PDA

View Full Version : What if the South Won the Civil War?



herman2
09-25-2009, 12:06 PM
First of all, I am so thrilled to be the FIRST to post a thread in this NEW FORUM! While the Mods are sleeping, I have first crack at entering a New Thread! I feel Honoured! ..It's so dead on this site today. Is it because it's Friday? Have the Mods gone on Vacation? Where is everybody!??!!

What would have happened if the South won the Civil War?
I believe that this could have never have happened. The South was not strong enough to control a whole country. Their money was weak, their navy sucked (compared to the North) and other than Great looking Hotties(Girls), the South could not have made a difference in changing the constitution. Slavery would not have been revoked in the North. The 2 countries would have led their indifferent paths for awhile until WW-1 when a new era would become.Can you imagine how WW-1 would have turned out if the USA was not involved because of their split? What about the Mexicans trying to take back Texas..or was it New Mexico? Anyways, thease are all interesting What ifs?!!

Nickdfresh
09-25-2009, 12:40 PM
First of all, I am so thrilled to be the FIRST to post a thread in this NEW FORUM! While the Mods are sleeping, I have first crack at entering a New Thread! I feel Honoured! ..It's so dead on this site today. Is it because it's Friday? Have the Mods gone on Vacation? Where is everybody!??!!

The traffic has been down, partially because it's been summer in the Northern Hemisphere. However, traffic has increased overall, and it's never particularly heavy on weekdays, which is one of the distinctive charms of the site: less posts, but more substantive ones with a smaller circle of regulars...


What would have happened if the South won the Civil War?
I believe that this could have never have happened. The South was not strong enough to control a whole country. Their money was weak, their navy sucked (compared to the North) and other than Great looking Hotties(Girls), the South could not have made a difference in changing the constitution. Slavery would not have been revoked in the North. The 2 countries would have led their indifferent paths for awhile until WW-1 when a new era would become.Can you imagine how WW-1 would have turned out if the USA was not involved because of their split? What about the Mexicans trying to take back Texas..or was it New Mexico? Anyways, thease are all interesting What ifs?!!

Well, define "winning." It's debatable if the agrarian South could have won anything against an industrialized North that still had abundant manpower even towards the end of the conflict, when the South was increasingly desperate by 1864 not unlike the Germans were by the end of 1944.

I agree there was no chance of the South conquering the North. I think inflicting heavy casualties and more decisive early defeats than they did might have led to a victory of sorts if Lincoln were removed from office and resulted in a negotiated settlement. Something akin more to not losing rather than a decisive victory or conquest for the Confederacy. However, I've heard historians remark that Lincoln was probably more correct than he ever knew when he said (paraphrasing), "a house divided, cannot stand." And that some sort of reunification, again negotiated, was perhaps inevitable even if the North lost in 1861-62. This may have been a likelihood due to a whole host of economic interests and the fact that despite initial cozy relations with European powers, there might have been some sort of galvanizing event, or a series incidents, that might have threatened the perceived economic and territorial sovereignty of both the Union and the Confederacy. Incidents such as the French Invasion of Mexico, which might have eventually drove the USA and the hypothetical CSA into a defense alliance --perhaps culminating in some sort of reunification, if a limited one....

herman2
09-25-2009, 12:56 PM
God, Where were you when I was writing my History essay in high school!;)

Nickdfresh
09-25-2009, 02:44 PM
Still here, and my stuff is copyrighted and easily Googled by a teacher that's not a gullible dope...

Moreheaddriller
11-26-2009, 08:10 AM
well lets see there have been many books on the subject like bring the jubilee, the harry turtledove timeline series, among others

Munchausen
01-05-2010, 01:26 PM
Harry Turtledove's Guns of the South is more an anecdotal primer on firearm developement than historical speculation but also it shows what a stretch it would take for the CSA to achieve its independance.

texag57
03-10-2010, 09:36 AM
The South did not fight to subjugate the North. There would have been no war if the North had recognized the right of Secession (please see another post of mine regarding secession) that the Soutern States were claiming. Several of Lincoln's advisors suggested letting them (The South) go. Lincoln's whole objective was economic. Even though the South was way behind in industry, their agricultural exports to Europe provided a tremendous amount of income to the national coffers. If you recall, The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until after a Union victory at Sharpsburg (Antietam in the Northern Battle names). Lincoln was waiting for a conclusive Union victory to issue this proclamation. It was political, to keep the anti-slavery British Empire from recognizing the Southern Confederacy. The proclamation freed slaves only in those States fighting for independence. Without the help of England, the South did not stand a chance. Outnumbered in population, weak in industry, and other area where the Union dominated, the South could only hope for help from Europe to outlast the Union determination to subjugate them.

Nickdfresh
03-10-2010, 02:35 PM
The South did not fight to subjugate the North. There would have been no war if the North had recognized the right of Secession (please see another post of mine regarding secession) that the Soutern States were claiming.

The South indeed invaded the "North" and penetrated to Gettysburg. And the South was quite capable of "subjugating" their own "rebel" counties and regions that wanted to stay in the Union.

There also would have been no war had the Southern politicians allowed slavery to wither away as a barbaric, nationally embarrassing relic it was instead of forging ahead into national crisis after crisis and hypocritically evoking "state-rights" at the same time they pushed for self-serving national laws intruding on other states' sovereignty and beliefs (i.e. The Fugitive Slave Act)...



Several of Lincoln's advisors suggested letting them (The South) go. Lincoln's whole objective was economic. Even though the South was way behind in industry, their agricultural exports to Europe provided a tremendous amount of income to the national coffers.

And the South's goals weren't economic? The use of free labor to sustain an elitist lifestyle for a very small segments of the plantation owning upper-classes that was exploitive not only to their black slaves gladly donating their free labors, their lives, and the lives of their children--but also to the multitude of poor white farmers suckered into fighting for their homes--so others could live lives of leisure? Correct me if that isn't economic...


If you recall, The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until after a Union victory at Sharpsburg (Antietam in the Northern Battle names). Lincoln was waiting for a conclusive Union victory to issue this proclamation. It was political, to keep the anti-slavery British Empire from recognizing the Southern Confederacy. The proclamation freed slaves only in those States fighting for independence. Without the help of England, the South did not stand a chance. Outnumbered in population, weak in industry, and other area where the Union dominated, the South could only hope for help from Europe to outlast the Union determination to subjugate them.

Of course it was political. The entire issue of slavery was political and the War would never have been fought if their had been no slavery, which violates the U.S. Constitution BTW. And yes, the Southern strategy relied on receiving European support, but they also hope to win a series of quick victories to demoralize the North (sound familiar?). The Confederate gov't decided to simply seize all federal assets and attempted to intimidate any "renegade" areas that did not want to secede into joining them...

texag57
03-10-2010, 09:28 PM
Slavery was not unconstitutional at that time. If it was, then why did Lincoln declare emancipation for slaves ONLY in the States of the Southern Confederacy? There were slaves in other States at that time. I do not defend slavery. Slavery was slowly going out, even in the South. Slavery was way down on the list of reasons for the war. My own great-grandfather was a slave holder, and he emancipated his own slaves before he joined the Confederate Army. Why free something, and then go fight for keeping it. I know the mantra that the lower classes were fooled into fighting for the aristocracy, but it just propaganda perpetrated on children in the public schools. I know, because I have taught U.S. History in public school. You admit that the war was economic. You're correct there. The South, being lower in population, was at a disadvantage in representation in the U.S. Congress. The industrial North, with greater population and representation, was getting legislation more favorable to the industrial North than the agricultural South. That was a much more important reason for the split than slavery ever was. I'll take a break, but I will be available tomorrow, the Lord willing, to defend the Southern Confederacy. "Deo Vindice"

Rising Sun*
03-11-2010, 05:13 AM
Slavery was not unconstitutional at that time.

What made it unconstitutional?

Nickdfresh
03-11-2010, 06:13 AM
Slavery was not unconstitutional at that time. If it was, then why did Lincoln declare emancipation for slaves ONLY in the States of the Southern Confederacy?

Because he was trying to hold the nation together, and using slavery as a weapon against the South. And the states that typically had less slaves were less likely to initially secede...

And slavery is absolutely unconstitutional, and only hypocritical supreme court "judges" using the most spurious semantic dodges in history could actually read the Constitution and agree...


There were slaves in other States at that time. I do not defend slavery. Slavery was slowly going out, even in the South. Slavery was way down on the list of reasons for the war. My own great-grandfather was a slave holder, and he emancipated his own slaves before he joined the Confederate Army.

Preserving the institution of slavery had everything to do with the War. It was the Constitutional crises of territories becoming either free states vs. slave states that created the antipathy leading to the War. You cannot really defend the Confederacy without acknowledging that slavery was integral to its very existence. I'll grant you that there is a "libertarian" movement that seeks to "reform" the Confederacy into some sort of anti-federal lobby for states rights. But this is pretty disingenuous at best as many in the Confederacy were not seeking democracy at all, but ascendancy politically over the North..


Why free something, and then go fight for keeping it.

Perhaps because he was a Southerner, and knew that the Union forces would come sooner or later? And he could lose property, etc.

Perhaps he knew also that even if the South "won" the Civil War/War Between the States, that there would have been almost an inevitable negotiated settlement and a reestablishment of a Union or some sort...



I know the mantra that the lower classes were fooled into fighting for the aristocracy, but it just propaganda perpetrated on children in the public schools. I know, because I have taught U.S. History in public school. You admit that the war was economic. You're correct there. The South, being lower in population, was at a disadvantage in representation in the U.S. Congress. The industrial North, with greater population and representation, was getting legislation more favorable to the industrial North than the agricultural South. That was a much more important reason for the split than slavery ever was. I'll take a break, but I will be available tomorrow, the Lord willing, to defend the Southern Confederacy. "Deo Vindice"

The War was very much economic, we agree. But I surmise there would have been no real split without slavery, as there was no other issue really on the table.

Workers in the industrial North, even if they were racists who may have hated blacks as much as any Southerner, may have resented the fact that slaves could be had and could potentially be used to suppress their wages. And one could also argue that the institution of slavery itself hindered economic and industrial development in the South, and that slavery was not just immoral, but retrograde and oppressive not just to the slaves themselves. The reason why the South was lagging was because the elites had no vested interest in changing in their shortsightedness, and were struggling to maintain what was little more than a romantic, feudal society.

One must also acknowledge one of the key reasons the South lost was not just because of being outnumbered and against a superior industrial base, but their very ideology of a decentralized state prevented the Confederates from sustaining a long term defense in a war of attrition...

Rising Sun*
03-11-2010, 06:37 AM
From the perspective of an outsider with no real knowledge of the issues I wonder if the following statement fairly represents the situation?


Workers in the industrial North, even if they were racists who may have hated blacks as much as any Southerner, may have resented the fact that slaves could be had and could potentially be used to suppress their wages.

Why would Southerners hate blacks when their economy was dependent upon cheap black labour?

