The Confederate Flag

[Dangerous55]

Southerners should fly the flag proudly, but I really hate when:

A. Northerners fly the flag.
B. People believe the flag was about racism.
C. People think Robert E. Lee was racist.
D. People think the Southern soldiers and brass were racist.

Burns my hard-tack! Read a book!

[Sinue_v2]

A. I never cared who flies the flag - just so long as they understand what it represents, both to themselves and to the people who died for it.

B. It isn't, but many people have associated it with racism because of inbred jack-holes use the Confederate Flag to display their ignorance.

C. I don't know if he was or not - but racism is not what drove him to fight for the Confederacy.

D. Though I'm sure the mass majority of them were terribly racist. Just like the mass majority of the Northern soldiers were also racist to varying digrees. Hell, most of the country was back then.

[TheyCallMeJoe]

On 2006-08-23 00:04, Sinue_v2 wrote:

D. Though I'm sure the mass majority of them were terribly racist. Just like the mass majority of the Northern soldiers were also racist to varying digrees. Hell, most of the country was back then.



That's what I thought http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_confused.gif The southerners were racist...but they fought the war because losing their slaves would mean the end of their plantations, and their only source of income. Maybe if the slaves hadn't been so essential to their way of life, the outcome may have been different. So technically, the Civil War wasn't only a conflict with racial background...although I imagine most of the south as being pretty sectarian. A stereotype? Maybe. The way the history books teach it goes like this:

1.) South bad
2.) North good
3.) North not racist
4.) South racist
5.) war time, North wins, the end.

Maybe taking AP U.S. History this year will refresh my memory http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif.

[Dangerous55]

The mass majority of southern soldiers did not have slaves, they were expensive. So, the mass majority of them were not fighting to keep slaves. Yeah both armies were probably racist, but I have also heard alot of blacks saying around that time that you were accepted in the South and not in the North. Anyway, I would still be fighting for PA if I was around back then. I just want people to understand that the Confederate Army was not an Army out to keep the black man down.

[TheyCallMeJoe]

Oh no, I realize that most of the soldiers didn't have slaves. But the economic structure in the South was based around plantations run by slaves, and even if you didn't own one, the downfall of slavery was also the downfall of your income because people could no longer process raw goods (cotton) which in turn could no longer be manufactured etc etc.

And also, heh....what's this reference to PA? President Abe? Lol...I give up.

Please don't let it be completely obvious^^;

[Lord_Kratos]

The war was not just about slavery itself but the boundries and lines of hwere slavery was aloud and where it couldnt be and the conflict if a state didnt want slavery but was forced to have it or teh other way around.

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-08-23 11:35, TheyCallMeJoe wrote:
Oh no, I realize that most of the soldiers didn't have slaves. But the economic structure in the South was based around plantations run by slaves, and even if you didn't own one, the downfall of slavery was also the downfall of your income because people could no longer process raw goods (cotton) which in turn could no longer be manufactured etc etc.

And also, heh....what's this reference to PA? President Abe? Lol...I give up.

Please don't let it be completely obvious^^;



Eh, they could still do all that, and did. Besides I doubt that was what was going Billy Bob's head when he picked up a musket.

Pennsylvania!

[Sinue_v2]

The southerners were racist...but they fought the war because losing their slaves would mean the end of their plantations, and their only source of income.

The Civil War wasn't really about the abolition of Slavery. That was simply a major issue which differenceated the two sides, and became a central focus of the conflict later on in a major PR move. The British and French were ready to back the Southern state, but being free nations (more or less) themselves, they couldn't back the Confederacy so easily. Yet they couldn't back the Union if it continued to heap loss upon loss. Emancipation was a way to keep foreign powers at bay, or gather their support. Lincoln held off his emanicpation procolimation until the union started winning battles.

Not to say that there weren't a quite a lot of good men who WERE fighting to end slavery - but your average joe-schmoe in uniform could care less - on both sides. The Civil War was, largely, fought to decide weither or not a state had the right to succeed from the Union.

Watch the movie "Glory" sometime. Notice how the fellow white regiments treated the 54th of Mass. Notice how other officers in command of black units treated their soldiers - like common criminals sent to loot and pillage the south - rather than as free men with dignity fighting for the for the freedom of their families and loved ones.

