Wouldn't we have been better off in the long run to have let them secede (African Americans excepted)?
Wouldn't we have been better off in the long run to have let them secede (African Americans excepted)?
rezanez wrote:
I'm not about to get into the debate that forms the topic of this thread, but I would like to say to this poster - I'm from Augusta County, VA and this page you posted is amazing! I could read these old Staunton Spectator papers for days. I actually wrote for the current Staunton paper for a few years. Thanks for posting this!
I am not from the area but I have been reading them too. Good job. Amazing info.
Funny thing is that I would consider VA the North, but that is just the Georgia boy in me (I live in NYC now).
Illogical wrote:
I vote Republican. Never forget that those were Democrats who opposed abolition. And they continued their discriminatory ways over 100 years after the Civil War. The name Democrat is and always will be synonymous with slavery, oppression and discrimination. The Democrats burned the houses, churches and raped the children of those who were slaves and those who opposed slavery. Lincoln was a Republican. The KKK were Democrats. How a black man could run for president under the name Democrat is beyond me. I guess Obama doesn't care that the party he represents has the blood of black negro slaves indelibly imbeded in the pores of their skin.
__________________________________
Another person speaking before they have their facts.
First, the Democrats TODAY are considered more liberal than the Republicans.
The Republicans were considered to be the liberals from the early 1800's to the early 1900's. Lincoln was considered a liberal by the south. This is why they seceded. South Carolina lead the way, and soon most of the southern states fell in line.
The North won the war for one very simple reason:
We had more people and resources.
At that time the majority of all factories were in the northeast. The majority of all the population lived in NYC, Boston, Piladelphia and their respective surrounding areas.
The north lost just as many if not more men in most batlles. The difference was that they were able to refill those ranks. The south simply ran out of men and simple items like flour, ammunition, weapons, and even clothing.
Soon morale was very low. Awol soldiers became more and more common in the south. and, within 4 years, the end was obvious.
The south had superior soldiers, and superior officers. They just did not have enough men or resources.
The world would be much different today if the south had won. You would need a passport to go to the south, and the southern states would certainly have abolished slavery by now due to modern machinery.
Lastly, many northern soldiers did not care one way or another about slaves or slavery. They fought to save the union, and because their president asked them to fight.
Man you have an in depth knowledge of history (I assume you are right on most of it) and yes I am ashamed and condemn all of that except that part with Hannibal. He was a huge pain in the butt to my ancestors. He and those damn war elephants killed a lot of my ancestors until Scipio figured out a way to defeat him. (I thought he committed suicide rather than be captured)
Clifford Diffley wrote:
Marcus T Cicero wrote:I think my ancestors may have used slaves for entertainment in gladiator contests against animals.
Also, they may have attacked innocent countries to expand the empire.
I do condemn this behavior.
Your ancestors also divided all Gaul into 3 parts when they came, saw and conquered; raped Boudicca and rent Britain from the Brythonics; cast jews to the wind and leveled Jerusalem to pagan Aelia Capitolina; and Delenda'd Carthago and chased Hannibal and his elephants to Anatolia, where he was knifed like a common terrorist.
Do you condemn all of that barbaric behaviour?