Was there a distinction between (a) the slave owning classes which benefited from slave labour (which I imagine ran from plantation owners with many slaves down to people with perhaps only one black servant) and generally could be expected to try to preserve those human assets which cost them money to buy, even if those classes might not have been generous in their treatment of their slaves, and (b) the lower classes, both in the South and North, who felt threatened by the cheap black labour competing for or threatening their unskilled or semi-skilled jobs?

texag57
03-11-2010, 07:47 AM
When the Constitution was ratified, agreement was reached that slave trade would cease 20 years after the Constitution went into effect. Slavery was not outlawed-slave trade was. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in December, 1865. This was after the War for Southern Independence ended.

texag57
03-11-2010, 08:03 AM
Rising Sun, I will try to answer some of what you are asking about slaveholder and slave relationships in the South, but am not able to at this time. I will later today.:)

Nickdfresh
03-12-2010, 09:14 PM
From the perspective of an outsider with no real knowledge of the issues I wonder if the following statement fairly represents the situation?

Knowing me, probably not. :)


Why would Southerners hate blacks when their economy was dependent upon cheap black labour?

Did I say "Southerners?" Sorry. I should have said some Southerners, as I was actually questioning the notion that Southern whites are somehow more inherently racist than Northern whites. I'm pretty sure people are equal opportunity xenophobic and genetically programmed to be insecure...


Was there a distinction between (a) the slave owning classes which benefited from slave labour (which I imagine ran from plantation owners with many slaves down to people with perhaps only one black servant) and generally could be expected to try to preserve those human assets which cost them money to buy, even if those classes might not have been generous in their treatment of their slaves, and (b) the lower classes, both in the South and North, who felt threatened by the cheap black labour competing for or threatening their unskilled or semi-skilled jobs?

Distinctions in what sense? Morally?

Nickdfresh
03-12-2010, 09:24 PM
When the Constitution was ratified, agreement was reached that slave trade would cease 20 years after the Constitution went into effect. Slavery was not outlawed-slave trade was. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in December, 1865. This was after the War for Southern Independence ended.

Yes, but of course the Constitution actually makes little or no reference to race (or skin color) in regards to rights--making it a rather fascinating document rife with internal contradictions...

texag57
03-13-2010, 12:42 PM
You may feel that it is rife with internal contradictions, but it is the document that this nation adheres to in governing. If slavery, whether the person is black, white, brown, yellow,or red, was not declared ended until the 13th Amendment, it was still Constitutional. It ended on its own in the North partly because of the influx of immigrants from Europe that were cheaper labor than caring for the slaves that some Northerners had been using. A fact of economics. In the South, only six percent of the population owned more than 3-5 slaves, and the vast majority owned none.

texag57
03-13-2010, 06:48 PM
Regarding the invasion of the North by the South, it was done in order to pull the remaining Northern troops out of Virginia, and occured shortly after a victory at Second Manassas, Virginia. Lee gave a brief outline of his reasons in his request to President Jeff Davis, and I include part of what Lee wrote:"After the enemy had disappeared from the vicinity of Fairfax Court House, and taken the road to Alexandria and Washington, I did not think it would be advantageous to follow him farther. I had no intention of attacking him in his fortifications, and am not prepared to invest them. If I possessed the necessary munitions, I should be unable to supply provisions for the troops. I therefore determined, while threatening the approaches to Washington, to draw the troops into Loudoun, where forage and some provisions can be obtained, menace their possession of the Shenandoah Valley, and, if found practicable, to cross into Maryland. The purpose, if discovered, will have the effect of carrying the enemy north of the Potomac, and, if prevented, will not result in much evil."

This occured in September of 1862, and included the Battle of Sharpsburg (Antietam). Lee was hoping that the Marylanders would join the Confederate forces, which they did not. He did not try to subjugate Maryland, and left the choice up to them. The rest of the Confederate States joined of their own choice. It just so happened that it was the Union that used force to intimidate the Marylanders.

Rising Sun*
03-14-2010, 08:21 AM
Knowing me, probably not. :)

Knowing you, probably not. ;) :D




Distinctions in what sense? Morally?

No, in attitude.

And in whatever was behind any attitude.

Nickdfresh
03-14-2010, 09:49 AM
You may feel that it is rife with internal contradictions, but it is the document that this nation adheres to in governing. If slavery, whether the person is black, white, brown, yellow,or red, was not declared ended until the 13th Amendment, it was still Constitutional. It ended on its own in the North partly because of the influx of immigrants from Europe that were cheaper labor than caring for the slaves that some Northerners had been using. A fact of economics. In the South, only six percent of the population owned more than 3-5 slaves, and the vast majority owned none.

And it was a document easy used to suppress the weak when supported by a corrupt, morally bankrupt Supreme Court and through the use of inherently contradictory amendments and semantics...

Slavery largely ended in the North for economic reasons coupled with social reforms. As the North became industrial, slavery was both impractical and odious. But I will agree that The Civil War was not black and white (no pun intended), good vs. evil. It was various shades of gray with the North often acting ruthlessly, and certainly not all of the goals were intrinsically benevolent...

And I've stated that only a relatively small percentage of the White population in the South actually benefited from slavery, and were willing to do anything to keep their feudal, unworkable society intact...

32Bravo
03-28-2010, 03:11 AM
I'm no expert on American history, but my undersanding is that if Lee had have completed his march on Washington, which was his main objective, and not entangled himself in what was an encounter battlle at Gettysburgh, he would have had the opportunity to force Lincoln to sign an armistice which in effect would have brought the war to a favourable conclusion for the South. Unfortunately, for the South that is, he did become embroiled in the battle at Gettysburgh and, effectively, lost the war at that point.

32Bravo
03-28-2010, 03:38 AM
Why would Southerners hate blacks when their economy was dependent upon cheap black labour?

Was there a distinction between (a) the slave owning classes which benefited from slave labour (which I imagine ran from plantation owners with many slaves down to people with perhaps only one black servant) and generally could be expected to try to preserve those human assets which cost them money to buy, even if those classes might not have been generous in their treatment of their slaves, and (b) the lower classes, both in the South and North, who felt threatened by the cheap black labour competing for or threatening their unskilled or semi-skilled jobs?

My take on this is that the slaves were assets, as you point out, but not considered human assets. How does a supposedly, christian society justify an economy based on slavery when it is within its own declaration of independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of th above was a slave owner and, it is pretty conclusive, bred slaves with himself being the sire.



We have discussd in the past how nations de-humanize or demonize their enemy in order to enable their soldiers to kill with a clear conscience. For me, the question of de-humanizing the slaves follows the same psychology. Add to that the Southerners' fear of a revolt and the potential violence resulting from such a revolt. Indeed, there were occassions that the slaves did rebel and the masters and their families were slaughtered and their plantaions put to the torch before the revolt was quashed. Down through generations the fear transforms into hatred and resentment.

"... One, Will, had been so abused by his master that he was covered with scars. On the appointed night on Sunday, they left Turner's house and entered the house of his master where, with only one hatchet and one broadax between them, they executed all the members, including two teens, with the exception of an infant. They then moved from house to house throughout the night and executed every European-American they could find with the exception of a white family that owned no slaves; Will chopped up his master and his wife so passionately that Turner called him "Will the Executioner." As they went from house to house they gathered slaves and weapons. By Monday, they were approaching Jerusalem but were turned back by a regiment of European-Americans. Turner dug a cave and went into hiding, but when troops arrived they scoured the countryside and executed slaves by the hundred. Turner, however, was never caught for over two months; during all this time, Virginians were seized with panic. Hundred fled the county and many left the state for good. Turner, however, was eventually captured and hung. This was the last straw; from this point onwards, no slaveowner lived comfortably with slavery now that they understood the anger, the resistance, and the vengeance that boiled beneath the burden of slavery. "

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/DIASPORA/REBEL.HTM

What I find a bizarre contradiction, is that these supposedly sub-human people were given Christianity. Of course, it enables them to accept their lot in life, as things will be better for them in the next (opium for the masses), but if one accepts that they are animals and not human, then why try to christianise a people that have no human soul?

Thomas Paine - African Slavery In America

"To Americans:

That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising; and still persist, though it has been so often proved contrary to the light of nature, to every principle of Justice and Humanity, and even good policy, by a succession of eminent men, and several late publications.

Our Traders in MEN (an unnatural commodity!) must know the wickedness of the SLAVE-TRADE, if they
attend to reasoning, or the dictates of their own hearts: and such as shun and stiffle all these, wilfully sacrifice Conscience, and the character of integrity to that golden idol."

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/afri.html

32Bravo
03-28-2010, 05:18 AM
...but it is the document that this nation adheres to in governing. If slavery, whether the person is black, white, brown, yellow,or red, was not declared ended until the 13th Amendment, it was still Constitutional.

Mr Bumble comes to mind:

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ***..."
Charles ****ens: oliver Twist

Rising Sun*
03-28-2010, 05:27 AM
My take on this is that the slaves were assets, as you point out, but not considered human assets. How does a supposedly, christian society justify an economy based on slavery when it is within its own declaration of independence.

By regarding them as not human.

Which is rather contradictory when one considers the efforts of Christian missionaries in Africa and elsewhere to bring such 'savages' to Christ around the same time, and which Christian missions were in part inspired by anti-slavery ideals.


"... One, Will, had been so abused by his master that he was covered with scars. On the appointed night on Sunday, they left Turner's house and entered the house of his master where, with only one hatchet and one broadax between them, they executed all the members, including two teens, with the exception of an infant. They then moved from house to house throughout the night and executed every European-American they could find with the exception of a white family that owned no slaves; Will chopped up his master and his wife so passionately that Turner called him "Will the Executioner." As they went from house to house they gathered slaves and weapons. By Monday, they were approaching Jerusalem but were turned back by a regiment of European-Americans. Turner dug a cave and went into hiding, but when troops arrived they scoured the countryside and executed slaves by the hundred. Turner, however, was never caught for over two months; during all this time, Virginians were seized with panic. Hundred fled the county and many left the state for good. Turner, however, was eventually captured and hung. This was the last straw; from this point onwards, no slaveowner lived comfortably with slavery now that they understood the anger, the resistance, and the vengeance that boiled beneath the burden of slavery. "

A similar but much more modest Australian example.


GOVERNOR, JIMMY (1875-1901), outlaw, was born on the Talbragar River, New South Wales, son of Sam (later Thomas) Governor (or Grosvenor), bullock-driver, and his wife Annie, née Fitzgerald. He received his schooling at a mission school and at Gulgong. Short, good-looking and part-Aboriginal with reddish hair, Jimmy worked at Wollar before becoming a police tracker at Cassilis from 15 July 1896 to 18 December 1897. He returned to Wollar and, after woodcutting at Gulgong and wool-rolling at Digilbar, married on 10 December 1898 Ethel Mary Jane Page, a 16-year-old white woman, at the Church of England rectory, Gulgong.

In April 1900, after a variety of jobs, Jimmy got a contract for fencing (splitting and erecting posts earning 10s. and 12s. a hundred respectively) from John Thomas Mawbey at Breelong, near Gilgandra. Conscientious and anxious to prove himself in white society, Jimmy was on good terms with his employer, obtaining his rations from him and playing cricket with his small sons. Jimmy and Ethel were joined by his brother Joe and Jacky Underwood (alias Charlie Brown), a full blood, who both helped in the work, and later by Jacky Porter, another full blood, and Jimmy's nephew Peter Governor. All claimed rations from Jimmy Governor.