[Danger_Girl]

On 2006-08-23 13:31, Sinue_v2 wrote:
The Civil War was, largely, fought to decide weither or not a state had the right to succeed from the Union.


Quoted for truth.

Southern men fought for states rights and succuession. To say the average soilder from the south didn't own slaves is an understatement. Like most wars it was fought by the poor. The powederkeg was slavery, and the spark was the exectution of abolitionist John Brown.

Many in the north couldn't care less about the slaves, but they fought to maintain the uninion. "A house divided cannot stand" - Abraham Lincoln, June 1858.

Keep in mind the civil war started in 1861, and Lincoln didn't make the emancipation proclamation until 1863, and it wasn't until 1865 that the 13th amendment was ratified.

[Sinue_v2]

Many in the north couldn't care less about the slaves, but they fought to maintain the uninion. "A house divided cannot stand" - Abraham Lincoln, June 1858.

An excerpt from the letter of Sullivan Ballou, a Major in the 2nd Rhode Island Volunteers, to his wife Sarah.


My very dear Sarah:
The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days—perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write again, I feel impelled to write a few lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more . . .

I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how American Civilization now leans upon the triumph of the government and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing - perfectly willing - to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this government, and to pay that debt.

Sarah, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me with mighty cables that nothing but omnipotence can break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly with all those chains to the battlefield. The memory of all the blissful moments I have enjoyed with you come crowding over me, and I feel most deeply grateful to God and you, that I have enjoyed them for so long. And how hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes and future years, when, God willing, we might still have lived and loved together, and see our boys grown up to honorable manhood around us.

You can read an abridged version of the letter here (http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/ballou_letter.html). It's often considered one of the greatest love letters ever written. That's not quite the point, though, because you'll notice that nowhere does he allude to some moral obligation to free the slaves and bring truth, justice, and the American way to the south - or whatever they teach kids the Civil War was about these days. He fought to preserve the Union - to repay the debt to his fathers for their sacrifices in the Revolution and the war of 1812. It's the very same reason why so many of American's bravest are in Iraq right now sacrificing everything they love and cherish. Not for Iraq, or the spread of democracy, but because of their love of country which called them to battle to also repay the debts of their fathers who died in WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the Civil War.. ect.

[Danger_Girl]

When I heard that letter read on the Ken Burn's film for the first time it brought me to tears. I've always considered it one of the highlights of the film, which is in my mind a masterpiece, so I was happy to see you quote from it. My favorite excerpt is the final paragraph.


"But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the gladdest days and in the darkest nights . . . always, always, and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath, as the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by. Sarah do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for thee, for we shall meet again . . ."

It's even more painful to note he died on the battlefield only a week after writing this.

[Sinue_v2]

Heh, I could hardly forget a letter like that. It's always moved me, but it holds a dual meaning for me now after my father edited and personalized it to be read for my Mom durring his eulogy.

There wasn't a dry eye in the house. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[InfinityXXX]

A. I'm not from the north and I've never stayed in the north for a long period of time so I've never seen/paid attention to people who had the flag up there.

B. I am not entirely sure what it was about/symbolized(I'll wiki it later) but due to the KKK its widely associated with racism and hate. Though I doubt that was the original purpose and symbolism of the flag but today, thats the first thing I and many other minorities think of if you mention the confederate flag(that and crosses on fire).

C.No one here knows Robert E Lee so no one knows if he was racist or not.

D. Now lemme say something that may strike people odd. I'm from the south, born and raised, and I currently live in the midwest and I've been to the north before and I would say that people in the south are NICER than people from the midwest, north, east, and west.

Theres nothing like southern hospitality, of cousre theres your idiot racist and assholes(you can find them anywhere) but for the most part, I use to get a lot of smiles and friendly gestures(holding the door for me, offering me help) when I lived in the south.

Southern people cared/concerned a lot for strangers and it was like everyone was kind of family.

As far as the southern soldiers...some were racist, some were not. Everybody kinda fought for their own things. The rich fought for slavery, poor fought for the lands, and the enslaved southern soldiers fought also either for land, loyalty to their slaveholders, or to be free(lots of slaveholders made the slaves deals).

I don't codone all the reasons why people fought but I would say the civil war was NOT about freeing some slaves. It was about the fact that whether a state can leave the country. The whole freeing the slaves stuff was just a tactic used to get Lincoln re-elected and to get slaves(keep in mind, not all slaves were black) to join and fight for the north.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: InfinityXXX on 2006-08-23 21:51 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-08-23 21:50, InfinityXXX wrote:


C.No one here knows Robert E Lee so no one knows if he was racist or not.




