• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Confederate States of America: What Would've Happened if the South Won the Civil War.

Discussion in 'History & Genealogy' started by Gxg (G²), Jan 15, 2013.

  1. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Alpha Male (Retired)

    +3,325
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    Just to clarify your position on prophecy, the dispersion, persecution, defamation, and the killing of the Jews from about 585 b.c. had nothing to do with the biblical curse on them, which contains all of these judgements?

    I don't know how one can exclude prophecy from the major events of history.

    ?
    What I was pointing out was just that. What was at stake was the rise of America as the most wealthy and powerful single nation in history. If the South had won both north and south would be second-rate powers at best under constant threat from those desiring our wealth. We could not continue as a house divided.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2013
  2. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    One still wonders how the North and South would've been second-rate powers simply because the South won - as if agriculture/commerce was something that couldn't have paid off.

    As it is, it's interesting to see some of the commentaries given by others when it comes to God's view of the South. Some, such as Douglass Wilson, have advocated that the Civil War was wrong and that slaves should never have revolted at any point due to the mindset that slavery would've ended gradually without the need for bloodshed:

    Not really dealing with scripture on the issue - but so be it.
    When there is threads dedicated to prophecy, one can share on that - but the thread is based on historical facts alone. Not speculation on prophecy - and prophetic views which the Church has long deemed UNBIBLICAL and inconsistent with what the scripture/Jewish view was and has been deemed (British Israelism) repeatedly as a racist ideology whether others advocating for it see it or not.

    As said before, if you want to have discussion on Manesseh/Ephraim or any other views related to British Israelism/Manifest Destiny (with the view of America as the NEW Israel), one can go elsewhere to do that by making another thread - but that is not going to be the case here. Prayerfully that can be respected.​
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2013
  3. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Alpha Male (Retired)

    +3,325
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    Wilson falsely compares southern slavery to that of Paul's day.

    The northern states had peacefully ended slavery 60 years before the civil war.

    The south would have expanded slavery westward as it was the means of production of cotton and tobacco, a basic source of wealth for them. It would not have 'gradually ended'.

    The real 'new England' was the south. In that regard there were two nations struggling on one continent. If the prophetic destiny of Manasseh/America was to be fulfilled Ephraim/England would have to go.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2013
  4. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    There was slavery in the Northern States as well - and slavery only later became an issue SECOND to the issue of economics - one of the basic reasons why many blacks didn't trust things up North since abuse happened there as well. There was never a case of the North being "flawless" when it came to the South. Obvious is the case that I don't think all things Wilson noted were fully accurate since slavery in the South was nowhere near being in all parts like the slavery of Paul's day - as the entire system was based on kidapping, breaking up families and other evils....and no one who participated in it (including the Founders like Thomas Jefferson) are excused). Some were not for the abuse - but it was like that in many respects...

    As it is, many misunderstood the intent behind why Paul even spoke on slavery. Paul had the same issue when it came to subversion.:) The early believers lived in an era where slavery was allowed in the Empire and often abusive...and Paul could have said that he didn't think slavery should exist. But he went for the heart of the issue by saying that both slaves/masters needed to learn to love one another and serve each other faithfully. Although he said a slave should seek his or her freedom if they had the chance (I Corinthians 7), he set it up to where believers could be subversive to the worldly systems of the day by living in such a way that people on the outside would marvel at how believers do things.....and thus, they'd effectively convict/change the hearts of others. Some of it has a pragmatic aspect to it as well, seeing how you can't just write openly that you're against certain things since your mail/letters are investigated and inspected...and in many ways, if the empire supported/thrived on an industry you saw as corrupt, to speak against it could be deadly. Thus, wisdom would dictate to write in such a way as to get your message out without coming out too strongly on it so that people who understood you/had your heart would see where you're coming from.