Strains emerged in the marriage. Ethel, who did housework for the Mawbeys, grew unhappy; after a dispute with Mawbey, Jimmy and his friends talked of taking up bushranging. Touchy about his colour, Jimmy was stung by reports that Mrs Mawbey and Helen Josephine Kerz, a schoolteacher who lived with the Mawbeys, had taunted his wife for marrying a blackfellow. With Underwood he confronted the women, who were alone in the house with seven children and Mrs Mawbey's 18-year-old sister Elsie Clarke, on the night of 20 July 1900. Jimmy alleged that the women laughed at him and Helen Kerz said: 'Pooh, you black rubbish, you want shooting for marrying a white woman'. Losing all control, the two, with nulla-nullas and tomahawk, killed Mrs Grace Mawbey, Helen Kerz, and Grace (16), Percival (14) and Hilda Mawbey (11); Elsie Clarke was seriously injured.

Underwood was quickly caught but Jimmy and Joe Governor, calling themselves 'bushrangers', went on a fourteen-week, 2000-mile (3219 km) rampage, terrorizing a wide area of north-central New South Wales. Seeking revenge on persons who had wronged them, they killed Alexander McKay near Ulan on 23 July, Elizabeth O'Brien and her baby son at Poggie, near Merriwa, on 24 July, and Keiran Fitzpatrick near Wollar, on 26 July. After committing numerous robberies as far north as Narrabri, and in the Quirindi district, they moved into the rugged headwater country of the Manning and Hastings rivers, pursued by Queensland black trackers, bloodhounds and hundreds of police and civilians. Exulting in outwitting their pursuers, the Governors blatantly broadcast their whereabouts and wrote derisive notes to the police. On 8 October the government offered a reward of £1000 each for their capture.

After several close escapes Jimmy was shot in the mouth by Herbert Byers, a hunter, on 13 October; in a weakened condition he was captured by a party of settlers at Bobin, near Wingham, on 27 October. Joe was shot dead by John Wilkinson north of Singleton on 31 October. They had been outlawed on 23 October.

Jimmy stood trial on 22-23 November in Sydney for the murder of Helen Kerz. He was defended by Francis Stewart Boyce who raised the defence of autrefois aquit and autrefois attaint, arguing that as a result of outlawry Governor had already been attainted and could not be tried for the same crimes. These pleas in bar of trial were rejected and Governor was convicted. An appeal was dismissed, and he spent his last days reading the Bible, singing native songs and blaming his wife. He was hanged at Darlinghurst Gaol on 18 January 1901 and buried in an unmarked grave in the Anglican section of Rookwood cemetery; Underwood had been hanged in the Dubbo gaol four days before. Governor was survived by his wife and son; on 23 November Ethel Governor married Francis Joseph Brown by whom she had nine more children. She died in Sydney on 31 December 1945.

Jimmy Governor's ravages, in the context of Aboriginal dispossession and white racism, were the subject of Thomas Keneally's novel The chant of Jimmy Blacksmith (1972), which was made into a film in 1978. http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A090063b.htm

32Bravo
03-28-2010, 06:24 AM
By regarding them as not human.

Sorry, that was precisely my point. guess I didn't make it very well.

Rising Sun*
03-28-2010, 08:50 AM
Sorry, that was precisely my point. guess I didn't make it very well.

Maybe I didn't grasp your point very well.

Anyway, we agree.

Tiger205
03-28-2010, 09:04 AM
What if the South Won the Civil War?

Definitely other 44th President of the USA :)

32Bravo
03-28-2010, 09:39 AM
Not being an American and not residing in the US I had never heard of the American Civil War (we had one also) as being referreed to as the Southern War of Independence before, so I googled it.

I find that the term and the related material available give me the impression that the war is still on, or at least the wounds are still open.

Do Americans from the northern states use the same name for the war or is it just a southern perspective?

Here's a little propaganda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCC9VHk13JY

I think that most of us that have a little knowledge of what the war was fought over are aware that it was not fought to free the slaves, and that this became a later war aim of Lincoln.

32Bravo
03-28-2010, 09:41 AM
What if the South Won the Civil War?

Definitely other 44th President of the USA :)

:lol:

tankgeezer
03-28-2010, 10:25 AM
The term "Southern war for independence", is used here in the south, though not exclusively. Up north where I come from its the "Civil War", or "War between the States". Oddly enough the Southern Flag "Stars and Bars" although reviled by some as being a racist symbol, is as commonly seen in the north, as the south.

32Bravo
03-28-2010, 12:57 PM
It's probably become a symbol of challenge to authority. It's used much in the sam way here, in England, as has images of Che Guevara

http://static.open.salon.com/files/che-guevara1242900104.jpg

texag57
03-28-2010, 04:10 PM
One thing that was a problem for Lee at that point was the absence of Jeb Stuart. Without Stuart, Lee was blind as to the forces against him, and whether there was another way to avoid the battle. Stuart was off making another ride, as he had done against McClellan, and arrived too late to be of help in recon. Lee was furious with Stuart when Stuart finally got back.

"Deo Vindice"

32Bravo
03-28-2010, 05:17 PM
One thing that was a problem for Lee at that point was the absence of Jeb Stuart. Without Stuart, Lee was blind as to the forces against him, and whether there was another way to avoid the battle. Stuart was off making another ride, as he had done against McClellan, and arrived too late to be of help in recon. Lee was furious with Stuart when Stuart finally got back.

"Deo Vindice"

Absolutely.

Not only that, but Lee was advised by his own generals to break contact. His own orders to his commanders had been for them not to be sucked into a protracted battle.

Lee was repeatedly advised to withdraw to more favourable ground where the Union forces would have to attack them and be broken in the process (such as Wellington withdrawing from Qatre Bras to Waterloo), as it is it turned out to be the other way around - not good considering Lee's limited resources.

A rear-guard operation could have been difficult with the absence of Stuart and his cavalry, but not impossible. It would have been easier earlier in the engagement before the main Union forces had arrived on the field.

texag57
03-28-2010, 07:12 PM
There were many things working against Lee. Even "Old Pete" Longstreet saw that they were going to have an exposed flank at one point in the battle, but said nothing, due to a dispute he and Lee were having. In the long run, Lee accepted all responsibility for the failure in the battle. After Pickett's charge failed to gain the high point they were seeking, Lee said he (Lee) was to blame, that it was all his fault.

By the way, I am not used to this system, yet, and I want to know how you included my response in your response to me. Thanks

"Deo Vindice"

tankgeezer
03-28-2010, 08:51 PM
In the lower right corner of a post is a button "reply with Quote" click it, and the post in question will appear in the reply box. At the bottom of it you may enter your response, and click post to send it. If you want to quote a line or two, then copy/paste it into the reply box, and follow it with your reply.

32Bravo
03-29-2010, 02:54 AM
There were many things working against Lee. Even "Old Pete" Longstreet saw that they were going to have an exposed flank at one point in the battle, but said nothing, due to a dispute he and Lee were having. In the long run, Lee accepted all responsibility for the failure in the battle. After Pickett's charge failed to gain the high point they were seeking, Lee said he (Lee) was to blame, that it was all his fault.

By the way, I am not used to this system, yet, and I want to know how you included my response in your response to me. Thanks

"Deo Vindice"

All very true. I was having much the same thoughts on my commute this morning. Cause and effect. A case of the whole effect being greater than the sum of the individual causes.

Lee saw the opportunity of turning the Union flank at Little Round Top, but it was too late. Pickett's charge was really one of using musketry tactics against troops armed with rifle technology. There was some sense in Lee's assessment and going for the centre but an outdated frontal attack with inadequate artillery support was a hiding to nothing. Perhaps he underestimated the opposition, given their past performances, or maybe he felt, win or lose, he could bring an end to the war that day. I would say Lee lost the war that day and that the South continued to fight on through sheer pride and tenacity - which one can admire!

32Bravo
03-29-2010, 06:51 AM
Just to add to the above. I believe tha the race for Little Round Top was the crucial factor in deciding the outcome of the battle. If Lee had won the race he could have rolled up the Union flank. The options open to Union would have been to reinforce the flank, thus further weakening their centre and making Pickett's charge a more viable option for Lee, or they would have had to withdraw.

texag57
03-29-2010, 08:04 AM
In the lower right corner of a post is a button "reply with Quote" click it, and the post in question will appear in the reply box. At the bottom of it you may enter your response, and click post to send it. If you want to quote a line or two, then copy/paste it into the reply box, and follow it with your reply.

Thanks tankgeezer. I tried that once, but I wasn't sure about it, so I abandoned it. I appreciate the help.
"Deo Vindice"

royal744
09-01-2013, 04:44 PM
What made it unconstitutional?

Uh, how about "All men are created equal..."

royal744
09-01-2013, 05:41 PM
First of all, I am so thrilled to be the FIRST to post a thread in this NEW FORUM! While the Mods are sleeping, I have first crack at entering a New Thread! I feel Honoured! ..It's so dead on this site today. Is it because it's Friday? Have the Mods gone on Vacation? Where is everybody!??!!

What would have happened if the South won the Civil War?
I believe that this could have never have happened. The South was not strong enough to control a whole country. Their money was weak, their navy sucked (compared to the North) and other than Great looking Hotties(Girls), the South could not have made a difference in changing the constitution. Slavery would not have been revoked in the North. The 2 countries would have led their indifferent paths for awhile until WW-1 when a new era would become.Can you imagine how WW-1 would have turned out if the USA was not involved because of their split? What about the Mexicans trying to take back Texas..or was it New Mexico? Anyways, thease are all interesting What ifs?!!

If you cut through all the nonsense and sand thrown in your eyes to temporarily blind you, stop and ask yourself one simple question: If there were no slavery in the South, would there have been a Civil War? I submit to you that there would have been no War Between the States. The question answers itself. Slavery was the cause. States' Rights, Nullification, Mason-Dixon ad infinitum were all BS intended to preserve slavery. The political atmosphere surrounding free states versus slave states was incredibly vicious and nasty. Think Bleeding Kansas.

I don't give a tinker's damn for the derriere of a rat - otherwise known as "ratsass" - about how "constitutional" slavery was, everyone knew it was repugnant, un-Christian and revolting. The whole civilized world had given up on slavery, including the Russians when the serfs were freed, so the constitutional argument is completely bogus. In order not to lose political power, the odious southern senators even wanted their slaves to be declared 3/5 human, or white, so that they could count their population for representation in Congress. Think about that: slaves who couldn't vote - much less read and write - kept barefoot and pregnant "represented" in Congress. Constitutional? In a pig's eye.

The south was turning itself into a nation of church-going pretzels as it tried desperately to save its "peculiar instutition." And when you wipe the sand out of your eyes, try going to Mississippi, Alabama, parts of Texas, Kentucky and other places today and you will see that de facto segregation is still very much alive.

