The Civil War

[thir]

lol you kinda sounded like your were trying to defend it as an institution there for a while hon.

You know me better than that ;-)

I dont underrstand all the "selective" reading of my posts, ...

Selective? How so?

There seems to be at least 3 angles in this:

1) The problem if whether an area has a right to become independant. I have discussed this previously, as an discussion in general, and without looking at what would have happened with the slavery issue.

2) Is whether or not there would be slaves in the Southern states today if US had not been united.

Lincoln himself held the view that slavery would have eventually faded away, it was a naive view considering, but a noble one none the less, he held that view rather tenaciously despite all evidence to the opposite before the war started and well into it. Finally he eventually realized that no matter what he did to mullify or apease the South in an attempt to get them to reverse voluntaraly their succession that the South was in it to the end and was not going to give up their evil ways until they were forced to at the end of a gun.

I do not think it was naive to think that slavery would have faded away, for the same reason that is started. It payed to have slaves. But with the advancing of technology machines would be much cheaper.

I still and definitly do not think so - call it lack of imagination maybe, but no country has slaves in this day and age, and not, I think, for humanitry reasons.

As for the evil ways of the South, much of the world has engaged in slavery all over the world, including, and, as I am informed, the Nothern states, the latter just not in anything like the scale in the South. Not by way of excusing it, just to say that the South was the only place with this evil ways, and yet the world is free of it. At least officially.


3) The third question is how it would have gone for the freed slaves aftereards, without influence from outside the southern states.

the problems wouldnt have ended if it was not for the deployment of ouside forces (ie federal forces being used in not only the civil war era but also later during the civil rights movement era as well,, not just once or twice eaither, and they are "outside forces" becuase they are from outside the states in which the problems were still occuring and being supported by the internal authorities of said states) and the specific problems I mentioned very clearly are well documented, (as are the dates when they were dealt with) they are part of the public record.

Here I am more in doubt. I know of course about all the exploitation, the violence, and segragation, and so on. The whole world does. The men and women of the civil rights movement in the South have all my respect and admiration, I cannot think that I would ever have the courage to stand up to such violence and attitudes, and I would not have their courage forgotten or belittled. But maybe you are right that they were up against so much that they could not have come to where they are now without outside help.

It is a moot point. I am trying to think of other places where people have, or haven't, been able to be free on their own. Ireland comes to mind, they had to do it on their own since noone was very interested, and they managed. South Africa? They did have help. Could they have done it on their own, despite all their courage? I am not sure. Egypt did it themselves, if done it is. Lybia is getting help, and for a good reason. Native Americans? Didn't when it counted, what now?? Greenland? No help.

That is all I can think of now. It doesn't answer my question.

Any comments, anyone?