what if the confederates won?

[man in the red suit]

I was wondering if you would of supported the confederacy. please make some sort of reply to this if you are reading it.

Let me explain before you go calling me a black racist.

The confederates were trying to win independence
The union tried to keep them in the union. Hmmm........ I wonder why this could be? $$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!

The confederates, if they had won the war, would of sliced the U.S, preventing it from becoming the Empire and Economic powerhouse it is today. These are the grounds for which most of Europe supported the confederates in the first place.

If the confederates won, there would be no KKK. This is a no-brainer.

The confederates would of abolished slavery somewhere along the lines anyway

Lincoln only freed the slaves to help himself "if I could restore the Union by freeing all the slaves, so be it. If I could restore the Union by freeing no slaves, I would do that also. If I could restore the union by freeing half the slaves, I would do that as well."


I don't know but this guy seemed pretty bent on restoring the union, I don't think he cared one way or another, what the fate of the slaves was gonna be.

There was almost as much if not an equal amount of rascism in the north as there was the south.

Tecumseh Sherman=Union army.


I will apologize now if I have not already, for making this thread if it is merely a remake of another already existant one. I have not been here too long so I don't really know what has been posted and what hasn't

[Xvall]

I hate them still. They liked slavery just as much as Lincoln. They were swine, and their deaths should have come wicked painful and SLOW.

[man in the red suit]

hmmm. you know there were some confederates who were abolitionists. did youi ever think of that?

still, your opinion is fair enough for me.

[truthaddict11]

Robert E Lee was anti-slavery but fought for the confederates, he was origninally asked to be a general for the Union Army

[redstar2000]

You sometimes run across the idea that the American Revolution (1776, etc.) was a "bourgeois revolution". Well, no, it wasn't. It was a rebellion of one landed aristocracy (in colonial America) against another landed aristocracy (in England).

The American civil war was the true bourgeois revolution in this part of the world. The party of the northern capitalist class broke the domination of the southern landed aristocracy in the elections of 1860; the Confederacy was a last-ditch attempt to save an old ruling class from destruction.

All the rhetoric you may have seen about "the union", "anti-slavery", "self-determination". "the peculiar institution", etc. was window dressing. Not that some of the abolitionists were not brave and sincere fighters; but you can readily see just how "sincere" most of them really were by looking at what happened to black people AFTER the civil war.

Not to even mention the fact that very few slave-owners were deprived of their property at the conclusion of the war (except their human property). The plantations were not broken up and distributed to the former slaves; instead northern capitalists came in and bought up a fair amount of land themselves ("the carpetbaggers"). For the most part, the old southern aristocracy were permitted to survive and even prosper...on the understanding that they were permanently subordinate to the new ruling class in New York ("Wall Street").

"What if?" games are perhaps the most fun part of history. But it's difficult to see any reasonable way for the Confederacy to have won the civil war; overall, the capitalist north outweighed the aristocratic south by at least NINE TIMES. Even though the northern forces were cursed by some of the most incompetent generals in the history of warfare...the sheer economic weight of the north squeezed the south into defeat.

The real advantage of the new capitalist empire in North America was that it had NO capitalist rivals on this continent. American imperial ambition was never limited by anything other than its own appetite.

The tragedy is...it still isn't!

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:58 pm on Nov. 7, 2002
You sometimes run across the idea that the American Revolution (1776, etc.) was a "bourgeois revolution". Well, no, it wasn't. It was a rebellion of one landed aristocracy (in colonial America) against another landed aristocracy (in England).

The American civil war was the true bourgeois revolution in this part of the world. The party of the northern capitalist class broke the domination of the southern landed aristocracy in the elections of 1860; the Confederacy was a last-ditch attempt to save an old ruling class from destruction.

All the rhetoric you may have seen about "the union", "anti-slavery", "self-determination". "the peculiar institution", etc. was window dressing. Not that some of the abolitionists were not brave and sincere fighters; but you can readily see just how "sincere" most of them really were by looking at what happened to black people AFTER the civil war.