Oh, and by the way, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

texag57
09-01-2013, 08:13 PM
Thomas Jefferson, one of the leaders in writing the Constitution made the statement regarding the Union, that States that became unhappy under the Constitution, would be free to withdraw, without any animosity. You can find that in statements made by T.Jefferson. His feeling was that no State would be forced to stay. Too bad A. Lincoln did not understand that.

texag57
09-01-2013, 08:27 PM
Actually, that text comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution continued to allow slave trade for another 20 years, but did not make it unlawful. Slavery was not the cause of the War of Southern Independence, but it was a political move by Lincoln to enlist the backing of the abolitionists. If you read more history of slavery in the United States, you will see that quite a few free blacks, bought black slaves for themselves. There were a large number of free blacks in the South at the time of the War.

Nickdfresh
09-01-2013, 08:32 PM
...If you read more history of slavery in the United States, you will see that quite a few free blacks, bought black slaves for themselves. There were a large number of free blacks in the South at the time of the War.

There were also Jewish capos who collaborated with the Nazis. Does that somehow justify or rationalize the Holocaust, or absolve the Nazi German Regime?

texag57
09-01-2013, 08:33 PM
Sorry, slavery was not the cause, but became the excuse Lincoln used to keep the Yankees fighting. Lincoln's purpose at the beginning of the war was to prevent secession of the South.

Nickdfresh
09-01-2013, 08:35 PM
Actually, that text comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution continued to allow slave trade for another 20 years, but did not make it unlawful. Slavery was not the cause of the War of Southern Independence....

Then what was? That argument is patently silly and no one but a nihilist or and extremist would ever make it. The South knew that Slavery was threatened as an institution and that there would be no slavery in new states effectively threatening their agrarian nirvana (for about 1% of the elitist white population)...

texag57
09-01-2013, 08:37 PM
There is no comparison. If slavery was the reason, why did my Great-Grandfather free his slaves in order to go fight for Southern Independence? I cannot agree with your illustration.

Nickdfresh
09-01-2013, 08:39 PM
Sorry, slavery was not the cause, but became the excuse Lincoln used to keep the Yankees fighting. Lincoln's purpose at the beginning of the war was to prevent secession of the South.

Actually, quite the opposite. Lincoln didn't want the war to be characterized as simply liberating slaves, although that was the corp issue. The Emancipation was in fact a tactic of war to weaken the South's agrarian system dependent on essentially free labor. I think you're vastly over estimating the zealousness of Yankees will to sustain the "fighting" over liberating blacks...

Nickdfresh
09-01-2013, 08:40 PM
There is no comparison. If slavery was the reason, why did my Great-Grandfather free his slaves in order to go fight for Southern Independence? I cannot agree with your illustration.

I don't know. But why did he need slaves to begin with?

texag57
09-01-2013, 08:41 PM
Thanks for your insults. However, the cause of the war was Secession by the South, which was NOT illegal. Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson for yourself, in regards to the Union of States.

Nickdfresh
09-01-2013, 08:43 PM
Thanks for your insults. However, the cause of the war was Secession by the South, which was NOT illegal. Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson for yourself, in regards to the Union of States.

I don't think the legality or illegality of anything was based on the writings of Thomas Jefferson. And this issue came up in the Canadian conflicts between the Francophones of Quebec and the Anglophones in the early 1970s. It's one thing to push for secession, it's quite another to simply confiscate Federal Property (such as armories, buildings, equipment, etc.) without some sort of agreement. The Southeners didn't like John Brown stealing their "property," they didn't have a problem stealing the property of the Federal gov't..

texag57
09-01-2013, 08:44 PM
He was a farmer, and was able to buy them. Remember, owners had to also take care of and feed their slaves. They were not cheap labor, they were an important investment. He could not continue to take care of them and fight the invading Yankees, too.

texag57
09-01-2013, 08:48 PM
Then did the original Constitution make Secession illegal? Find it in the Constitution after the first ten Amendments and before 1860.

Nickdfresh
09-01-2013, 08:51 PM
Then did the original Constitution make Secession illegal? Find it in the Constitution after the first ten Amendments and before 1860.

Why don't you just post it?

royal744
09-01-2013, 10:29 PM
Actually, that text comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution continued to allow slave trade for another 20 years, but did not make it unlawful. Slavery was not the cause of the War of Southern Independence, but it was a political move by Lincoln to enlist the backing of the abolitionists. If you read more history of slavery in the United States, you will see that quite a few free blacks, bought black slaves for themselves. There were a large number of free blacks in the South at the time of the War.

Well, Texasag, you might try answering the question: Would there have been a Civil War if there had been no slavery in the south?

How would I know what your great-grandfather was thinking? I do know that there were counties north of here settled by Germans who vociferously opposed the Civil War and whose young, military age men were slaughtered by Confederates when they tried to flee to Mexico to avoid service in the Confederate Army. Go to Comfort and check the monument on the main square there.

One more thing: if the "issue" was Secession, as you say, please tell us Why the South wanted to secede. Is there really another reason besides slavery? It's somewhat disingenuous to imply the the South wanted to secede 'just because' without acknowledging the real reason behind it. I'm sure all those poor farmers and settlers in Kansas weren't being murdered because they were arguing over where the next McDonald's would be built. I find it interesting that when discussing Secession with advocates of the Confederacy, the discussion tends to focus on narrowly-focused legalese, states' rights, and so on to avoid discussing the underlying reason which was the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

Oh, and yes, slavery was an investment and it was cheap labor. If it wasn't cheap labor, it wouldn't have existed.

steben
09-02-2013, 07:29 AM
It's clear even the US have their own share of souls still living in the past.

I think it would have been impossible for the South to win after 6 months of fight. Every war that goes into the road of atrition favours the mass and industrial equipped. Both were to be found in the North.
Just as the Axis definitely couldn't win WWII once the US was brought in, with a doubt if even the USSR could have been forced to surrender.

royal744
09-02-2013, 11:31 AM
Actually, that text comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution continued to allow slave trade for another 20 years, but did not make it unlawful. Slavery was not the cause of the War of Southern Independence, but it was a political move by Lincoln to enlist the backing of the abolitionists. If you read more history of slavery in the United States, you will see that quite a few free blacks, bought black slaves for themselves. There were a large number of free blacks in the South at the time of the War.

You're right, Texasag, it does come from the Declaration of Independence, which, one supposes, has no bearing on the Consitution whatsoever - unless, of course, it does. You don't mind citing Thomas Jefferson when it supports your "position", so it's only equitable to acknowledge that Jefferson - who did write the Declaration, after all - said what he said. Jefferson it appears was very conflicted over this because a) he was sleeping with his number one house slave (and had children by her), b) knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that slavery was wrong and hopelessly illogical, and c) he compromised on the issue of slavery because he knew that no Union of the original 13 colonies would be possible unless he compromised on the issue of slavery, and d) in spite of everything, he knew that his fortune depended on owning other human beings.

Slavery, it seems, was an issue from the very beginning of the Republic.

herman2
05-03-2014, 06:36 AM
The comparrison of what if the South won the war is like asking what if Germany won the war. I think slavery would have died off even if the South won the war because modernization and the industrial revolution showed that free manpower was not as reliable and useful as automated machinery. With public pressure from American trading partners, it would have been shown that Slavery is a non-viable commodity and public pressure would have shown that it was no longer needed nor wanted.

Rising Sun*
05-03-2014, 12:50 PM
The comparrison of what if the South won the war is like asking what if Germany won the war.

Well, you started the thread and didn't see it that clearly at the time. But we all learn as time passes and have more information and reconsider our views. I've certainly changed my views on various issues on that basis.


I think slavery would have died off even if the South won the war because modernization and the industrial revolution showed that free manpower was not as reliable and useful as automated machinery. With public pressure from American trading partners, it would have been shown that Slavery is a non-viable commodity and public pressure would have shown that it was no longer needed nor wanted.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. The southern states got a lot of support from the parts of England / Britain dependent upon American cotton for their wealth as producers of finished cotton goods. And cotton production wasn't improved by the industrial revolution, just the processing of the raw product still harvested by hand.

Britain did not give full effect to its own anti-slavery laws for many decades after they were enacted. For that matter, Australia was still importing slaves from the Pacific islands in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. My Portuguese paternal great grandfather served on, and deserted, a slave ship taking slaves from Africa in the 19th century. There wasn't any shortage of customers for these slaves well after the American Civil War and in countries outside America, which doesn't suggest that there would have been any pressure outside America to free its slaves or grant equality to their descendants.

The unfortunate fact of life is that there is often a gulf between what later are seen as morally desirable political and legal steps and practical implementation of them.

I'm old enough to remember the various civil rights conflicts in the South in the 1960s, a century after the 13th Amendment (not to mention a couple of centuries after the noble principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence) might have suggested that black slaves and their descendants had rights and should have been treated as equal to whites.

herman2
05-03-2014, 01:09 PM
For that matter, Australia was still importing slaves from the Pacific islands in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. My Portuguese paternal great grandfather served on, and deserted, a slave ship taking slaves from Africa in the 19th century.
First of all I don't understand why they would be taking slaves to Australia? There is no cotton growing there. Secondly the island has pigmies so if they needed slaves then why not just enslave the pigmies that were already living in Australia. Thirdly, I thought you were true blue Aussie. Now your telling me your only half Aussie and half Portuguese? Oh brother. I use to be so proud to tell all my work buddy's I know a real Aussie, ..well I can still pretend you are(no offense to your Portuguese side)...2:36 p.m. R.S. you have been in this thread for like 25 minutes...are you going to post something or did u fall asleep?...

Rising Sun*
05-03-2014, 01:54 PM
First of all I don't understand why they would be taking slaves to Australia? There is no cotton growing there.

Sugar cane, not cotton. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~auscqfha/kanakas.htm

And there is plenty of cotton growing here, albeit as an environmental disaster. http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/30/cubbie-station-was-never-sustainable/



Secondly the island has pigmies so if they needed slaves then why not just enslave the pigmies that were already living in Australia.

This seems like hopelessly ignorant or just gratuitous bullshit. Don't push your luck.



Thirdly, I thought you were true blue Aussie. Now your telling me your only half Aussie and half Portuguese? Oh brother. I use to be so proud to tell all my work buddy's I know a real Aussie, ..well I can still pretend you are(no offense to your Portuguese side)

I'm 1/8th Portuguese. Other fractions include mostly Irish (1/8th from Portuguese great grandfather's illiterate Irish wife and other Irish sources), Dutch and English (Cornish). I'm the sixth or seventh (can never remember which) generation of Europeans in Australia, going back to convict ancestors, except mine was an Irish soldier guarding convicts in Tasmania. You won't find many Australians who've been here longer than that. Apart from Aborigines, who've been here for only about 40,000 years.

The real Aussie, whatever that might be, nowadays is a fairly recent migrant or the child of them, from countries all around the world. Here is one of them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz2zYsuCPCQ

herman2
05-03-2014, 02:28 PM
"This seems like hopelessly ignorant or just gratuitous bullshit. Don't push your luck."

