Changing history

[Minimalist]

Correct, Capn.

As noted:

http://www.historynet.com/emancipation-proclamation

Just as Lincoln had feared, the Proclamation was immediately and bitterly denounced. Newspapers around the world warned ominously that it would ignite race riots (an invitation to “burning, ravishing, massacring, and destroying,” shrieked The London Times). The stock market declined. Desertions increased, with some soldiers unwilling to fight a war to “free Negroes.” And Lincoln’s Republican Party indeed suffered significant mid-term election losses that fall. To be sure, accolades followed as well, but as a dispirited Lincoln put it, “breath alone kills no rebels.” In a letter to his vice president, Hannibal Hamlin, he admitted: “This, looked soberly in the face, is not very satisfactory….I wish I could write more cheerfully.” But Lincoln would not back down, even in the wake of a humiliating Union military setback at Fredericksburg in December. “We cannot escape history,” he warned Congress that month. On Janu­ary 1, 1863, as millions of enslaved people awaited word on their fate, Lincoln overcame political pressure, incurable national racism, popular suspicion, press antagonism, battlefield setbacks and his own trembling hand, and signed the final Emancipation Proclamation.

[Drich]

Most people misunderstand a lot about the civil war. Although I think there are a lot of correct things about that video lets not forget that Kentucky, a slave state, fought on the side of the Union. Also lets not forget about the horrid racism of most people in the north. The north was full of white racists. Is it realistic that the northern racists would fight a war to free southern blacks? No, it is not.  Would they fight a war to keep their country together? Yes. It seems like people typically make the issues too simple.

Another annoying thing is how the man in the video says he's proud of the fact that people went to war to free the slaves. Really??? How about the fact that almost every other country in the world ended slavery peacefully? I'd be embarrassed that it took a war to end slavery if I were him.

But here's the thing. All the other countries who ended slavery peacefully, did not need the revenue generated by slave labor directly and indirectly as the US did. (sale of cash crops and the taxes that were collected.) Even in the North where slavery was abolished, they couldn't grow or didn't need the cash crops because the southern stated provided those materials so inexpensively (no lablor costs) it was not feesable for them to grow them where they could be grown. So it was easy for them to let go of an institution they no longer needed. Why Keep slaves when you can buy the products they make so Cheap? This was why just about everyone besides us let their slaves go in their main land countries, because theu did not need slaves when someone off shore was providing them the products they wanted. (Remember England and France still kept slaves in their colonies/plantations even after our civil war.)

Like it or not the US Needed slavery when it was being established, because we had no other 'National products' to offer. slavery provided us with the means to purchase all the other lands held by foeign countries (France/Spain) It funded everything we needed to get off our feet. We owe the slaves everything, to forget this by just condemning what was done is to forget who we were and why we were that way. If we just ascribe their enslavement to the greed of the land owners it makes their sacrifices mean nothing.

Does this sound familiar? Black Friday, cyber Monday, ect, ect.. I have an old news paper add that shows a new microwave (1970's) for $600.00 and a 19" Color TV for 550.00. This was 30+ years ago. This is why can we buy this stuff so much cheaper with our devalued dollar.

 We do not have to keep slaves in this country any more because other are willing to do so for us just like the south did for the north. Like the north we can pretend to abhore it, but in reality everything we own/The products that make our lives easier, the same products that were moved off shore so we could by them cheaper (Because those countries allow slavery, just under a different name) provide us with the items we want at a price we can afford to not have our own slaves for... everything except our produce/food. That we must still have slaves for the majority of the country.

[CapnAwesome]

The US obviously didn't need slavery. In fact it only became an economic superpower when it was abolished. I think there are several good arguments that slavery actually retarded development, both in the US and globally. When you have access to cheap slave labor you have no incentive to create labor saving systems of devices and I think it is not a coincidence that those were invented around the time of the abolition of slavery. In fact Adam Smith, the godfather of capitalism, made this very same argument. Also lots of countries had just as much invested in slavery. Look at how many slaves were in the British or French empires and they let them go without a war. This is just moral excuse making.

No the US and no other country needed slavery, ever.

[Homeless Nutter]

What I was referring to is the comment box on youtube and on face book where just about everything I read [...]

You read those? 
...
 BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! 

That actually explains a bunch...

[Napoléon]

Look at how many slaves were in the British or French empires and they let them go without a war.

I'm not quite sure that's true, but I can't be arsed to look it up find anything to disprove you (at work y'see). Don't get me wrong, I don't think for a second wars were fought in order to abolish slavery in regards to both empires (never heard of that happening to be sure), but it seems that you're implying bloodshed wasn't spilled and that slaves were just lovingly freed without opposition in all other cases except for America? I dunno, I'm dubious of that.

[CapnAwesome]

Look at how many slaves were in the British or French empires and they let them go without a war.

I'm not quite sure that's true, but I can't be arsed to look it up find anything to disprove you (at work y'see). Don't get me wrong, I don't think for a second wars were fought in order to abolish slavery in regards to both empires (never heard of that happening to be sure), but it seems that you're implying bloodshed wasn't spilled and that slaves were just lovingly freed without opposition in all other cases except for America? I dunno, I'm dubious of that.

Lovingly is probably not the right word. Abandoned to their own causes? The French abolished slavery in the midst of the french revolution, but it was sort of an afterthought. I don't see anybody claiming the French revolution as about slavery, even though it affected just as many slaves as the US civil war. Slavery was abolished in the British empire by an act of parliament, that was preceded by a series of judicial decisions. The Spanish abolished slavery through political means, although I'm not as familiar with them. I actually can't think of a case where there was a civil war over slavery.