I assure you, he was not. Every letter and speech he gave, he showed no sign of it. Robert E. Lee was a great man, I believe that. Many in the South were deeply religious and believed God would end slavery when the black race can join the white race. Whether he believe that, I do not know but I think he did. He also supported freeing the slaves and having them join the North. Thank God they did not, sad to say, because if the South freed the slaves in 1861 I really do think they would have won the war.

Recently I have seen stupidity who believed the Southern Soldiers were fighting because they hated the black race. It angered me and wanted to post something. They were fighting for the rights of their state, which anyone would do today, hopefully.

[InfinityXXX]

On 2006-08-23 23:47, Dangerous55 wrote:
I assure you, he was not. Every letter and speech he gave, he showed no sign of it. Robert E. Lee was a great man, I believe that. Many in the South were deeply religious and believed God would end slavery when the black race can join the white race. Whether he believe that, I do not know but I think he did. He also supported freeing the slaves and having them join the North. Thank God they did not, sad to say, because if the South freed the slaves in 1861 I really do think they would have won the war.

Recently I have seen stupidity who believed the Southern Soldiers were fighting because they hated the black race. It angered me and wanted to post something. They were fighting for the rights of their state, which anyone would do today, hopefully.




Hmmm, I never knew that (my history books never had any speeches or letters by him), I guess you learn something new every day lol.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

The Civil War is really, quite easily the most misunderstood military action in the history of the United States. Also, is it just me, or does it seem that the average person was generally more intelligent in those days? It seems like everything we find written from that period was written in immaculate handscript, and at the same time, worded with a grace foreign to modern times. On the other hand, it may just be that those who knew how to read and write were almost exclusively the elite of intellect, thus creating this illusion...

It makes you wonder how history will judge our current and recent conflicts, doesn't it?

[CupOfCoffee]

The scholars of tomorrow will probably one day unearth digital evidence of the FKL, burried decades earlier in an unmarked grave, and go mad with terror and rage.

Or, if the trend continues in the direction it seems to be going, they'll be even dumber than us, and when one of their finest professors rises the podium in the front of his vast lecture hall, he will say something kind of like this.


ya i fuound this thing call fkl on a 'website". those were thing swhere people told stories about somethin called prasiticing gene flow. neway fkl was full of briliant minds and all there posts were writtten in beutifal flower langugage. almos as beautifal as japanese lol!! anime ftw


On topic, I actually do think a lot about what you posted, Meira. I have a feeling people were simply more keen on education back in the day, because even the journals I've seen from children of those eras were written far more elegantly than anything most of my high school classmates could've cooked up, even with the help of Sparknotes.

[Danger_Girl]

I strongly disagree with you about the lack of eloquence in modern literature. Bear in mind what we read today from the 1860's is generally the best of what has filtered down through multiple generations. I mean, there is a reason Sullivan Ballou is a historical document, and something so heartfelt comes with a steep price.

But I'm not ready to make the sweeping generlization that culturally we've lost something. It's still there if you're willing to look for it. Or, maybe some of it is right under our noses. Martin Luther King Jr. for example was a speaker and writer of mystical proportions, and he would likely still be alive today had he not been murdered. The same could be said of John Lennon (can I include Brits?), and I have no doubt that much of his best work was yet to come. Double Fantasy was brilliant (okay, minus some of the Yoko Ono stuff). Try reading some of Bob Dylan's lyrical masterpieces. (http://bobdylan.com/songs/hardrain.html)

I can't comment on what kids are doing in schools these days. I'm a shady looking character, so I don't think they would let me sit in on a class, and I have to confess I haven't read many works from the schoolchildren of the 1800's. I did have a colleague and friend in college who wrote beautiful poetry though.

My point is, it's out there. Although you're probably not going to find it on a video game website.

[DezoPenguin]

Oooh, spinoff rants!

On the question of the literary culture, I strongly agree with Danger_Girl. Over time, the good survives and the crap is left forgotten by the roadside in art and literature, but in our present time, we're exposed to everything, from great art as it's being made, to popular entertainment of decent momentary quality but little enduring relevance, all the way down to "anything involving Paris Hilton." We get it all shoveled at us, and we have to be our own content filters, while with anything historical we've had generations of humanity sifting the wheat from the chaff.