Australia has a long history of abusing their poor pygmis:http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/Synopsis%206.htm
Ten thousand (10,000) Australian Aborigines were shipped to a British museum in an attempt to determine if they were the “missing link.” Some of the leading evolutionists of the day, including anatomist Sir Richard Owen, anthropologist Arthur Keith and Charles Darwin wanted samples. Museums were interested in bones, fresh samples, and pickled Aboriginal brains. Edward Ramsey, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney (1874-1894), published a museum booklet that appeared to describe Aborigines as “Australian animals.”

It also gave instructions on how to rob graves and plug bullet wounds in freshly killed “specimens.” He complained in the 1880s that a Queensland Law to stop slaughtering Aborigines was affecting his supply. Amalie Dietrich, a German evolutionist (nicknamed the ‘Angel of Black Death’) came to Australia and asked that Aborigines be shot for specimens, so their skin could be stuffed and mounted. “She shortly returned home with her specimens.” “A new South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of Aboriginal men, women and children. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the best 10 skulls were packed off for overseas.”

......So what I was saying..is that since slavery is related to the belief that slaves are inhuman and not subject to Natural Law, then since Pygmy's were considered inhuman ( as the article doesn't talk highly of them).....then I was hypothesizing that Australia could have looked at their own Pygmy population to enslave instead of importing slaves. The belief system back then was not exactly in favor of Australian Pygmy's. I believe a genocide was also in place against them in the 1800's.

...In conclusion what exactly am I pushing? What Bullshit? The facts and plight of the Australian Pygmy are well documented and it is a consideration to discuss and mention. If the country believed in slavery and it despised its local pygmy population, then I was merely drawing a cross reference to the slavery issue.

Rising Sun*
05-04-2014, 07:43 AM
Australia has a long history of abusing their poor pygmis

No, it doesn't.

There are no indigenous pygmies in Australia.

Australian aborigines are not pygmies. They are of average size for humans.

Australia has a long history of mistreating aborigines since soon after whites arrived. It also has a history for the past 40 years or so of devoting huge amounts of money and resources to try to redress that mistreatment.


http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/Synopsis%206.htm Hardly the most authoritative, let alone coherent and comprehensible, source for anything, apart from proving that one of the marvels of the internet is that seriously stupid and or disturbed people can set up websites and have the whole world for an audience.


Ten thousand (10,000) Australian aborigines were shipped to a British museum.

Really?

Alive or dead.

Which museum?

Because 10,000 is the estimate in some quarters of all aborigines, or perhaps all aboriginal remains (the difference is that one person might have numerous remains, e.g. skull, brain, various organs, bones, etc). sent from Australia. I'm sure the aborigines and Australian government departments working to repatriate aboriginal remains would like to know about the British museum which got 10,000 aborigines as you say, as distinct from 10,000 remains.


......So what I was saying..is that since slavery is related to the belief that slaves are inhuman

No, slave owners are inhuman or, more accurately, inhumane.


. and not subject to Natural Law

Wrong again. Apart from the fact natural law is a shifting philosophical concept with, unlike parliamentary laws, no single text to express it, Aristotle's version of natural law asserted, essentially, that some people were born to be slaves as part of nature, and much later the other great figure in the history of natural law, Thomas Aquinas, agreed. Modern philosophers take natural law into areas of moral philosophy which reject slavery in all its forms.


, then since Pygmy's were considered inhuman ( as the article doesn't talk highly of them).....then I was hypothesizing that Australia could have looked at their own Pygmy population to enslave instead of importing slaves. The belief system back then was not exactly in favor of Australian Pygmy's. I believe a genocide was also in place against them in the 1800's.

You are so wrong on so many points, as are so many of my countrymen who have your simplistic and uninformed view.

From the beginning of British settlement the British authorities were determined to protect aborigines, but what was wanted and what happened on the ground were different things.

There were many instances of appalling mistreatment of aborigines by whites, but no worse and generally better than the conduct of some European powers in their colonies elsewhere.


...In conclusion what exactly am I pushing? What Bullshit?

The stewartsynopsis bullshit site for a start.


The facts and plight of the Australian Pygmy are well documented and it is a consideration to discuss and mention. If the country believed in slavery

Sorry to disabuse you of that notion, but the whole country did not believe in slavery. Just a tiny proportion of exploitative primary producers.


Mod note: I told you not to push your luck because I regard your reference to Australian aborigines as 'pygmies' as derogatory. 'Pygmy' is a term properly applied to some peoples of small stature, but most often it is used to dismiss someone as a person of lesser worth than the rest of us. The photos on that ****wit stewartsynopsis site of aborigines as pygmies are all of people of average height and build. None of them are physical or mental pygmies. Calling them pygmies when every person of even the most modest education know that they are not strikes me as intended to reduce them as people by implying that they are less than the rest of us. I've had a bit to do with aborigines over the past half century. The husband of one of my nieces is an aborigine. Calling them pygmies, which is the first time I've heard this novel type of contempt for them, perpetuates the discrimination to which they have been subjected for far too long. I won't tolerate it.

herman2
05-04-2014, 09:29 PM
Mod note: I told you not to push your luck because I regard your reference to Australian aborigines as 'pygmies' as derogatory. 'Pygmy' is a term properly applied to some peoples of small stature, but most often it is used to dismiss someone as a person of lesser worth than the rest of us. The photos on that ****wit stewartsynopsis site of aborigines as pygmies are all of people of average height and build. None of them are physical or mental pygmies. Calling them pygmies when every person of even the most modest education know that they are not strikes me as intended to reduce them as people by implying that they are less than the rest of us. I've had a bit to do with aborigines over the past half century. The husband of one of my nieces is an aborigine. Calling them pygmies, which is the first time I've heard this novel type of contempt for them, perpetuates the discrimination to which they have been subjected for far too long. I won't tolerate it. [/QUOTE]

First of all, I don't know why you are posting in Red. If you mean to intimidate me by writing in Red, then I honestly don't know how a Moderator can exercise intimidation tactics on personal bias. Anyways, if red is your color so be it. Second of all, I DID not say anything derogatory about Pygmy's. I did not say I dismiss them as persons of lesser worth. i may have said society did, the same way society did of the slaves but it was not something I said as if I believed in it. Thirdly, I really really don't care about your Niece. I don't know her, i don't have anything good or bad to say about her and i never would say anything to piss you off had I have known what you stated. I feel your animosity in replying in red is not unbiased as you obviously brought personal background information into play which is the reason you feel animosity towards my post. I have in fact researched a lot about Pygmies and I don't see how it is a racist or contempt statement. Your Australian Newspapers call them Pygmies. Your Australian Researchers call them Pygmies. I am not calling Aboriginals Pygmies and I am not saying bad things about them. I am not going to be intimidated by your accusations. I attach article after article below including your local newspapers. Why do you get the impression I am being derogatory against Pygmies. You ask me to substantiate my opinions so i have below. I apologize if Pygmy is considerd a bad word to you but as a Moderator i don't really think you are being moderate. If you really think that i have insulted the plight of the Pygmy, because someone in your family is one, then I am truly sorry.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2002/06/the-extinction-of-the-australian-pygmies/
From the 1940s until the 1960s, it was fairly widely known there were pygmies in Australia. They lived in North Queensland and had come in from the wild of the tropical rainforests to live on missions in the region. This was a fact recorded at the time not only in anthropological textbooks and articles but also in popular books about the Australian Aborigines.

http://www.warriors.egympie.com.au/littlepeople.html
From the 1940s until the 1960s, it was fairly widely known there were pygmies in Australia. They lived in North Queensland and had come in from the wild of the tropical rainforests to live on missions in the region. This was a fact recorded at the time not only in anthropological textbooks and articles but also in popular books about the Australian Aborigines.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/in-depth/the-short-mob-goes-back-a-long-way/story-e6frgd9f-1225987410521
The Short Mob Goes A Long Way Back:They were very short, averaging about 150cm in height (other pygmy peoples, however, ranged as low as an average of 140cm). Their skins were dark brown, as opposed to the black of other Aboriginal peoples. Their hair, similarly, was just as curly as that of other pygmy peoples in the world.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Who-Are-the-Pygmies-72485.shtml
A pygmy population went extinct in the middle of the 20th century in northeastern Australia (Queensland).

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/pygmy-elder-faces-eviction/story-e6freoof-1111114264353
Anthropologists of the 1930s investigated reports of a lost pygmy-like tribe living in the Misty Mountain rainforest.
Photos emerged of child-size adults, carrying wooden swords and shields. Experts have been divided as to whether the tribe are true pygmies, with prehistoric links to African rainforest dwellers, or simply small people.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/08/05/is-it-appropriate-to-use-the-term-pygmy-when-speaking-of-pygmies/
"These problems may be overstated. Referring to someone by a physical trait isn’t necessarily considered negative."

Rising Sun*
05-05-2014, 07:46 AM
[First of all, I don't know why you are posting in Red.

I wanted to make sure you read it.

You have.

You have no excuse for ignoring it and persisting with your pseudo-science racist bullshit, which ranks with the same sort of rubbish the Nazis used to demonise and dehumanise the Jews.


Second o f all, I DID not say anything derogatory about Pygmy's. I did not say I dismiss them as persons of lesser worth. i may have said society did, the same way society did of the slaves but it was not something I said as if I believed in it.

Perhaps, but you have chosen to persist with your idiotic assertion that all aborigines are pygmies, despite my warning.


Thirdly, I really really don't care about your Niece. I don't know her, i don't have anything good or bad to say about her and i never would say anything to piss you off had I have known what you stated. I feel your animosity in replying in red is not unbiased as you obviously brought personal background information into play which is the reason you feel animosity towards my post.

No, I object to the snide racism implicit in your assertion that all aborigines are pygmies. If you published your moronic comments and were resident in Australia, you would find yourself in considerable trouble under our federal Racial Discrimination Act.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.


In relation to your brainless assertions about all Australian aborigines being pygmies, here is what our Federal Court thinks:

171. It is a notorious and regrettable fact of Australian history that the flawed biological characterisations of many Aboriginal people was the basis for mistreatment, including for policies of assimilation involving the removal of many Aboriginal children from their families until the 1970s. It will be of no surprise that a race of people subjected to oppression by reason of oppressive racial categorisation will be sensitive to being racially categorised by others. I accept that to be the case in relation to Aboriginal Australians. At paragraph 36.7 of its report, the ALRC acknowledged that sensitivity with an extract from the final report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in the following terms:

No area of research and commentary by non-Aboriginal people has such potential to cause offence as does that which attempts to define ‘Aboriginality’. This determination of non-Aboriginal people to categorise and divide Aboriginal people is resented for many reasons, but principally, I suspect, because the worst experiences of assimilation policies and the most long term emotional scars of those policies relate directly to non-Aboriginal efforts to define ‘Aboriginality’ and to deny to those found not to fit the definition, the nurture of family, kin and culture. To Aboriginal people there appears to be a continuing aggression evident in such practices.
Eatock v Bolt http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=andrew%20bolt



I have in fact researched a lot about Pygmies and I don't see how it is a racist or contempt statement. Your Australian Newspapers call them Pygmies. Your Australian Researchers call them Pygmies. I am not calling Aboriginals Pygmies and I am not saying bad things about them. I am not going to be intimidated by your accusations. I attach article after article below including your local newspapers. Why do you get the impression I am being derogatory against Pygmies. You ask me to substantiate my opinions so i have below. I apologize if Pygmy is considerd a bad word to you but as a Moderator i don't really think you are being moderate. If you really think that i have insulted the plight of the Pygmy, because someone in your family is one, then I am truly sorry.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2002/06/the-extinction-of-the-australian-pygmies/
From the 1940s until the 1960s, it was fairly widely known there were pygmies in Australia. They lived in North Queensland and had come in from the wild of the tropical rainforests to live on missions in the region. This was a fact recorded at the time not only in anthropological textbooks and articles but also in popular books about the Australian Aborigines.

http://www.warriors.egympie.com.au/littlepeople.html
From the 1940s until the 1960s, it was fairly widely known there were pygmies in Australia. They lived in North Queensland and had come in from the wild of the tropical rainforests to live on missions in the region. This was a fact recorded at the time not only in anthropological textbooks and articles but also in popular books about the Australian Aborigines.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/in-depth/the-short-mob-goes-back-a-long-way/story-e6frgd9f-1225987410521
The Short Mob Goes A Long Way Back:They were very short, averaging about 150cm in height (other pygmy peoples, however, ranged as low as an average of 140cm). Their skins were dark brown, as opposed to the black of other Aboriginal peoples. Their hair, similarly, was just as curly as that of other pygmy peoples in the world.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Who-Are-the-Pygmies-72485.shtml
A pygmy population went extinct in the middle of the 20th century in northeastern Australia (Queensland).