Not to even mention the fact that very few slave-owners were deprived of their property at the conclusion of the war (except their human property). The plantations were not broken up and distributed to the former slaves; instead northern capitalists came in and bought up a fair amount of land themselves ("the carpetbaggers"). For the most part, the old southern aristocracy were permitted to survive and even prosper...on the understanding that they were permanently subordinate to the new ruling class in New York ("Wall Street").

"What if?" games are perhaps the most fun part of history. But it's difficult to see any reasonable way for the Confederacy to have won the civil war; overall, the capitalist north outweighed the aristocratic south by at least NINE TIMES. Even though the northern forces were cursed by some of the most incompetent generals in the history of warfare...the sheer economic weight of the north squeezed the south into defeat.

The real advantage of the new capitalist empire in North America was that it had NO capitalist rivals on this continent. American imperial ambition was never limited by anything other than its own appetite.

The tragedy is...it still isn't!

very nice but I wasnt asking how the south lost, I as asking your personal opinion. But your post was excellent anyways

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 1:32 pm on Nov. 7, 2002
Robert E Lee was anti-slavery but fought for the confederates, he was origninally asked to be a general for the Union Army

I don't think there is anyone here who didn't know that but good post nonetheless because it is true.

More importantly though, what is YOUR personal opinion on the matter. That is more important than the facts. We already know the facts.

[canikickit]

You brought up some interesting points, MITRS.
I don't really have an opinion on the War, cos I'm not American, and I don't know anything about it.

[Mazdak]

Interestingly enough, it would have made little difference. The CSA was collapsing internally. Its backwards economy was growing weaker and if Sherman and grant didnt finish it off, it would have collapsed on its own in a few yeras and had to try to reenter the Union. The CSA was just like the USA. The USA exploited factory workers, and the CSA exploited poor farmers and (obviously) slaves.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from canikickit on 5:13 am on Nov. 8, 2002
You brought up some interesting points, MITRS.
I don't really have an opinion on the War, cos I'm not American, and I don't know anything about it.

thanks man but surely you must have some sort of opinion. I know you must know at least a little about the war from what we have posted.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Mazdak on 8:54 pm on Nov. 8, 2002
Interestingly enough, it would have made little difference. The CSA was collapsing internally. Its backwards economy was growing weaker and if Sherman and grant didnt finish it off, it would have collapsed on its own in a few yeras and had to try to reenter the Union. The CSA was just like the USA. The USA exploited factory workers, and the CSA exploited poor farmers and (obviously) slaves.

interesting point mazdak however I do not agree with you that the economy was collapsing internally. If the confederates had won, Europe would most likely of supported them economically by doing more of their business transactions with them. Besides, it was the fault of the union for the crushing of the confederate's economic superstructure, not so much the backwards farming economy (which is true). Was it collapsing? yes but was it collapsing internally? well, not as much as externally. I think you can definitely put most of the blame on sherman. And besides, in the hypothetical situation that the confederates DID have complete economic stability, would you of supported them then? This is a question of whose principles you agree with so to speak. Not so much a question of who would arise the superpower.

[Mazdak]

WEll, i wouldn't support either one, i'd let them kill each other. When it appeared the south would lose, i would support them, if they began to win, i would support the north.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Mazdak on 5:17 pm on Nov. 9, 2002
WEll, i wouldn't support either one, i'd let them kill each other. When it appeared the south would lose, i would support them, if they began to win, i would support the north.

tisk tisk.....no loyalty Mazdak. Just join with however comes out stronger. lol....Alright. Thank you Mazdak.

