i can smell it...
FUCKING LOLHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD THIS IS THE STUPIDEST SHIT IVE EVER READ IN MY LIFE
Quote from: Jocephalopod on September 28, 2014, 02:02:44 PMi can smell it...You can blame Challenger, as this is always expected from him. Just look at his commentQuoteFUCKING LOLHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD THIS IS THE STUPIDEST SHIT IVE EVER READ IN MY LIFEThat just reeks of derailment
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 28, 2014, 01:48:31 PMhttp://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/confederacy-approves-black-soldiersBlacks fight for the Confederacyhttp://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htmBlack slave owners and slave owners in general were a small minority in the Southhttp://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Civil-War-Diplomacy-The-slavery-issue-and-the-end-of-confederate-diplomacy.htmlEurope ignored the South because the North was going to free the slaveshttp://listverse.com/2010/12/06/10-surprising-facts-about-the-confederacy/Slavery was being rid away with in the south by 1864Question - Do you actually read your sources, or just Google something, see a title that helps your argument, and post it?From your first source, SECOND paragraph, about the South using slaves as soldiers:QuoteThe situation was bleak for the Confederates in the spring of 1865. The Yankees had captured large swaths of Southern territory, General William T. Sherman's Union army was tearing through the Carolinas, and General Robert E. Lee was trying valiantly to hold the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, against General Ulysses S. Grant's growing force. Lee and Confederate President Jefferson Davis had only two options. One was for Lee to unite with General Joseph Johnston's army in the Carolinas and use the combined force to take on Sherman and Grant one at a time. The other option was to arm slaves, the last source of fresh manpower in the Confederacy.As you can see by my bolded portions for you, the South did not let slaves serve out of the goodness of their hearts. They had to let slaves serve because they didn't have more men to actually fight the North. You can twist it how you want and say the South was good for it, but they didn't even let the men who serve be free, as from the same source.Quote Lee asked that the slaves be freed as a condition of fighting, but the bill that passed the Confederate Congress on March 13, 1865, did not stipulate freedom for those who served.So, there goes that point for you. Onto your third source, where you say that Europe ignored the South over slaves, you're partially incorrect. Slavery was a reason that came far later in 1862. Prior to that, Europe never recognized the South as an independent state, the Northern agriculture was far more beneficial to Europe during a grain shortage, and cotton could be made in India and Asia.And source four. Your "The South was getting rid of slavery, they were good!" Directly from your source...QuoteMost historians believe that the Confederacy only started to abandon slavery once their defeat was imminent.Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/confederacy-approves-black-soldiersBlacks fight for the Confederacyhttp://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htmBlack slave owners and slave owners in general were a small minority in the Southhttp://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Civil-War-Diplomacy-The-slavery-issue-and-the-end-of-confederate-diplomacy.htmlEurope ignored the South because the North was going to free the slaveshttp://listverse.com/2010/12/06/10-surprising-facts-about-the-confederacy/Slavery was being rid away with in the south by 1864
The situation was bleak for the Confederates in the spring of 1865. The Yankees had captured large swaths of Southern territory, General William T. Sherman's Union army was tearing through the Carolinas, and General Robert E. Lee was trying valiantly to hold the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, against General Ulysses S. Grant's growing force. Lee and Confederate President Jefferson Davis had only two options. One was for Lee to unite with General Joseph Johnston's army in the Carolinas and use the combined force to take on Sherman and Grant one at a time. The other option was to arm slaves, the last source of fresh manpower in the Confederacy.
Lee asked that the slaves be freed as a condition of fighting, but the bill that passed the Confederate Congress on March 13, 1865, did not stipulate freedom for those who served.
Most historians believe that the Confederacy only started to abandon slavery once their defeat was imminent.Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves.
I did read my sources. They may not be dead on accurate to the picture I was trying to represent but they do show that what I initially stated of the South winning can plausibly be true. This is entirely a "what-if" situation and not everything will come out as factUsing what I know and these sources shows the idea that the South would eventually abandon slavery. I never made mention of the circumstances, aside from political pressure and introduction of technology.
Are you guys really ballsy enough to derail the lockmaster's thread?
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 28, 2014, 02:10:21 PMI did read my sources. They may not be dead on accurate to the picture I was trying to represent but they do show that what I initially stated of the South winning can plausibly be true. This is entirely a "what-if" situation and not everything will come out as factUsing what I know and these sources shows the idea that the South would eventually abandon slavery. I never made mention of the circumstances, aside from political pressure and introduction of technology.Way not to address any of the points or try to help yourself, but just back peddle and damage control to make yourself look like you know something.We're done here. Come back when you have an argument.
Not damage controlling or back peddling. You twisted and misunderstood what I said in order for you to look like you know something
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 28, 2014, 02:13:33 PMNot damage controlling or back peddling. You twisted and misunderstood what I said in order for you to look like you know somethingTwisted what you said? You made a claim and gave a source. I pulled up your source and found it contradicted what you said in all of two paragraphs.Keep trying Kinder.
I made a claim that slaves were being freed. Didn't get into details how or why. It was stated and a source that showed such. Same with allowing blacks to fight, I didn't say why or how other than they were allowed to fight. You twisted what I said to make it sound like the South did it out of kindness
ITT: Kinder damage controlling the fuck out
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 28, 2014, 02:17:43 PMI made a claim that slaves were being freed. Didn't get into details how or why. It was stated and a source that showed such. Same with allowing blacks to fight, I didn't say why or how other than they were allowed to fight. You twisted what I said to make it sound like the South did it out of kindnessYour entire claim this thread is that the South wasn't at fault, the North is too blame, etc. Your claims were to show the South wasn't as bad as everyone says - your sources disprove that because they only start freeing slaves when they were sure they lost. Guess what - there was already a proclamation requiring them to do that anyway when they rejoined the union.You are wrong, good day sir.
What if the South had won the Civil War?