    What Paul did actively was a form of social resistance to bad authorities who advocated differently than what he believed...and that's similar to Christ. In a world dominated by Roman rule, Jesus proclaimed an alternative way to live. Instead of living in fear and trusting Rome for their daily bread, Jesus encouraged his followers to live into God’s reign on earth as it is in heaven and trust in God’s provision. He called those living in luxury at the expense of others to give it back to the poor. He encouraged his followers to expose Rome’s oppression through creative acts of nonviolent resistance (such as turning the other cheek or going the extra mile). The same thing seemed to occur even in the U.S when it came to many of the battles behind blacks being able to vote. They fought for the ability to have it, although many saw that even having the freedom to do so would mean little so long as hearts of their oppressors were not changed and they were not convicted....and so for many, more focus went into proclaiming the truth of the Word/loving their enemies. A change happened over time...one battle at a time.

    But others read Paul and assumed his stance on slavery was one for advocating/supporting abuse and continual of the system - and that has never been appropriate.

    More has been discussed elsewhere on the matter for reference:

    There was an excellent series on the issue from Dr.Henry Louis Gates (including on Black kingdoms which allowed slavery) - as seen should one go online/ check out "Looking for Lincoln -Part 1 - PBS" ( ) and "Looking for Lincoln - Part 2 - PBS" ( ) AND "Henry Louis Gates | Looking for Lincoln | PBS" ( ).

    Last time saying it - this is not a place for discussion on Manasseh or Ephraim (as it's unbiblical and racially inaccurate - any talk on British Israelism needs to be taken elsewhere). Don't do again please...or I may have to report it for going against the OP/not sticking to the topic.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2014
  5. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Alpha Male (Retired)

    +3,325
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others

    As you wish.
     
  6. Joshua0

    Joshua0 Guest

    +0
    That is what makes it all so sad. The war was not about abuse at all. The issue was that many slave owners were having children with the slaves and then sometimes they would sell those children into slavery. Today they still use the black "Aunt" cooking in the kitchen in advertising. She really was an Aunt, she really was a member of the family. But even though they lived in the house, they were still treated like slaves. Things got so bad that a person could be one eighth black and 7/8 white and still have the legal rights of a black person. Which means almost no protection under the law.

    Moses gave slaves a lot of protection. In some cases of abuse the owner was required to set the slave free. Slaves that were family were set free every seven years and you were not allowed to sell them. They put an end to slavery in the south because they were not following the Bible and they were not following the Law set forth by Moses.

    Today in America black women are 40 percent black. Black man are 60 percent black and 40 percent white.
     
  7. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Alpha Male (Retired)

    +3,325
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    To the OP.

    If the south had won the civil war there would be no U.S.A. Britain would have annulled the revolution and expanded their empire to engulf the entire new world.
     
  8. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Although having children sold into slavery was a big deal (especially when those children were sons of slave owners), abuse was NEVER separate from what the war was about...and one Black American impacted by slavery ever forgets that when it comes to the multiple slave revolts/escapes and protests they did (from Harriet Tubman to Fredrick Douglass to Henry "Box" Brown and numerous others who all noted the issue of abuse being prevalent - and later, in the civil war, many black soldiers who fought due to wanting to end the abuse. It'd be ignoring history to say otherwise - and as it is. selling children into slavery is and will always be a form of abuse. Never can that be forgotten nor minimized in addition to all the other abuses slaves repeatedly noted as reasons for why they fought in the Civil War alongside others (including non-whites who were sick of it).

    Indeed.

    As blacks were considered property, family relations often did not really matter - and if they were present, they were often covered up.

    Most in black culture are already aware of the fact that slave owners would often have sexual relationships with their slaves - selling the children afterward as well as having the women used for breeding babies ...and in the event black male slaves had wives, they would often sell the women across the country. It was a system that destroyed families in droves. Within black culture, it's an issue that is never forgotten particularly when it comes to mulattos and the ways that many of them were either hated for their mixed ancestry - or often having leverage over other whites due to their connections.