And yes, the Civil War was not necessarily "about" slavery (though when push comes to shove, Sinue_v2 was closest to the truth when he says that the average person on either side was basically a racist regardless of what side they happened to be fighting on).

However, it's impossible to disentangle the question of slavery from the causes of the Civil War. Yes, the fundamental difference between the Union and the Confederacy was the question of government--are the States essentially sovereign nations that have banded together for mutual defense and trade efficiencies, or are they merely subsets of one greater nation, albeit with significant local control?

However--probably due to the South's slave-driven economy versus the North's manufacturing-driven economy--the issue of slavery was essentially chosen by the two sides as the gage of power between the North and South. Whether slavery would or wouldn't be allowed became the surface determination of whether a state would be North or South. And in this respect, war essentially became inevitable. Slavery is a fundamentally moral question, not merely a political one. To the abolitionists, stopping the practice of slavery became a crusade, rather than a cause.

In short, abolitionist forces would never back down, no matter how many political compromises were reached. Consider, for example, that the Republican party was essentially a one-note platform in 1856--"abolition," and you can bet that a fair chunk of voters didn't look beyond the deeper ties. But simultaneously, the South could not back down on the slavery issue, because it had been so intimately tied to their fundamental identity as Southern states--abolition was, in essence, "those uppity Federalists trying to tell us what to do." Agreeing on abolition would have meant surrendering the argument on state's rights, giving in on the very crux of the argument. In essence, by tacitly picking on slavery as the issue that would determine a state's overall political position, the U.S. backed itself into a corner that ultimately prohibited a political solution to the greater issues.

(In addition, as has already been mentioned, it's worth considering the impact of slavery on foreign politics. Economically, foreign nations had far stronger links to the South, and one of the lynchpins of overall Confederate strategy for victory was that foreign countries would provide economic support to them while pressing the North to give in diplomatically. However, the fact that the South was inextricably linked to slavery made supporting them a dicey political situation at best, and the anticipited support among nations did not materialize.)

Ultimately, regardless of the questions of whether Southerners were more or less racist than the Northerners, or whether individual historical figures may have been pro-slave, anti-slave, or just didn't think it was important, the impact of slavery in driving the Civil War and, indeed, in determining the outcome of the War can't be pushed aside.

What I think is most ironic of all is that I believe of all the political and social groups involved in the Civil War and why they chose the actions they did, slavery was least important to the Southern establishment.

[jedinik]

I personally believe that the majority of the confederate troops were racist as I recall during one battle after enormous bomb explosion opened a hug crater the union black troops rushed in to it. as I also recall the southern soldiers yelled to each other "Capture the White kill the Negro." My personal belief is that the South was racist and the North was not. To further back up my beliefs the southern states were also the first to instistute racial segregation after the war.

[DezoPenguin]

Getting into the culture of post-Civil War racism, Jim Crow, segregation and the civil rights movement is more a topic for a university-level sociology or anthropology course rather than a message board debate, but I can't help but think that part of what drove racism in the South post-CW was the fact that they lost the war and the slavery question was such a huge part of the propaganda surrounding it. In essence, the most noticable part of the Northern victory and Reconstruction to the "Southerner on the street" was having their social order spun on its head by force. It's regrettable (and a little pathetic), but by no means surprising that a lot of the resentment the South had over losing the war and basically having their government thrust upon them by "foreign" outsiders found itself channeled into racism. Blacks were an easily distinguishable symbol not just of all the normal "OMG! Those people are somehow different from us!?!" crap that feeds into racism but also the impact of losing the war. It's not all that amazing that a hundred years later federal troops were rolling into Southern streets to defend basic human decency.

Not to say that there wasn't plenty of racism in the North, but it wasn't codified into law in the same way, and society managed to work its way steadily forward to confront its own problems faster and with less showy violence by keeping Northern racism pretty much independent of other, external political questions.

[BogusKun]

The whole U.S. had Jim Crow Laws... and today this world is still racist... so Evil Lives On in many ways and forms.

