You neglect the major point…Many Northern laborers did not have a vote becouse of age (to young like 10 to 15) or sex (female inclulded, at any age, with children and slaves) or other legal reason (like just ‘off the boat’). As for ‘the opportunity to unionize’, the unions, before the 1870’s, were non existed; it was not like it is to day in 2014 or even back in the 1960’s and '70’s.
I think a bigger point would be that slaves were property.
The Confederates did not constitute a sovereign nation. By your reasoning, there’s nothing to stop any group of people from seceding from the U.S. If all the undocumented immigrants in Texas banded together to overthrow the government because they feel they’ve been unfairly treated, I guess that would be o.k. with you.
Ok, let’s try this. Many slaves tried to escape from the plantations. No slave ever returned voluntarily because he could not stand the free North. No freeman ever voluntarily enslaved himself to a Southern plantation owner.Many Northern laborers did not have a vote becouse of age (to young like 10 to 15) or sex (female inclulded, at any age, with children and slaves) or other legal reason (like just ‘off the boat’). As for ‘the opportunity to unionize’, the unions, before the 1870’s, were non existed; it was not like it is to day in 2014 or even back in the 1960’s and '70’s.
The “explosion of enterprise” in the North was nothing more than Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution.
No. God does not “punish” us while here on Earth. (although Jewish people believe that He does)
This would be the case for a believer, as God disciplines us.
Yes…I agree with you but there is no indication of possible earthly punishment due to transgressions.
This ignores the fact that most southerners were white “yeomen”; independent farmers who did not have slaves.
The manner in which sharecropping was practiced in the South after the war and the Jim Crow laws would indicate that slavery wouldn’t “have ended fairly soon anyway.”
I meant irrelevant to the question of was the Union justified in making war on the CSA. The CSA might not have respected self-determination within their states. But that does not make the Union right in refusing it to the South. In other words just because the neighbor kid did it doesn’t make it right.
Yes, the CSA fired the first shots. The Union also refused to vacate a fort controlling a port city. The Union was happy they were fired upon. Considering the whole war the CSA did not intend to take over Union states as it did not take DC when it could have or make war in Northern states in general. Had the Union abandon the fort there would have been no war. Had the Union not campaigned in the CSA there would be no war. The Union is responsible for the rest of the war and the body count.
How would I be having it both ways? Why can I not bring up the constitution? How does it show the hypocrisy of the South? The Federal constitution did not apply to the CSA but did apply to the Union. The Union was the party ignoring parts of it.
I didn’t say we can’t differentiate I said measuring badness is difficult. Do you disagree? The only reason I respond is because I get tired of the narrative about the evil South and the heroic North. It is the same fable that has us killing people overseas ever since.
Your claim is the claim of the victors. But I see no reason why the states can not secede from the Union. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it. I guess it could be in there invisibly like the right to abortion and sodomy. What a glorious document! The states predated the current federal constitution. They as sovereign states joined together under the Articles of Confederation. They as sovereign states ended that federation and created a new one. At what point did they cease to be sovereign states and under what legal theory?
Being punished is not exclusive to salvation. There are consequences to actions in this life and the farther a person or a people is from God the worse the consequences are.
Um, Texas was guaranteed the right to unilaterally split itself into up to 5 different states, it didn’t actually get the right to secede from the Union.
Disagree. Sharecropping in no way suggests the value of the crop. People sharecrop today. It is, in fact, increasing as resident landowner/farmers decrease in number and increase in age, combined with increasing cost of land. Nor does it say anything about the economics of slavery.
And the particular usage of sharecropping in the South was in effect a continuation of the practice of slavery in regards to economics, with the non-landowner forced to work the land under increasing debt for the land owner. Your claim that slavery was on the way out because it was uneconomical is invalidated by the fact that the version of sharecropping that came about in the South after the war kept the landowners on their land and pushed the economic failures onto the sharecroppers. This should be evident in the fact that the economy of the South didn’t actually change from pre- to post-war. Agriculture remained king, particularly cotton and tobacco.
The “new economic opportunities” for blacks (and whites) were in the North, notwithstanding that segregation in the North was perhaps even more rigid than it was in the South.
Being punished = no salvation.