    There is a phrase in the South that women cringe at....called “splitting the Black Oak”. What it means is that young single white guys, back in the day, before sex was "free", would go lose their virginity and become a man by sexing a black girl or lady. As they lived on the other side of town and no doubt could be had for a price, it took a lot to do. At the time, loose white women were probably in short supply in the South, and most single White women were probably virgins. And thus, in order to have the pleasure of losing your virginity, you'd head over to the dark side of the tracks. As black women were very poor, often was it the case that to sleep with a white man allowed for moving up in the world, as it is to this day. White men offered money, favors, whatever men always do...and black women were happy to trade.

    And for those blacks that were descended from that, knowledge of white ancestry is significant. Had a good number of conversations with others on the issue where it was big family topic when it came to land/legal claims...my uncle being one of them from his side of the family in Louisiana.

    </DIV>
    One of the most amazing examples of mixed backgrounds with slave families can be found if checking out the Carter Family In 1640 and the Littleton family of Northampton ...


    As many Northern States allowed for slavery (especially wage slavery) and did many cases of violence toward blacks, historically it was never a matter of the blacks being "loved" by the North anymore than they were always "respected" in the South...and the war was HIGHLY political - with slavery being a means to an end when the claim "We've got to save the slaves!!" was used after the fact to take the South over. For even Lincoln noted that if he could've won the Civil War without freeing the slaves, he would've done so.

    And God was concerned about others being treated with RESPECT - with what Paul noted in the New Testament addressing that and what was expected of believers in Christ when it came to servanthood.

    But as it concerns Moses, indeed, the slavery discussed there in the OT was RADICALLY different than New World slavery.
     
  9. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Britain had a lot of its own issues to deal with on its own, so it's possible they would have not done anything with expansion that would've lasted long - especially when Russia was a force to be reckoned with and they supported the North.
     
  10. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Alpha Male (Retired)

    +3,325
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    But we have to create a full scenario where the South would have actually won. Given the disadvantage of population and resources the South would have needed military help from Britain, mostly likely in the form of British regular troops plus other mercenary forces. Having destroyed the northern armies I don't think they would just call it a day and go back to England.

    A wild card would be Canada's neutrality. Relations were tenuous between Canada and the northern states, their sympathies laying with the south, although they did oppose slavery (in fact the Underground Railway ended in Canada, a more welcoming place for runaway slaves than the U.S.). Many Canadians did fight for the union but they were mainly living in the U.S. and had interests there. Interestingly Canada gave sanctuary to draft dodgers and deserters, refusing to return them to the U.S.

    The maritime provinces were solidly behind the South and made their ports available to British ships that were running supplies to the south. London wanted Canada to remain neutral and continue to build it's own union, but in a scenario as I've described they may have given Canada a mandate to support the South militarily.

    Also, in a scenario where the South, and Britain, had won Russia would have quickly realigned its relations with the winning side.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  11. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Having a full scenario is indeed important - although it's also key to remember that there is no way of knowing, even with certain factors in place, how things would've gone 100%...no more than it was the case that others looking forward to slavery ending expected for Neo-Slavery/Jim Crow to arise causing even worse conditions for blacks afterward and for blacks in the North to be subject to mob violence/attacks as they were often (just like in the South). Some things are a matter of chance...


    As said before, Britain had its own issues to deal with that would've prevent it from really waging war on the colonies - even though it had plenty of reasons to intervene.. One of them was economic reasons - and as said best elsewhere:
    ...intervention may have arisen out of Great Britain’s own self-interest, primarily involving the economic ramifications of the war. While the sheer damage of the Civil War was massive, it often goes overlooked that the conflict caused considerable economic woes overseas. While the details of this economic depression will be accounted for later, suffice it to say that Great Britain was suffering significantly due to the unavailability of cotton for its textile and merchant markets. Under international law at the time, a neutral state could intervene in a foreign civil war when its own welfare was endangered. As The Economist’s editor of the day pointed out, “We participate in the ruin that is going on [regarding the Civil War]…We have, therefore, a right to speak and to be heard.” With Britain’s economy suffering directly from the war in America, Britain may have had a legal pretext to intervene in the conflict.
    Union Foreign Policy with Great Britain was based on strategy and doing whatever possible to keep Britain out of the war - be it out of it from using its power/influence to mediate or out of it from taking one side. As it was, with any British that did help, it wasn't thousands of soldiers who helped in the war. And even if the South had won, Russia was still a big problem since they wanted the Union due to how they felt division would be unstable and not beneficial to the rest of the nation - as seen in the US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union. Russia would've still remained enemies...as it still remembered what the British did during the Crimean War