And U.S. is becoming a full-blown military country as it were in WW2...
everyone older than 18 will be in the military before 2012

[BogusKun]

On 2006-08-25 11:02, DezoPenguin wrote:
Getting into the culture of post-Civil War racism, Jim Crow, segregation and the civil rights movement is more a topic for a university-level sociology or anthropology course rather than a message board debate, but I can't help but think that part of what drove racism in the South post-CW was the fact that they lost the war and the slavery question was such a huge part of the propaganda surrounding it. In essence, the most noticable part of the Northern victory and Reconstruction to the "Southerner on the street" was having their social order spun on its head by force. It's regrettable (and a little pathetic), but by no means surprising that a lot of the resentment the South had over losing the war and basically having their government thrust upon them by "foreign" outsiders found itself channeled into racism. Blacks were an easily distinguishable symbol not just of all the normal "OMG! Those people are somehow different from us!?!" crap that feeds into racism but also the impact of losing the war. It's not all that amazing that a hundred years later federal troops were rolling into Southern streets to defend basic human decency.

Not to say that there wasn't plenty of racism in the North, but it wasn't codified into law in the same way, and society managed to work its way steadily forward to confront its own problems faster and with less showy violence by keeping Northern racism pretty much independent of other, external political questions.




That's what the Civil War was mainly about... was completing the final piece of the Manifest Destiny...

The Reconstruction... and yes... White Southerners disliked "Carpetbaggers" (Reconstructionists from the North & East). They were among many victims of the KKK movement and the likes post-CW.

The North has always been at that time period '1-step ahead'. The South was more of a agricultural region to include cattle/slaves.

Yes I do believe Slavery was a propaganda tool against the south to some extent... but you have to admit... I was right. Even U.S. had Jim Crow laws set for blacks. Whites still had Blacks and Chinese build railroads. No matter where it was in the U.S., prejudice carried on where slavery left off until the Civil Rights Movement... (which in my opinion didn't end for a long time).

There is a lot of questions needed to be answered. From the knowledge passed down to me from my greater aunts and grandmother... I can only say, the battle has not ended. The majority still has a hold on us.

I'm not trying to point fingers or anything, but I have to kinda agree with Kanye on a few levels when he said... and I quote, "George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People!"

[AxelgearVII]

I don't know much on this subject, but I do know that history favors the sides that win the wars. And those are the people who get to write the history books. I do wonder though if the country would be divided (maybe even into 2 separate countries) to this day had the south won.

Also along those same lines, I've also wondered if they portray Hitler in the same "most evil man in history" light in Germany as they do here in the US.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AxelgearVIII on 2006-08-29 12:30 ]</font>

[Wolf216]

Propoganda is written by the victor, History is written by the observer. Hitler wasn't bad either, he was just mad. He brought Germany's economics way up and even was on the cover of time magazine as man of the year. The Civil War was just one big race issue. It pisses me off too for people to use their opression as an excuse for better treatment nowadays. Get over it!

[DavidNel]

Hitler WAS just mad, and the Consintration Camps were more of Hitler's advisors' idea than his own, although Hitler did carry it out. Plus, Hitler was one of the best leaders in the world!

And not all people who are Southern are racest. I am sort of, I'll openly admit, but so are you, in at least a small way. Listen to the song "Everyone is a little bit racest" ~ it's funny AND true. Plus, if all Southerner's were racest, what about all of the Blacks and Hispanics that live here? The south is probably the most racest part of the US because they have a lot higher concentration of different races. I'm excluding California... it's run by an actor...

[Danger_Girl]

On 2006-09-10 15:16, DavidNel wrote:
Hitler was one of the best leaders in the world!

Yeah Hitlers leadership did wonders for Germany...
The cities burned and the county was torn asunder. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II) is the result of Hitler's brilliant leadership. He lead his people straight down the path of ruin.

[Dangerous55]

Of course the economy is going to be strong when you go to war, but the end result was terrible for Germany. Germany is lucky the Soviets didnt swallow up the entire country.

[Sinue_v2]

This is the result of Hitler's brilliant leadership. He lead his people straight down the path of ruin.

Well, to be fair - if Germany and the Axis had won WWII - Germany as a country would have been in a much more powerful position that what it was going into the war. Of course... that would only be Germany. The rest of the world would be in ashes - including Germany's allies, and Germany's benefit would only affect those of an ethnicity that Hitler and the Nazi Party themselves deemed worthy of surviving. Everyone else would be slave labor reconstructing Germany's new territories, shot, or shoved into the nearest gas-chamber.