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/pygmy-elder-faces-eviction/story-e6freoof-1111114264353
Anthropologists of the 1930s investigated reports of a lost pygmy-like tribe living in the Misty Mountain rainforest.
Photos emerged of child-size adults, carrying wooden swords and shields. Experts have been divided as to whether the tribe are true pygmies, with prehistoric links to African rainforest dwellers, or simply small people.

One swallow does not a summer make.

Your approach requires that because there are some indigenous pygmies in Africa then all black Africans are pygmies, and by extension all African Americans are pygmies, which obviously is absurd and will come as a major surprise to, among others, American basketball leagues. As is your position equally abusrd, to the extent that it not just intentionally inflammatory racism.

You say you have researched pygmies and you put yourself forward as an expert on Australian aborigines all being pygmies. It follows that you are also fully informed of the implications of your earlier links to claims that aborigines are Negritos and the racist arguments against Australian aborigines based on those claims, as briefly summarised in this article by Colin Groves, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University. http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-June-2002/groves.html

You have chosen to persist with your idiotic and closet racist position after having a clear mod warning, and being told very clearly that I won't tolerate you racism.

I'm being generous in banning you only for 48 hours. Next time a mod warns you, don't dig your hole deeper. Just accept and comply with the warning.

JR*
05-06-2014, 04:45 AM
Ooeerr ...! At the risk of beheading, I would like to add a few comments. As regards slavery, the fullest form of slavery - chattel slavery, in which one human being literally owns another - is, as far as I know, completely absent from Australian history. Perhaps the earliest British administrators on the continent might not have been averse to enslaving a suitable local population, had circumstances prompted them in this direction in the earliest days of settlement. That they did not can, I think, be put down to two factors. First, they were, after all, supposed to be there to administer a largely self-supporting criminal colony, and had enough trouble feeding and controlling the "temporary slaves" from Britain in their "care". The convicts (and, increasingly, "ticket of leave" freedmen) provided ample labour for the needs of the early colony and, in time, for its early phases of expansion, to the extent that not only chattel slavery, but those secondary forms of slavery known as indentured service and sharecropping were superfluous. Secondly, the Australian Aborigines did not prove "suitable". This was not a matter of some physical or intellectual "inferiority"; rather, it was a result of the very complex culture of the native Australians that took the Brits some time to get to grips with. Apart from the facility with which most Aborigine groups could simply fade away into the bush if threatened, the complexities of Aboriginal linguistics would have posed huge difficulties. One example (which, I think, I picked up from Robert Hughes' "The Fatal Shore") involved the earliest rulers of the penal colony taking great pains (and it must have taken great pains) to teach one Aboriginal man the English language, so that (they thought) he would be able to act as an interpreter for them with the native population in general - a time-honoured imperial/colonial practice going back at least to Cortes in Mexico. It was therefore a great disappointment that, when the British ventured just a few days' journey inland, their "interpreter" was incapable of making himself understood by the locals; the language of the immediate coast and that of areas just a little inland were mutually unintelligible.

In any event, slavery was, by the time of the penal colonies' establishment, going out of fashion in Britain and was, in fact, under increasing political attack that led, first, to the near-elimination of the Atlantic slave trade (the Royal Navy made it very difficult for other European states to avail of the "advantages" of importation of slaves into their colonies where Britain could no longer do so by law) and later to the abolition of slavery altogether in Britain and its dominions. For one reason or another, good and bad, the introduction of slavery of any form into Australia was never an issue. This is not to say that, in the early days, the white interlopers treated Aborigines well (although, in the early decades, they seem to have regarded the natives as being as much of a threat to them as they were to the natives). Nor does it imply that their particular needs are always well addressed even now, in spite of the great efforts made by the Australian authorities in this direction in recent decades. But enslavement ? No. Not at any time. Best regards, JR.

Samoax
05-06-2014, 11:12 AM
glad it's only for two days, my Father is kinda old fashion and calls Africans for ''Negere'' (Niggers in Norwegian) as actually most of our Northern populatons do but he isn't racist and don't mean anything by it and clearly neither did Herman as he didn't even refer to aborigines as Pygmies, this seems to me to just have been a slight missunderstanding of wish has gathered mass after evry comment.

tankgeezer
05-06-2014, 12:39 PM
glad it's only for two days, my Father is kinda old fashion and calls Africans for ''Negere'' (Niggers in Norwegian) as actually most of our Northern populatons do but he isn't racist and don't mean anything by it and clearly neither did Herman as he didn't even refer to aborigines as Pygmies, this seems to me to just have been a slight missunderstanding of wish has gathered mass after evry comment.
Despite misunderstandings of any sort, it is a matter for Staff to assess, and resolve all issues that may arise. This Site is one of the best around because we deal with problems before they become trouble. We are not the "Off with their Heads" sort, but we are charged with keeping the Site protected, and free from trouble of all kinds. After you have been here for several years you will see how things work.

Samoax
05-06-2014, 01:13 PM
and hopefully i will;) when did this site open?

Kilroy
05-06-2014, 01:36 PM
Geez if the south won the war a lot of things would have happened. For all we know none of us would be here that's for sure. With the time paradox and such. I believe that the world it's self would be a lot darker then it should be. Many wars would have been avoided yet knew ones would take their places. All I can say is that I am quite glad that the South didn't win the civil war. Just saying... sorry if at all if I offended anyone.

tankgeezer
05-06-2014, 01:39 PM
and hopefully i will;) when did this site open?
I don't know which year the Site first came online, but someone here should, I've been on since 2007.

Kilroy
05-06-2014, 01:42 PM
I don't know which year the Site first came online, but someone here should, I've been on since 2007.


If you don't mind me interacting in this conversation but I think I have seen some members from 2005 and 2006?

Samoax
05-07-2014, 07:51 AM
ahaa, if this site is about to get 10 years old it would be nice to know the exact date to celebrate the 10th anniversary or something:)

navyson
05-07-2014, 08:11 AM
If you don't mind me interacting in this conversation but I think I have seen some members from 2005 and 2006?

The 2005 archives have threads dated 2/05, the site had to have started a little before that.

tankgeezer
05-07-2014, 09:09 AM
ahaa, if this site is about to get 10 years old it would be nice to know the exact date to celebrate the 10th anniversary or something:)
I will bring that idea up to the owner for consideration, he may post something about it.

Rising Sun*
05-07-2014, 09:25 AM
As regards slavery, the fullest form of slavery - chattel slavery, in which one human being literally owns another - is, as far as I know, completely absent from Australian history.

Legally, yes. Practically, no.

Aborigines on their traditional lands often became effective slaves of white settler employers, and were not given the same wages and conditions as their white co-workers doing the same work. e.g. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/unfinished-business-of-wages-at-wave-hill/2007/12/14/1197568264693.html


Perhaps the earliest British administrators on the continent might not have been averse to enslaving a suitable local population, had circumstances prompted them in this direction in the earliest days of settlement.

No, it was the opposite. The Colonial Office was at pains to ensure that aborigines were treated properly, and reasonable attempts were generally made by local governors to implement this.


Colonial Office policy required that every effort be made to live peacefully with and respect local Aborigines. Governor Phillip and later Governors were directed to ‘educate and Christianize the Aborigines, to protect their persons and the enjoyment of their possessions, to prevent and restrain violence and injustices towards them, and to punish any of our subjects who harmed them’. Thus the Aborigines were to be protected by the punishment of white offenders ‘according to the degree of the offence’.[26] Similarly, Governor King, in his Port Regulations of 1800, warned that ‘If any of the natives are killed, or violence offered to their women, the offenders will be tried for their lives’.[27] However, official ambivalence soon emerged; it is recorded that during Governor King’s time, ‘(military) officers kept the crowd back to give native duellists room to spear each other, according to native custom, in the streets of Sydney, and then led troops out against the natives for spearing whites’.[28] In his Port Regulations and Orders of 1810, Governor Macquarie stated:

The natives of this territory are to be treated in every respect as Europeans; and any injury or violence done or offered to the men or women natives will be punished according to law in-the same manner and in equal degree as if done to any of his Majesty’s subjects or foreigners residing there. http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/4.%20Aboriginal%20Customary%20Laws%20and%20Anglo-Australian%20Law%20After%201788/australian-law-applied

It's worth reading the full Australian Law Reform Commission article at that link to gain an understanding of the ambivalence and complexities in legal and practical treatment of aborigines in the early decades of British settlement in (or invasion of, depending upon one's perspective) Australia.

Things may not have advanced that much in the succeeding couple of centuries. In practice, but not in law, it is even now not unknown for magistrates and even judges in higher courts in the north and west of Australia where there are large semi-traditional aboriginal populations to temper their sentences by allowing for traditional extra-judicial punishments which will be inflicted upon offenders.

herman2
05-07-2014, 06:13 PM
glad it's only for two days, my Father is kinda old fashion and calls Africans for ''Negere'' (Niggers in Norwegian) as actually most of our Northern populatons do but he isn't racist and don't mean anything by it and clearly neither did Herman as he didn't even refer to aborigines as Pygmies, this seems to me to just have been a slight missunderstanding of wish has gathered mass after evry comment.