    Britain was very concerned with not doing anything to tick Russia off:

    There's also the reality of pragmatism - as the British were never just for one side. The British never entered the war as a nation, but many individuals served in both armies, most of them in the Confederate Army. There were never many of them but they were noted for their previous military service and often became leaders. But as it is, both Britain and France were already indirectly supporting the Confederate cause by freely supplying arms, materials and even ship building.... as they both were also selling same to the Union to the first and highest bidders. In fact, many of the European countries found this to be a profitable enterprise making money off our regional conflict. Specifically, most of Europe decided not to formally decline to assist the Confederacy...as they just sat quietly idle to wait it out and in no hurry to give consent to a formal political recognition of the Confederacy.


    Indeed.

    Between 1850 and 1858, Harriet Tubman helped more than 300 slaves reach freedom. During the Civil War, Tubman worked for the Union army as a nurse, a cook, and a spy. ..and she led slaves safely to the northern free states and to Canada. With the Underground Railroad ending in Canada, blacks would not have been seeing Canada as an ally to the mess happening in the South..

    The Confederate Agents trying to work within Canada were indeed problematic - and the British North Americans added another reality to things, as many wanted the system of slavery to end while also supporting the concept of independence - as the Southern culture was an agricultural one and not able to be the same via industrialization like the North ...opening the door for others to take advantage of the sympathies and make a difficult situation for all.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
  12. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Alpha Male (Retired)

    +3,325
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    Interesting stuff, which further reinforces my contention that the Civil War served to finally separate us from Britain, and enabled us to become that 'great nation'.
     
  13. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    It actually served to make us more connected to Britain rather than separated - as things like the Industrial Revolution connected nations around the world and caused them to make others in their nations who were not a part of that in trouble. There was never "separation"except for distance in certain issues - but economy wise and culture wise, many things connected Britain to us in damaging ways ....while other nations arose around the world/had their own strong relationships. I'm reminded of the work of Eric Williams in his book entitled "Capitalism & slavery"....an amazing read discussing how "slavery was not born of racism: rather racism was the consequence of slavery." Williams outlined the shifts from enslavement of the local Indian populations, to the use of white convict or indentured labour to black slavery. In Williams' words, the origin of black slavery lay with economic, not racial motives...believing that "It had to do not with the colour of the labourer, but the cheapness of the labour."

    According to Williams, Slavery helped finance the Industrial Revolution in England. Plantation owners, shipbuilders, and merchants connected with the slave trade accumulated vast fortunes that established banks and heavy industry in Europe and expanded the reach of capitalism worldwide. Binding an economic view of history with strong moral argument, Williams's study of the role of slavery in financing the Industrial Revolution was to many a refutation of traditional ideas of economic and moral progress and firmly established the centrality of the African slave trade in European economic development. He demonstrated in rather convincing ways that mature industrial capitalism in turn helped destroy the slave system. And many other scholars have adopted the same mentality


    For more on Williams&#8217; work, one can go here/ here. And for other good reads on the issue,
    [​IMG]







    That said, actions can come back to haunt others - for although Britain had outlawed slavery and the American world sought to do so later, there was still corruption/greed present - and those things set the stage for where we are today. People still remember what happened when it came to Britain carving up China and forcibly opening it up for trade ( more at Comparison and Contrast Example of 19th Century China and Japan ) - although it alongside other nations has risen to prominence since then and other nations have become subservient. Likewise, in the U.S, although the Civil War was won, the reality is that it wasn't a good thing all around and many groups suffered severely - although they've risen to prominence - and other nations around the world have arisen as well in awareness of history/been doing much to address the ways the nation NEVER became truly "great" on multiple levels because of how we've harmed others.