[Danger_Girl]

On 2006-09-10 22:23, Sinue_v2 wrote:

This is the result of Hitler's brilliant leadership. He lead his people straight down the path of ruin.

Well, to be fair - if Germany and the Axis had won WWII - Germany as a country would have been in a much more powerful position that what it was going into the war. Of course... that would only be Germany. The rest of the world would be in ashes - including Germany's allies, and Germany's benefit would only affect those of an ethnicity that Hitler and the Nazi Party themselves deemed worthy of surviving. Everyone else would be slave labor reconstructing Germany's new territories, shot, or shoved into the nearest gas-chamber.



"If" is a non-factor. You can IF any event in history as much as you want, but in the end it means nothing.

[Sinue_v2]

True dat - revisionist history, reguardless of weither it not it's made on educated guesses, is just another form of fiction after all.

[Danger_Girl]

On 2006-09-10 23:37, Sinue_v2 wrote:
True dat - revisionist history, reguardless of weither it not it's made on educated guesses, is just another form of fiction after all.



One could only imagine. There are what if historians out there who play with the idea. I remember reading about detailed insurgency plans Churchill had drawn up in the event a German occupation. I tried to find some info on it, but I was too lazy to spend more than a few minutes looking. Found this on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_britain) though:


'What If' historians have also considered what might have happened if the Battle of Britain had been lost by the British. If Leigh-Mallory's 'Big Wing' tactics had been used, for instance, this could well have happened. If the defeat of the RAF had led to a successful invasion (although this is unlikely, see Operation Sealion), it is possible that Germany would have been able to defeat Russia and establish a European hegemony. The USA would not have entered the war in such a circumstance, and would later have been very vulnerable to some of the advanced weapons which the Germans were starting to develop at this time. Against this view must be held the considerations that the Germans had not prepared for a seaborne invasion, and that the Royal Navy's Home Fleet was still a potent force. How well it could have held the English Channel against an enemy with command of the sky is the question which the Battle of Britain ensured need never be answered.

I can be somewhat interesting and freighting thinking up some of these what if scenarios.

And to get back on topic for a moment, what if the South would have won the civil war?

[Sinue_v2]

Hmm... well, I'm not enough of a Civil War scholar to even make an educated guess on that subject - but I have a feeling that the Civil War would not have ended with the succession of the South. The country was still rather young back then, and if the South had gained the right to succeed from the Union, then it would have set a precidence and empowered other states and territories to leave as well.

I could see the nation being factioned, and many more future conflicts erupting over which American nation gained control of the western states. It's hard telling how the international landscape would have changed. As I said earlier, England was ready to back the South if they continued to win battles - but they had to be sure the South would win since England didn't support the institution of Slavery. In order to back the confederacy, and keep their precious shipments of cotton and other trade goods flowing in, England would have had to itself condone Slavery. Weither or not England would allow slavery within it's borders, I'm not sure. It's hard to think that in this day and age, Slavery could still be an issue - but if history had turned out differently and not allowed for pioneers like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King...? Then again.. who's to say that with different circumstances, that figures just as important as them wouldn't have risen for their times?

I don't even know what the implications of a divided America would have had going into the World Wars. Would the World Wars have even taken place? It's like the Butterfly Effect - where small changes have a drastic outcome over time in a dynamic system. Look at Arch Duke Ferdinan. The guy was largely ineffectual - and not a very important historical figure.. yet his assassination sparked WWI... the aftermath of which sparked WWII... which in turn lead into the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and the current situation we're in with the terrorists.

It's largely impossible for revisionist history make inclusions for figures like Ferdinan.

------

On a side note: I really miss the show "Sliders". Sure it got pretty dumb in the middle to ending seasons - but it was still fun to watch.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sinue_v2 on 2006-09-11 11:02 ]</font>

[Solstis]

From what I gathered while reading an article for class (don't make me find it for evidence, it would be cruel to do so), the British may have banned slavery simply because of competition. The French and the Dutch had many a plantation in the Carribean, and it was mostly British ships that were bringing in the slaves. So, the British may have banned the practice in order to starve the French and Dutch of shipments, or at least requiring them to get their own ships.

Though England had its fare share of abolitionists at the time, I think that it would be inaccurate to claim that they instituted the change, instead of money and greed.

(Haitit is an example of a French-run slave plantation region)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2006-09-11 13:09 ]</font>