First of all, I am glad someone I have never met before AGREES that I DID NOT REFER nor mention anything what I am being accused of. This member has only posted 18 posts and yet he CLEARLY states i was framed. Also, I believe my friend Nayson also stated he didn't understand why I was framed. RS please lets put this in the past. For what ever reason, based on your background and culture I apparently hit a sensitive bone. I swear I did not mean any disrespect. RS has the right to exercise his power to ban me and I wish I could appeal but I wont go that far. But I appreciate that it was only for 48 hrs..BUT BUT it was not.RS you lied to me, because I logged on at the specific time you said my ban would be lifted and it was not lifted. You put me in a cage and you promised me it would be lifted at what I recall to be 7 am, and it was not. I logged on at 7:01 am, 7.02. 7.03 etc up until 7:15 and It was not lifted. Were we talking Australian time or NORMAL time. I was a bit disappointed to say nonetheless. Also, in future RS if I should ever piss you off, and given the fact that you usually dominate the scene, could you at least give me a private message or perhaps have a Mod like tankgeezer ban me, because he looks tough and I would respect it more lol..ok dont get upset....I thought it was funny...back to seriousness..the members have spoken,,,,Not one person agreed with your ban on me. Even the Supermod casually redirected Naysons enquiry to our Pygmyay discussion and a new member even questioned why your doing this.....I know your prone to copy and re[ost in RED statements I have listed here but I ahave the right to get it off my chest because you locked me up in a box for MORE than 48 hrs and I was upset..but I feel better now so please lets get on with more professional productive posts. Amen..Thankx RS for your understanding....P.S. you YOURSELF were also Banned once upon a time before you became Mod, so pls understand..thx RS

herman2
05-07-2014, 07:26 PM
Despite misunderstandings of any sort, it is a matter for Staff to assess, and resolve all issues that may arise. This Site is one of the best around because we deal with problems before they become trouble. We are not the "Off with their Heads" sort, but we are charged with keeping the Site protected, and free from trouble of all kinds. After you have been here for several years you will see how things work.

I agree,,Misunderstandings is what its about..Thank You for phrasing it like that as I agree. I also am content on keeping my head...

herman2
05-07-2014, 07:55 PM
Geez if the south won the war a lot of things would have happened. For all we know none of us would be here that's for sure. With the time paradox and such. I believe that the world it's self would be a lot darker then it should be. Many wars would have been avoided yet knew ones would take their places. All I can say is that I am quite glad that the South didn't win the civil war. Just saying... sorry if at all if I offended anyone.

It would have been better if the war didn't begin/start in the first place but we can't change that. I wonder if European trade would continue past the 1900 when Slavery became a thing of the past. I am glad too that the South did not win, but I equally disappointed that the leaders of the time could not have prevented it in the first place. I agree with ya Kilroy, ya just never know what todays world would be like if the opposition won...

JR*
05-08-2014, 04:24 AM
Rising Sun - thanks for the helpful observations and corrections. I would dissent slightly on one point - I would not equate giving a section of the population lower pay and poorer conditions of work with "slavery" in any of its manifestations. I recall a large group of people who - at least until relatively recently - were routinely awarded lower pay and poorer working conditions than another, notably in "advanced" countries such as ours. This group is called "Women" ...

You may have a comment on one matter. I am a little out of touch on this, but I sometimes have the impression that many of the legislative initiatives taken by Australian governments in recent years are high on worthy aspiration, but sometimes fall rather short in terms of altering the situation of Aboriginal communities for the better. I came across this in the context of copyright law. Australian law, as I understand it, provides a background of legislative support for communal rights in creative fixations emerging from a particular culture - what used to be called "folkloric rights" or somesuch. However, when cases have come to the courts, the tendency has been to decide them on the basis of the rather more concrete principles of conventional copyright law - which supplies strong protection for the individual, personal rights of the creator. Not sure whether this tendency extends to other relevant areas such as land rights and rights in natural resources. Any thoughts ? Best regards, JR.

tankgeezer
05-08-2014, 10:34 AM
First of all, I am glad someone I have never met before AGREES that I DID NOT REFER nor mention anything what I am being accused of. This member has only posted 18 posts and yet he CLEARLY states i was framed. Also, I believe my friend Nayson also stated he didn't understand why I was framed. RS please lets put this in the past. For what ever reason, based on your background and culture I apparently hit a sensitive bone. I swear I did not mean any disrespect. RS has the right to exercise his power to ban me and I wish I could appeal but I wont go that far. But I appreciate that it was only for 48 hrs..BUT BUT it was not.RS you lied to me, because I logged on at the specific time you said my ban would be lifted and it was not lifted. You put me in a cage and you promised me it would be lifted at what I recall to be 7 am, and it was not. I logged on at 7:01 am, 7.02. 7.03 etc up until 7:15 and It was not lifted. Were we talking Australian time or NORMAL time. I was a bit disappointed to say nonetheless. Also, in future RS if I should ever piss you off, and given the fact that you usually dominate the scene, could you at least give me a private message or perhaps have a Mod like tankgeezer ban me, because he looks tough and I would respect it more lol..ok dont get upset....I thought it was funny...back to seriousness..the members have spoken,,,,Not one person agreed with your ban on me. Even the Supermod casually redirected Naysons enquiry to our Pygmyay discussion and a new member even questioned why your doing this.....I know your prone to copy and re[ost in RED statements I have listed here but I ahave the right to get it off my chest because you locked me up in a box for MORE than 48 hrs and I was upset..but I feel better now so please lets get on with more professional productive posts. Amen..Thankx RS for your understanding....P.S. you YOURSELF were also Banned once upon a time before you became Mod, so pls understand..thx RS

Time to come down from the Cross Herman, you caught a short vacation according to due process. Man up, take your lumps, and learn from the experience. Everyone screws up, the true measure of the person is in how they choose to remedy that screw up. Continued insinuations of persecution in your posts on a matter now settled could be construed as both spamming, and trolling. Its over, enough already. May we now return to the Topic of this thread ?

JR*
05-09-2014, 10:15 AM
Yes, to get back to the original topic - there is a certain unreality about the idea of the South winning the Civil War. While many enthusiasts for "Southern rights" would have had difficulty in seeing this, the advantages enjoyed by the North in terms of sheer numbers, and in terms of the emphasis of their industry in developing in the "heavy" direction rather than the agricultural, gave the latter a huge advantage from the start. The North's problem was in converting this advantage into military success - a problem to a very large extent resulting from political considerations and incompetence in the Northern military establishment.

The South's hope of victory lay largely on political considerations. Could they make a brave enough show to convince European powers believed to be dependent on supply from the South's "King Cotton" to intervene and impose a settlement of some sort ? In fact, this hope was undermined early on, as the European powers discovered or developed new sources of cotton, such as India (a well-established source), Egypt, and other areas of their far-flung empires. This left the South's diplomatic strategy fatally weakened. At least one major European power - France - still considered itself to have some interest in ensuring, at least, that the Confederacy did not collapse. However, the crucial maritime and cotton power - Great Britain - with greater potential and actual cotton resources in its dominions - quickly lost interest. This left the Confederacy depending on an unlikely critical military victory over the North. To be fair, their Generals and soldiers did their best against often-blundering Northern opposition, but weight of numbers and production (and the combination of Lincoln and Grant) told against them in the end.

If, in the long shot, they had won - what then ? The Civil War was, and also was not, a "war against slavery". This was not a war about the Rights of Man. If a referendum had been taken in 1861 on whether slavery should simply be abolished, the result would almost certainly have been heavily negative, both North and South. The governing class in the South regarded the "peculiar institution" of slavery as indispensable for the survival of their essential agrarian, plantation-based economy. Even Virginia, with its somewhat more varied economic base, had an interest in this, insofar as the sale of Virginian slaves "south" was a valuable business. As regards the North, both rural agricultural workers and urban commercial and industrial workers feared the prospect both of the abolition of slavery and that of its extension into the North, as they anticipated that this would result in their wage rates being undermined by northerly-migrant slave owners or freed slaves.

Whatever way one looks at it, the scenario here was for a war to the death, without realistic hope of compromise. A Southern "victory" would have left the core issue of the "peculiar institution" unsolved. A North defeated by some brilliant military stroke (of which Robert E. Lee, at least, might have been capable of delivering) would still have been, fundamentally, the stronger combatant. It seems very improbable that it would have tolerated any settlement that extended the "peculiar institution" north of the Mason-Dixon Line, at least as far as established States and Territories were concerned. It might, under constraint, have agreed to allow slavery to extend westward as new territories were established - but only below the Mason-Dixon line. Fine - but this would seem to have been no more than a recipe for another civil war, as the fundamental issue of the territorial scope of slavery would not have been settled, and because particular difficulties would have arisen as new slave territories abutted on the already settled west coast - a "non-slave" zone.

The Civil War was, in many respects, a result of the compromise between Federalists and Jeffersonians that allowed them to adopt a "federal" Constitution in the early 19th century. It was a complex compromise between the requirements of federation and the established tradition of States' rights. This compromise was a wonderful product, at least intellectually, of the European Enlightenment of the late 18th century. However, it left many matters "hanging in the air", and the compromise between States' rights and federation appears, to many Europeans, unsatisfactory to this day. Poisoned by the essentially economic issue of slavery, this unsatisfactory compromise produced a civil war. The least that can be said for that awful war is that it removed the issue of the "peculiar institution" from the American political agenda, allowing the country as a whole to proceed with its political, economic and social development on a reasonably practical basis. A fortituous Southern "victory" could not have achieved this, and may have been no more than a recipe for further civil war. Just some thoughts, JR.

Rising Sun*
05-09-2014, 11:16 AM
Rising Sun - thanks for the helpful observations and corrections. I would dissent slightly on one point - I would not equate giving a section of the population lower pay and poorer conditions of work with "slavery" in any of its manifestations.

You may be referring to the later 1960s stages of rural workers in my earlier links.

I failed to clarify that I had in mind the longstanding practice of pastoralists occupying aboriginal lands and then 'employing' local aborigines on their traditional lands for payments of tea, flour, salt and sugar. The 'company store' approach was present, as it has been in some places nowadays in a different form with store owners racking up debts against aborigines' welfare payments, which ensures that the worker / welfare recipient is always in debt to the employer or store owner.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/apy-book-up-still-being-used-despite-ban-bid/story-fn9hm1pm-1226264140129#
https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/publications/indigenous-dealing-with-book-up

An unintended consequence of the flour/sugar ration system was that flour and sugar contributed to significantly increased obesity and diabetes in aboriginal communities, with adverse health consequences.

However, as with almost everything to do with aborigines since European settlement / invasion, it's not that simple. In many cases the aborigine working for the pastoralists had one or more family members living in a camp on the pastoralist's land, so the rations were supplied for the larger family group. In turn, some or all of the family group could be working for the pastoralist in other capacities, such as household staff, but given no more rations. But perhaps it suited them to be doled out rations rather than live their traditional lives, assuming they could have lived their traditional lives after the pastoralists arrived.


I recall a large group of people who - at least until relatively recently - were routinely awarded lower pay and poorer working conditions than another, notably in "advanced" countries such as ours. This group is called "Women" ...

True, but when I started work in the mid-1960s single adult men were paid a lower rate for the same work as married men, because the wage scale favoured married men and assumed that women didn't work.

I recall the asperse comments made by adults in my childhood about men whose wives worked, along the lines that the man was deficient because he couldn't support his wife.

At that time I think it was the law, or certainly the practice, here that when a woman married she lost her job.

I also recall the bitter battle fought by a woman to be an airline pilot here, opposed by the wealthy airline owner, and other battles such as women wanting to be tram drivers.


