If I were to be asked which side of the civil war was the most racist in general I would say the south side. There are still a lot of racist assholes in the south just like there are some in the north. In general though, the southern states are more racist then the northern states.
I never said that someone did. I just stated that some people really didn't know much truth behind the whole war. Red if that is your opinion then you can believe that, but I live in the South and the newer generations are not as racists as the older. It is slowly weeding itself out except for the few ignorant asses who are racists still.
This a great topic because the history of the Civil War is often misunderstood You are absolutely correct that the war started as State's Rights vs. the Federal Government's Power. As the Civil War progressed, Lincoln made it about slavery so that France
This a great topic because the history of the Civil War is often misunderstood You are absolutely correct that the war started as State's Rights vs. the Federal Government's Power. As the Civil War progressed, Lincoln made it about slavery so that France and England would not join the confederacy. Both countries were ready to back the Confederacy, but they strongly opposed slavery, which kept them out of the war. By making the war based on slavery, Lincoln destroyed the Southern economy. When 80% of the economic production was done by slaves, the South couldn't afford to lose them. So slaves went from slave labor in the South, to helping the North fight in their regiments. For the OP, here is what you should think about. I understand that during the Civil War, Confederate soldiers were strongly loyal to the South. You should look at the ratio of Slave owners compared to the amount of Southerners that fought in the Civil War. Less than 20% of the Southern population owned Slaves (Upper Class) at the time. This was not much of an average farmer owned a slave situation. It was also extremely rare for any of these slave holders to actually fight in the Civil War. Basically what I'm saying, is that the Southern upper class had a strong hand in getting the lower and middle class to do their work for them by fighting in the Civil War. The sad part is that it wasn't much different in the North. The northerners had to pay a $300 few to avoid fighting in war. Northern businesses needed the cotton the south was producing. With the South forever separating from the North, the Northern upper class would have lost their wealth. ? Northerners did have Slave plantations, but there style of slavery was different. Instead of having slaves tied to one plantation like the South often did, slaves could bounce from area to area in search for work. If it makes any sense, the Northern slave system was still slavery, but with some choice and the better opportunity of buying their freedom. The Civil War is a great description of how most Wars are fought. There are two upper classes that are fighting for "their" best interest. The two upper classes don't actually fight, instead they get behind the middle and lower class with propaganda, pushing loyalty, along with other tactics to make them these classes do the fighting. The South is often seen as more racist due to the 1960s. It is not fair for anyone to be judged a racist based on where they live. Every person is different. People just get stuck on stereotypes.
RoRo I agree with you 100% Mikey. Like I said I'm no expert on this and I'm open to anybody's input. Lol What you've said, is true in every sense. I happened to not think of some of these very good points while writing this thread. It was mostly middle and lower class fighting the entire war while the upper pushed loyalty. Once the North started their blockade on the South it ruined the economy even more. President Lincoln did think it through very well trying to keep France and England away from the South. If them two got involved, it would have altered the course of history greatly.
It seems people have come to like this thread somewhat. I think I'll do more history discussion threads in the future. It's a chance for everyone to learn and share their knowledge.
SpitFire that is all a matter of opinion I agree only because I'm an American but other countries are great as well.
The only thing I disagree with about redsoxs post is the britian France thing. There are plenty of reasons the two nations didn't join. Also the facts that when the British and French were about to the north had the edge and victory was near. Also because they were worried about the exports the north was sending out also, and they didn't want to commit to fighting a large union navy that was very powerful. Also, both nations were still involved in a somewhat hostile European state of mind.
If the war was held, wouldn't people who fought on the south side be against the united states of america?