery.

If it hadnt fallen to the US it would have fallen to someone else.

 

Did those squirrels in your head tell you that.?

​

 

umad bro?

History isnt written by losers...sorry. The South's failure isnt my fault.

 

And now they're owned by the DNC.

 

Tennessee had to hold an illegal vote in the legislature by holding out the representatives from the eastern portion of the state.

Also, all the Slave Power states did not hold a referendum among the 40% of the population that was slave if they wanted to break away from the Union, or, hell, if they even wanted to be slaves.

Further, the Slave Power shot first: they fired upon Fort Sumter, which was still legally federal property. They also stole federal munitions and weapons to start their illegal war.

At least General Sherman showed them what for. The CSA may have started the war, but the Union ended it.

 

They had full representation within the government. They were not oppressed. And yeah, they were traitors for turning against their own government.

The civil war ultimately determined what their rights were.

 

The Confederacy did not lose because it was a bad idea. The Confederacy lost because of lack of man power and resources.

If the roles were flipped, if the Confederacy had the resources and the North was the poor country, the Confederacy would have won.

 

Yup. There should be a statue of that guy on every corner in the South, just so they don't try to get uppity again.

 

The Confederacy lost because the Confederacy had a lack of man power and more importantly industrial base- which made the Confederacy a really bad idea to:
a) secede and
b) a really bad idea to fire the first shot.

and of course morally- the idea of seceding from the Union in order to prevent the loss of the slaves owned by the wealthier was a really bad idea.

If the South had stayed within the Union, it is almost certain that the abolishment of slavery would have been accomplished gradually and with some form of compensation to the slave owners, as had happened in the North and in England. But by seceding they lost it all- in every sense of the term.

But then again- if that had happened, we wouldn't have certain people romanticizing the glories of the Confederacy would we?

And just to be clear here- I love the South.....I visit Charleston and Savannah regularly, and have travelled around much of the South. Southerners are probably the friendliest people I have met. I do not lump all Southerners with our Confederacy apologists.

 

The confederacy was doomed from the minute it was formed because of one thing, money. The south was entirely dependent on the export of cotton to England, which was financed and traded through New York City.

The southern planters had little capital of their own and most were in debt to bankers in New York and England. They were expecting the English to support them but failed to recognize that the trade in goods with the north was far more important and lucrative to England than southern cotton. When it came time to choose sides England chose to continue trading with the north and expand cotton growing in Egypt which had begun replacing southern cotton already.

Once it became apparent that the south had no money and no way to get any they were doomed. It did not help much that the Confederate government had no power to raise taxes to fund its operations and the state supplied armies were under state control and often went their own way at critical times. Also, like Japan and Germany a century later they completely misunderstood the military complacency of the republic and its virtually unlimited capacity to action once its ire was aroused.

 

So you basically agreed with me. You said that they lost because of lack of manpower and industrial base. I said manpower and resources. Basically it is the same thing.

The Confederacy was a good idea as a political entity. To bad we don't have it today. What these last few years have shown is that centralized power is very dangerous. Look at Greece. They are destroying their country. The same is going to happen to the US. The clowns in Washington DC are destroying America.

If politician's power was limited to their respective states then the only thing they can destroy is their state. Not the nation as a whole.

 

I agreed in part with you- for the points you noted. However I pointed out the Confederacy was a very, very bad idea because the Confederate States chose to secede and because they chose to attack the Federal Government.

Because of the Confederacy, the South had its economy destroyed, and instead of an orderly transition from slavery to non-slavery, with compensation to the owners, they forfeited everything by chosing Slavery over the United States. The Confederacy was a monumentally stupid decision for the South to take. No reason to assume that the Confederacy would be any better managing its affairs subsequent to that bad decision.

Meanwhile, since the Civil War, under the United States government that you decry, the United States reached levels of prosperity that are the envy of the world.

 

If no one won then we would still be at war. The South was certainly defeated. And the war was necessary.

 

The Slave Power was also plagued with chronic manpower shortages due to needing to have a number of fighting men in the fields as either slaves or overseers, as well as devoting their entire economy to the raising of cotton or tobacco. There were also severe morale issues, as the majority of fighting men didn't really care about what they were fighting for (the maintenance of slavery), whereas the Union had two main fights (preserving the Union, destroying slavery).

Yeah, because basing an economy on slavery and cash crops is a way to economic prosperity in the long term.

Also, such centralized states as Norway and China are doing well in spite of the recession.

I suppose the Slave Power was a pre-eminant example of that. Oh, wait, by decentralizing their power, they were unable to match the strengths of the Union and were utterly destroyed as a nation.

 

Yeah slavery and segregation were awesome, LOL

These last few years have been far vastly superior to the best the Confederacy could have possibly become. If history has taught us anything it is that slave cultures are doomed to failure.

We've been hearing that for decades now. Have you ever read the story "the boy who cried wolf"? It has applications here.

We have been far worse off before than we are right now, and we recovered from that.

This.

We have the highest immigration rate on any nation in the history of Earth...and that is just counting the legal immigrants. There are far mpore people that WANT in that we dont let in legally.

 

I never said slavery was good. You all read into my post. I said that decentralized power was a good idea.

Answer this question. Which of these 2 scenario are most true:

Scenario A:
Do you believe that American politicians are wise angels who wake up every day wondering how to make your life better. Are politicians tirelessly working day and night for you? Put your concerns over their own needs and the needs of their families?

Scenario B:
Or are politicians flawed people who make mistakes. Are the clowns in DC bought and paid for by Corporate America. Do politicians cut deals that benefit themselves at the expenses of the constituents or nation? Do they sell out the voters for the sake of taking care of Corporate America? Do politicians always follow the law strictly adhere to the constitution and never break the law?

If you think that scenario B is more true, then why do you want to give these people the keys to the nation. States rights protects the nation because it limits their destructive power to the states they manage. No matter how bad they screw up, they can only destroy their own state, the rest of the 49 states will be safe. Put another way. What are the odds that all 50 are simultaneously are destroyed by their respective state legislatures. Not bloody likely.

 

Slavery is one of the possible consequences of decentralized power. The civil war was a PERFECT example of that.

 

That's why it took the north four years to beat the under-populated south, which had barley had any manufacturing capability?

Ya, apparently you know little about the American civil war.

 

Logistics and not adapting to new strategic realities brought about by new technology.

Remember, Chancellorsville was the last major battle won by the Slave Power, and they did that in 1863, two years before the end of the war. Toward the end, when the Union had figured out the new strategic realities of war with more modern rifles, artillery, and trenches, they had essentially steamrolled through the Slave Power. General Sherman figured out modern warfare and completely unmade the Slave Power as a warring power.


General Fear, in general, the more local the politics, the more likely they are to be crooked. Chicago politics are more crooked than Illinois politics, which are more crooked then federal politics, for instance. Corruption festers in local areas more than in federal jurisdictions.