    In example, as said earlier in #35 , the mistreatment of Native Americans did much damage and was often avoided when it came to retribution for them - and the Chinese were mistreated alongside that. Additionally, there's no escaping the fact that we in the U.S allowed for the indentured servitude of Japanese.. first with Japenese Immigrants who were used for the Railroad System development - specifically beginning in the Northwest in the 1880s, when federal legislation that excluded further Chinese immigration created demands for new immigrant labor. ( with it being the case that these men were known for their willingness to work long hours at low wages, and railroad companies sent agents to China and Japan to hire workers ). It led to a host of developments that harmed the Japanese.....for first, it was the Chinese workers, which more than 200 thousand were legally contracted for the cultivation of Californian fields - with racism and xenophobia from Caucasians obligating legislators to approve the Chinese Exclusion Act. ..and then later, Japanese workers substituted for the Chinese in the same appalling working conditions as them but, the Japanese were thrown out in 1903 and replaced by Filipino workers.

    Of course, after the development of the railroad system in the U.S being complete, apology for it would seem hollow since the use of migrant labor was already done for the job - and real apology would be in proper compensation. Even agricultural wise, there was a lot of discrimination - and one example of how others had grown tired of it can be seen in what happened in 1903 when 1,500 Japanese and Mexican sugar beet harvesters in Oxnard staged California's first recorded agricultural strike...a truly multi-cultural event and one many Japanese Americans have never forgotten when it came to treatment they recieved.



    And later, a lot of exploitation occurred especially in the Interment Camps during the Second World War. Many U.S citizens, to this day, deny that anything done to them was wrong (even if it concerns Japanese soldiers/veterans who were harmed AND not honored for a long time) - and the same goes for denying wrongs that were done to many Asians by the American government. As it concerns the U.S expanding afterward, many have noted that the U.S already had so many issues of hypocrisy to deal with that anything it did which others deem "great" can often be overinflated. For in many ways, "greatness" is seen only in the sense that America had willpower to use on others even when it was not necessary. And in many ways, although we may not be like the British Empire taking over areas by force in rapid ways currently, I think it'd be off to not realize that we in America are indeed an empire amd one that was highly destructive - made possible by the Civil War.



    The U.S acting as an Empire really isn't a new concept necessarily - as a lot of people still remember history very well in regards to how the United States made Hawaii a territory of the U.S at the same time that the Philippines were occupied. ..and although Americans toyed with the idea of keeping the Philippines as American territory, they eventually granted it independence after World War II.... But they kept military bases on the islands to enable them to extend their power to the Asian mainland. The Philippines were unique in that way having become territory of the United States that achieved independence.....and that indepedence was well-earned in light of what was done by Roosevelt who carried out a genocide in the Philippines where populations of rural villages were lined up on bridges above rivers and executed....and many forget to consider the occupation of Iraq from perspective of the 1898 US invasion of the Philippines and the murderous colonial rule that lasted for 12 years, as the racism, cruelty and economic greed the US brought with it became the template for the 20th century imperialist interventions.


    Wanting to add more influence around the globe was not necessarily the best thing for everyone - and in light of how the U.S sought to gain more influence into certain parts/areas of the globe...just as it was with the Philippines and Hawaii when it came to expanding into Asia's backyard and earlier in the Caribbean - it is problematic when it becomes an issue of using force to cause anyone we want to submit to us.



    [​IMG]


    The Spanish American war had a lot of consequences when it came to turning the U.S into a Empire throughout Latin America - and setting the stage for a lot of suffering/death that NEVER had to occur.