[downbeatplumb]

The US obviously didn't need slavery. In fact it only became an economic superpower when it was abolished. I think there are several good arguments that slavery actually retarded development, both in the US and globally. When you have access to cheap slave labor you have no incentive to create labor saving systems of devices and I think it is not a coincidence that those were invented around the time of the abolition of slavery. In fact Adam Smith, the godfather of capitalism, made this very same argument. Also lots of countries had just as much invested in slavery. Look at how many slaves were in the British or French empires and they let them go without a war. This is just moral excuse making.

No the US and no other country needed slavery, ever.

If you have slaves you don't have a consumer class of workers, so that's one economic driver less. Economies are stimulated by the masses having more.

[Rhondazvous]

I might be wrong, but I always thought the North and South were fighting for different reasons. The North were fighting to keep the country whole. The South were fighting mainly to retain slavery.

This is an excerpt from Mississippi's Declaration of Secession.

Remember, we discussed this not too long ago.

The issue of Slavery did not arise with the North wanting to abolish slavery and the south wanting to maintain it. The north wanted to contain slavery where it was. The nation was expanding west and the north did not want slavery in the new western states because it would take jobs away from White men. This has been an issue as far back as the revolutionary war when the British promised freedom to slaves who joined them and then relocated them to a settlement in Nova Scotia. When the economy want bad and employers hired the Blacks because they could be paid less, the White men got angry and massacred them.

At the same time, the south was worried that a proliferation of free states in the west would upset the balance of power in Washington. Lincoln belonged to the party that wanted to keep slavery out of the west so it was easy for the south to paint him as the anti-slavery candidate. We know he was no such thing.

The north and south differed on the economic and political aspects of slavery, but, but as Dritch says, they were on the same page regarding the moral aspects. If we try to keep things simple by refusing to acknowledge these different aspects and just see slavery as a single monolithic issue that people can be either for or against, we won't come anywhere near the truth.

[Drich]

The US obviously didn't need slavery. In fact it only became an economic superpower when it was abolished. I think there are several good arguments that slavery actually retarded development, both in the US and globally. When you have access to cheap slave labor you have no incentive to create labor saving systems of devices and I think it is not a coincidence that those were invented around the time of the abolition of slavery. In fact Adam Smith, the godfather of capitalism, made this very same argument. Also lots of countries had just as much invested in slavery. Look at how many slaves were in the British or French empires and they let them go without a war. This is just moral excuse making.

No the US and no other country needed slavery, ever.

I think their needs to be a distinction made between chattle slavery (what most of you think about when the word is used) and the general use of that term.
Chattle slaves are beaten and owned. A slave (especially true in the modern sense of the word in one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence) even in the modern sense can be owned, as they go indebt to the company and must continue to work for the company till the debt is paid.

That said if America didn't need slaves in some sense of the word right now, then why do agricultural job not have to comply with any of our current labor law governing minimum wage, child labor, workers comp nor meet any safty guidelines? All we've done is change the name from slave to migrant worker and all of the sudden people are willing to turn so blindly to this practice most of us have no idea/nor care that whole families can work from 4 in the morning till 8 at night 6 or 7 days a week for less than 1/2 the federal minimum wage. For instance a working family averages 17,500.00 per year. which comes out to 336.53 lets say a 5 day work week, which averages 8.41 per hour. Now divide that by 2 people that's 4.20 a person. IF they can find an hourly job. Most work is done by the field, which can have one break even with that 8.41 or more often times than not means less money per hour. (otherwise why pay by the field if paying by the hour was cheaper.) It all depends on physical condition, what was being picked, the weather and the support equipment condition.
I've worked in a field before and know first hand, and now my business is still tied (in part) to produce/bringing food to market, and nothing has changed.

http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-wo...low-wages/

We need cheap/free labor or our way of life even today does not work. All soceities are based on a big pyrmid scheme even the ones that pretend they aren't.

[Drich]

I might be wrong, but I always thought the North and South were fighting for different reasons. The North were fighting to keep the country whole. The South were fighting mainly to retain slavery.

This is an excerpt from Mississippi's Declaration of Secession.

Remember, we discussed this not too long ago.

The issue of Slavery did not arise with the North wanting to abolish slavery and the south wanting to maintain it. The north wanted to contain slavery where it was. The nation was expanding west and the north did not want slavery in the new western states because it would take jobs away from White men. This has been an issue as far back as the revolutionary war when the British promised freedom to slaves who joined them and then relocated them to a settlement in Nova Scotia. When the economy want bad and employers hired the Blacks because they could be paid less, the White men got angry and massacred them.  

At the same time, the south was worried that a proliferation of free states in the west would upset the balance of power in Washington. Lincoln belonged to the party that wanted to keep slavery out of the west so it was easy for the south to paint him as the anti-slavery candidate. We know he was no such thing.  

The north and south differed on the economic and political aspects of slavery, but, but as Dritch says,  they were on the same page regarding the moral aspects. If we try to keep things simple by refusing to acknowledge these different aspects and just see slavery as a single monolithic issue that people can be either for or against, we won't come anywhere near the truth.

I'm starting to feel like I am saying something wrong, with so many of you almost agreeing with me or out right agreeing with me.