You may have a comment on one matter. I am a little out of touch on this, but I sometimes have the impression that many of the legislative initiatives taken by Australian governments in recent years are high on worthy aspiration, but sometimes fall rather short in terms of altering the situation of Aboriginal communities for the better. I came across this in the context of copyright law. Australian law, as I understand it, provides a background of legislative support for communal rights in creative fixations emerging from a particular culture - what used to be called "folkloric rights" or somesuch. However, when cases have come to the courts, the tendency has been to decide them on the basis of the rather more concrete principles of conventional copyright law - which supplies strong protection for the individual, personal rights of the creator. Not sure whether this tendency extends to other relevant areas such as land rights and rights in natural resources. Any thoughts ? Best regards, JR.

I have no knowledge of the copyright issues you mention (nor copyright law in any detail as it's a specialist area here) but you are certainly correct in your "impression that many of the legislative initiatives taken by Australian governments in recent years are high on worthy aspiration, but sometimes fall rather short in terms of altering the situation of Aboriginal communities for the better."

The reasons for these failures are probably many, but if anyone knew what they were, and given the vast sums of time, money and goodwill effort thrown at the problem, those failures would have been corrected by now.

The first issue, often not understood even down here, is that there is no such thing a single and uniform solution to whatever the 'problem' is. Aborigines come from all sorts of backgrounds in various parts of the country where their aspirations and abilities differ, so it's not a 'one size fits all' solution.

The fairly traditional (i.e. 40,000 or so years of accumulated tradition) aborigines in some parts of the country, not all of whom speak adequate English in an English speaking country, are in a very different position to those who for some generations have lived in rural or urban situations. And the experience of, say, rural aborigines living in a town where they are looked down on or shunned is very different to those living in a major city where they are relatively anonymous but may still be looked down on or shunned. And then there are the commercially successful aborigines in various communities, whose commercial success outstrips that of whites in their communities.

Talking of aborigines as a single group with common views etc is as meaningless as talking of the Irish on the same basis.

Rising Sun*
05-10-2014, 07:36 AM
Rising Sun - thanks for the helpful observations and corrections. I would dissent slightly on one point - I would not equate giving a section of the population lower pay and poorer conditions of work with "slavery" in any of its manifestations.

I intended to include these links in my last post on slavery / wages for aborigines but, as dementia sets in with its early stage of short term memory loss for the ancient, I forgot.

Here is the version of one of our, and possibly the worst offending, state governments. Usual spin, bullshit and penny pinching.
https://www.qld.gov.au/atsi/cultural-awareness-heritage-arts/history-indigenous-wages/

Here is one version of those affected.
http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/economy/repaying-stolen-wages

Here is a more detailed calculation of the exploitation of and losses suffered by aboriginal workers.
http://www.reconciliation.qut.edu.au/issues/recweek/StolenWagesFactSheet.pdf

herman2
05-10-2014, 09:54 AM
Look you guys. In case you haven't noticed, I started this Thread many moons ago and it is not about the wages of Aboriginals. Can we PLEASE stay on topic. The thread is called:"What if the South Won the Civil War". Create your own thread if need be, but honestly, do I go into threads about Japanese aircraft and talk about the Civil War?. No because it would not be the appropriate thread. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Rising Sun*
05-10-2014, 11:39 AM
Look you guys. In case you haven't noticed, I started this Thread many moons ago and it is not about the wages of Aboriginals. Can we PLEASE stay on topic. The thread is called:"What if the South Won the Civil War". Create your own thread if need be, but honestly, do I go into threads about Japanese aircraft and talk about the Civil War?. No because it would not be the appropriate thread. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Then you shouldn't have started sending this thread off what is now your preferred topic at #59 where you said


First of all I don't understand why they would be taking slaves to Australia? There is no cotton growing there. Secondly the island has pigmies so if they needed slaves then why not just enslave the pigmies that were already living in Australia.

You have a remarkable inability to recognise and accept the consequences of your own actions, as is common with young children.

Grow up.

herman2
05-13-2014, 06:08 PM
Then you shouldn't have started sending this thread off what is now your preferred topic at #59 where you said



You have a remarkable inability to recognise and accept the consequences of your own actions, as is common with young children.

Grow up.

I am sorry your Highness, your Lordship, Your Modship, but I thought, I assumed, I had read that this issue of Pigmies was over yet your copying and posting last weeks comments again, because you either like to discourage members from getting over it and MOVING on as i said like 2 days ago, but no You have nothing better to do but post this reply again like you will again after you read this because you either have too much time on your hands or there is so few members that it appeases you to dribble on this subject. I have read the comments from the other Mods which I respect and I have no qualm about moving on.I have gotten over it but you still want to continue?.Hello? ALL I am saying is that CAN we please as members PLEASE continue our fine conversations and relate it to to the thread that it is listed under. This THREAD is about the |Civil War. I understand there was a disruption on the content and quality of this thread but I would like to have the Thread balanced for its intent, which is Civil War, which is dear to my heart. I have had 2-3 friendship requests since I re-entered the scene last week and I don''t assume its because I am not with out compassion. Nonetheless I don't feel comfortable about contributing, or complimenting or speaking on this forum if after 3-4 days the Mod is still calling me a Young child. Even if I were to complain that youe needling me or whatever it would serve no purpose because birds of a feather Flock together. It makes other members who read your responses wonder if they should comment. I have said it once and I have said it a million times. The value and appreciation of members comments is what makes this forum GREAT. If we cant speak freely, than this is Communism (No offense to loyal and respectable Chevan:) Please Rs can we just get along. I have had you in my mind lately and if you go to my profile I have begged you to be my friend for past 4 years and I have not changed that . I just wish RS would be my friend. (Pls don't reply with Red, I just want to get along and p.s. you spell recognize wrong in your prior response because there is a red squiggly line under the word(unless of course that's how you spell it Down Under:):):)By the way I am writing this at Real time 7"42 p.m. Where are you? Your always napping when I log on??

Rising Sun*
05-14-2014, 05:20 AM
ALL I am saying is that CAN we please as members PLEASE continue our fine conversations and relate it to to the thread that it is listed under. This THREAD is about the |Civil War. I understand there was a disruption on the content and quality of this thread but I would like to have the Thread balanced for its intent, which is Civil War, which is dear to my heart.

Then post something on topic.

Nickdfresh
05-14-2014, 05:54 AM
I am sorry your Highness, your Lordship, Your Modship, but I thought, I assumed, I had read that this issue of Pigmies was over yet your copying and posting last weeks comments again, because you either like to discourage members from getting over it and MOVING on as i said like 2 days ago, but no You have nothing better to do but post this reply again like you will again after you read this because you either have too much time on your hands or there is so few members that it appeases you to dribble on this subject. I have read the comments from the other Mods which I respect and I have no qualm about moving on.I have gotten over it but you still want to continue?.Hello? ALL I am saying is that CAN we please as members PLEASE continue our fine conversations and relate it to to the thread that it is listed under. This THREAD is about the |Civil War. I understand there was a disruption on the content and quality of this thread but I would like to have the Thread balanced for its intent, which is Civil War, which is dear to my heart. I have had 2-3 friendship requests since I re-entered the scene last week and I don''t assume its because I am not with out compassion. Nonetheless I don't feel comfortable about contributing, or complimenting or speaking on this forum if after 3-4 days the Mod is still calling me a Young child. Even if I were to complain that youe needling me or whatever it would serve no purpose because birds of a feather Flock together. It makes other members who read your responses wonder if they should comment. I have said it once and I have said it a million times. The value and appreciation of members comments is what makes this forum GREAT. If we cant speak freely, than this is Communism (No offense to loyal and respectable Chevan:) Please Rs can we just get along. I have had you in my mind lately and if you go to my profile I have begged you to be my friend for past 4 years and I have not changed that . I just wish RS would be my friend. (Pls don't reply with Red, I just want to get along and p.s. you spell recognize wrong in your prior response because there is a red squiggly line under the word(unless of course that's how you spell it Down Under:):):)By the way I am writing this at Real time 7"42 p.m. Where are you? Your always napping when I log on??

Herman, I'm going to step in here and give you a two week break. You clearly cannot "let it go" and really need to stop obsessing and worrying about things that have nothing to do with you. If you want a better WWII site, then open one FFS!!

Samoax
05-16-2014, 03:10 PM
damn, worst homecoming party ever

Kilroy
05-19-2014, 09:31 AM
Wow I am quite surprised actually I though that he would have let this situation go but I guess not. Than again it is a lot easier said than done. I know that for myself personal but we got to do it right? (letting things go and all). So yes hopefully when he rejoins use we will be able to let it ago. I really do hope this isn't offending anyone. I just feel like my opinion would bring some kind of peace to this thread. (If not already)

JR*
05-21-2014, 10:34 AM
A bit like those diehard Confederates who retreated into Mexico rather surrender at the end of the Civil War, I suppose - banned but Undefeated ...

Yours from Vera Cruz,

JR.

herman2
05-29-2014, 04:35 AM
A bit like those diehard Confederates who retreated into Mexico rather surrender at the end of the Civil War, I suppose - banned but Undefeated ...

Yours from Vera Cruz,

JR.
Not banned..just temporarily on forced vacation..the South Lives On!!!Long Live Dixie!!

Kregs
06-29-2014, 08:57 PM
First of all, I am so overjoyed that I have found this forum on the American Civil War. I am currently reading about the early years of the conflict and have found the times quite fascinating. I wish I could say that I had relatives in the conflict, although I often like to identity myself with the young boys from the Carolinas, who fought bravely in the war because I settled there twenty-five years ago. North Carolina screams its patrotism, and sometimes I, as a native Pole, feel obligated to support that state's contribution to the Civil War.




The use of free labor to sustain an elitist lifestyle for a very small segments of the plantation owning upper-classes that was exploitive not only to their black slaves gladly donating their free labors, their lives, and the lives of their children--but also to the multitude of poor white farmers suckered into fighting for their homes--so others could live lives of leisure? Correct me if that isn't economic...

From what I've tentatively gathered, Southerners wanted a war in order to defend the integrity and honor of their home States. General Robert E. Lee stated as such in his speeches and deeds, and I can reasonably believe that Lee wanted not only to defend Virginia but an agrarian economic system that engulfed the South and consumed the energies and lives of its inhabitants. Southerners often stress the differences that separate them from Northerners, even if those differences involve economic exploitation and serfdom, which, I believe adequately describes sharecropping as it existed in the South.



The entire issue of slavery was political and the War would never have been fought if their had been no slavery, which violates the U.S. Constitution BTW.

In all due respect, Nicolas, we are in more agreement here than what might be supposed. But I must take issue with this quotation above. The Civil war was not only about the issue of slavery (a compromise between the members present at the inception of the country might be closer to the truth). The issues separating the North from the South were political and economic in origin. First of all, the South believed that the constitution was a federal contract with each state, and each state that composed the union had little obligations to the federal government, which the Confederate government believed could not extend beyond the bounds of national defense, taxation and census taking. The federal government contract existed because of the good graces of the states, which could uphold and defend the contract if it chose. Also, the South believed that tariff issue violated the federal government's duties delineated in the constitution. If the North could not find a compromise solution to the tariff issue, then South must find another way to trade with the outside world.