    But of course, when looking back on the Civil War, it's no surprise to see the ways that numerous wars that've cose the lives of many began - for the reality of the matter is that there was precedent set in the Civil War and earlier for the U.S to have a "taking" mindset of the ends justifying the means....and looking to war to establish might and then, in hindsight, saying that there was somehow no other way. Lincoln could've avoided the Civil War on multiple points and addressed some of the economic issues (i.e. agriculture, slavery, etc.) if he had wisdom - but instead, the view is "Might makes right" - and it led to a lot of mess.

    [FONT=Verdana, Arial]In 1793, Britain tried in vain to establish a trade treaty with China. However, her overtures to the Qing court were rebuffed. Britain's traders took the matter into their own hands and began a clan[/FONT]
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
  14. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Alpha Male (Retired)

    +3,325
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
     
  15. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    It didn't really pit 'brother against brother' since both were corrupt/doing the same things harming others - and both becoming weaker in comparision to other nations. Both subject to destruction in many ways when there's no change in how other nations are treated (or how things within the nation are handled when it comes to theft/exploitation - issues God never justified or said represented him...and things that disqualified others from saying they had his protection).

    As said earlier, there's nothing remotely evident in Biblical identity with America or Britain (or the racist ideology of anything regarding British Israelism) and no need to even try it - and as said before, drop it or be reported for pushing the line/trying to slip it in when asked to take it elsewhere. You were already asked to not do so earlier/said you would comply in honor of the OP (#59 / #65 ) - but have pushed it. And that's not respectful.

    This is discussion about Civil War, its aspects. Not eschatology or pushing it.

    Not asking again.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
  16. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Alpha Male (Retired)

    +3,325
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    No problem, I've made my point. What is the purpose of this thread again?
     
  17. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    If you go, you'd be surprised on how many not only have dual identity - but are some of the most beautiful people :)



    [​IMG]
     
  18. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    That was already said before - and violated ( #59 / #65 ) , which doesn't make for consistency.
    Not really, as anyone can make up theology as they go/say it's established without ever addressing scripture or really showing the view historical. And as said before, it does zero trying to claim it's Biblical for America winning the Civil War being a "sign" that God was prospering them based on Biblical History - just as it was when others claimed that others wiped out in the development of the Spanish Empire were "destined" for such when they made themselves out to be the ones who were connected to the Bible/having a "divine right" for expansion in the New World. Imperialsim always flows out of that mindset and it's why it'll never be anything close to what the Bible or Biblical history supports...


    It is not a thread on eschatology - nor a thread to attempt advancing/making points in support of British Israelism (unbiblical/divorced from history) or America connected to Israel (which was never a valid point made to begin with (and a distraction from the issues) or pseudo-biblical discussion on America/Britain being related to Joseph .
    Exactly what was already discussed and what others focused on in honor of the OP: Talking on what would've happened if the South had won (as the OP talks on) and addressing whether or not it was the best way to go about things with the Civil War. Nothing more and nothing less...and it's not that complicated.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
  19. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Interesting to consider - and thanks for sharing that, as I'll have to investigate what Harry Turtledove said.
     
  20. Joshua0035

    Joshua0035 Newbie

    225
    +0
    Word of Faith
    Private
    They both thought they were helping others. The North was fighting to set people free. But the south felt that they took good care of the slaves. They invited them into their home, they treated them like family. They fed them well. They believed that if there was no one to watch over them that they would starve to death. It was in the north where they felt the blacks were often imprisoned, neglected and mostly ignored.

    Most every story ends the same way. They slave gets their freedom, then one day they go back to visit the old slave owner. The slave owner has fond memory of them and offers them their old job back at whatever the legal wage is. The slave turns the offer down because they remember being beaten or abused in some way. Although I have read storys of slaves that did feel they were treated fair and did not know life any different. Esp the children that would play with the owners child and did not feel any discrimination against them. Even they were well taken care of.

    Often the slaves often felt that there was Justice. That if they were not treated right that sooner or later that would catch up with the slave owner and they would be punished for their bad treatment of others.
     
Loading...