[Mazdak]

Oh, and European countries did not want to trade with the confederacy, they had found cheaper sources for cotton in the south east. (asian islands and colonies). The inflation in the south was high even before the north did anything... Georgia even tried to break away from the CSA and start it's own republic. So the CSA was literally facing a civil war within a civil war. They would have collapsed even if the north had let them leave the union peacefully.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Mazdak on 4:27 am on Nov. 10, 2002
Oh, and European countries did not want to trade with the confederacy, they had found cheaper sources for cotton in the south east. (asian islands and colonies). The inflation in the south was high even before the north did anything... Georgia even tried to break away from the CSA and start it's own republic. So the CSA was literally facing a civil war within a civil war. They would have collapsed even if the north had let them leave the union peacefully.

You are right about the European trade thing but I don't think you know what your talking about with the Georgia thing. All of the confederate countries were pretty united. What are your sources? maybe it is I who is wrong.

[Mazdak]

Its a book. The Georgian republic was what they were going to form. IT only lasted a few days or so. But this shows how disunited the states were. I dont have the name of the book offhand, but i assure you i am not lying.

[Fengel]

It can be most said, certainly in the defense of the South that they were fighting to perserve rights the Union was taking away from them. I'm certain most of you haven't read the the Statements of Seccession. Lets take Texas for example. Texas asked the Union to help them with the Indians and Mexicans, because they kept raiding and bothering the Texans of the time. The Union denied help, and thus Texas seceded from the Union, in hopes the Confederates would help them. About Europeans-- Even if the Confederates could get help, it was futile(the Union controlled the Sea). As most of you probably don't know, they were fighting to outlast the Union, not destroy the Union. They knew a total war victory could not be won, Lee knew this. As for Man in the Red Suit-- I personally see the reasons for Confederates reason for seceding. The Government were taking away their rights, just as they are today. If the Confederates have won, we might be in a better system of government. Given time, any problems can be fixed. Someone suggest a internal problem? The America's went through a depression and still walked out of it. Slavery would have died out(just not as fast, the South wasn't that industrial and relied on slavery). Before you ever go calling Confederates stupid for their reasoning, see their point of view. See how unfair the North was being. Amazingly I am not a Southerner, I was born in the North and raised, but I wasn't blinded by reasoning of my school teachers. I picked up a book.

[redstar2000]

"Would I have supported the Confederacy"?

Probably not. My ancestors lived in the the mountains of eastern Kentucky in that time and, as family legend has it, successfully dodged the draft on both sides. We DID sell moonshine (tax-free whisky) to both sides...but only for silver coin (no paper currency accepted).

I was also told (unlikely but possible) that no member of my early family ever SAW a slave. (!)

(Note that Marx and Engels enthusiastically supported the North; they were always in favor of capitalist over pre-capitalist societies.)

[canikickit]

We DID sell moonshine (tax-free whisky) to both sides

Nice. E-mail me some, man.

I agree with the points made that slavery would have been eventually abolished regardless, and I think that side of things is played up, in the whole "land of the free, home of the brave" package.

Other than that, it means nothing to me. I never read, or watched anything concerning it. I don't know what it was in aid of.

I would, in general, support a desire for independance. I don't really know if that is what it was about though (nor do I know how noble thier desire for independance was. Was it because they wished to continue with slavery, which was being cracked down on?).

[Fengel]

The Government(before the seccession) was controlled by the Republicans(or should I say abolishers?). They began to pass strick regulations of slavery. I believe there was one law, that if you took a slave to a free state, that you had to pay a fine, ect. Other laws such as the a higher protective tariff froced southerners to buy cloth and clothes from the North(The south didn't have any industry.) Understand that the South depended on Slavery at the time. If they just suddenly gave up Slavery, most of their work force would be gone. Also understand that not all Southern Slave owners were cruel(this was a generalization for many.) The southerners had another advantage(which will now probably answer your question: ) They were fighting for a cause - State rights, slavery, and their way of life.

They did have one potential ally in the war however, it was Great Britain. This failed for two reasons;
1. Britain bought up a lot of cotton and stored it up.
2. North would take cotton and confiscate it and sold it to England(During the War).