Was the confederacy of the U.S. worse than the Nazis?

Instead of citing a bunch of incorrect BS about the Confederacy - read a history book about the Political and social events leading up to the Civil War.

 

Bull ****ing ****.

No slavery was not "dying out." I get so sick of that Lost Cause pablum.

The whole POINT of the Confederacy was to preserve, protect and EXPAND slavery.

The slavocracy said it sixteen ways till Sunday - part of their whole plan was to expand slavery to not only the western territories, hell, all the way into Central America, Cuba, Mexico and beyond - "for the planting and spreading of slavery."

Some CSA leaders, like Confederate Senator Brown happily pronounced: "I would spread the blessings of slavery, like the religion of our Divine Master, to the uttermost ends of the earth."

 

Here's a realistic way to view the question --

Aftermath of the Nazi Reich as it affected Jewish Europeans: at least 6 million were killed. Many more were dispossessed, badly mistreated, and had everything they owned stolen from them.

Aftermath of the end of slavery in the Confederate States of America: Approximately 4 million Blacks were freed to live their lives in a country that was far more advanced and wealthy than any of the Stone-Age societies the former slaves had come from in Black Africa.

This reality does not condone anything that either Nazis or slave-owners did, but rather, it's just a bottom-line look at results....

 

Here's a sobering statistic regarding the Southern slavocracy:

Nearly one half of the population of the Confederacy were either slaves or slaveowners.

Really hits ya on the bonkers, don't it, Lost Causers?

 

Even if that was their goal, that doesnt mean they were succeeding at it. Can you find me one group outside the confederacy that adopted slavery or resisted its abolition because of the confederacy?

Slavery had run its course in the civilized world. The confederacy died in part because of its refusal to recognize that.

 

Every time I see that crazy line like "Slavery was dying out" or it would have been abolished on its own...

I like to inquire...

When someone can give me a good answer to what would have been done with these folks...in the second column,below, (a population growing by leaps and bounds) then I'll believe slavery might have had a chance to 'die out.'

State ---Free Population ---Slave Population (1860)
Mississippi --------354,674 ---- 436,631
South Carolina-- 301,302 --- 402,406
Georgia --------- 505,088 ---- 462,198
Alabama -----519,121 ---- 435,080
Louisiana ------376,276 ---- 331,726
Texas --------- 421,649 ---- 182,566
Arkansas ------324,335--- 111,115
North Carolina -661,563 --331,099
Tennessee--- 834,082--- 275,719
Florida ------- 78,679 ---- 61,745
Kentucky -----930,201 --- 225,483
Virginia -----1,105,453 ---490,865

To date, not one has even tried to answer that question in the many thousands of conversations I have taken part in over the decades re: Civil war.
No one can. Usually the thread dies off after that.

 

Robert Toombs crystal ball:

"In 1790 we had less than 800,000 slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system, they have increased above 4 million. The country has expanded to meet this growing want; and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to 11 million persons. What shall be done with them?

We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slave trade are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free states, and, like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death. One thing at least is certain, that whatever may be the effect of your exclusion from the territories, there is no dispute but that the North mean it, and adopt it as a measure hostile to slavery upon this point."

- Robert Toombs, December 7, 1860

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=UNTBhxsbVDgC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8
former President John Tyler:

"[Virginia] will never consent to have her blacks cribbed and confined within proscribed and specified limits - and thus be involved in the consequences of a war of the races in some 20 or 30 years. She must have expansion, and if she cannot obtain for herself and sisters that expansion in the Union, she may sooner or later look to Mexico, the West India Islands, and Central America as the ultimate reservations of the African race."

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=Zu6_JDAR0_sC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257

 

Was the United States in 1850 worse than the Nazis?

 

What would have happened is the same thing that already had been happening. The states, one by one, were rejecting it on their own by popular demand. I imagine the numbers grew in the states that had yet to catch up because the slaveowners from states where it was dying were selling to fund their transition to more profitable industry. But the trend was temporary, because the greater trend was for states to abandon it altogether.

What would have been done with them? Lincoln wanted to subsidize their 'voluntary' relocation to back to Africa or to their own colonies outside the continental US. But he was never able to find enough support... I imagine that the civil rights movement would have proceeded similarly, transitioning through segregation and 'jim crow' type stuff, just as it did, though perhaps somewhat delayed in certain states that held on longer than the rest. The blacks did quite well for themselves in segregation. Perhaps if it werent for the animosity projected onto them by the southerners who were pissed about reconstruction, the LBJs of post reconstruction wouldn't have seen fit to target the thriving segregated communities with drugs, entitlements and weaponized thug culture to 'bring them to heel.'

 

Pretty dumb question.

The CSA had claimed New Mexico territory as its own, and were making some minor inroads, but, maybe you were unaware, the CSA was a little busy getting its ass whipped by the Union Army.

You can't take the event of the Southern rebels to formally go to war and imagine it all happened in a vacuum of those 4 years. For generations the southern slavocracy was expanding -- to the point they thought a measly available fighting force of a little over a million free white men could take on the Union army.

They lost, and lost badly. And some still want to imagine their cause was noble, and refuse to accept the loss.

 

In other words you DONT HAVE any references for your foolishly oversimplified views of sporadic CSA atrocities.

Ok thanks. That's what I thought.

Bye.

 

... another one for the iggy list.

I wish high school teachers would teach their kids how to write, including the researching part.

Research is sooooooo easy these days with the Internet.

Before the Internet (pre-1995) you actually had to go to a library to research.

Now Google is your best friend.

 

So, thats a no, then. You cant actually show me an example of the confederacy successfully 'spreading' slavery.

Which was my original point- the confederacy was not spreading slavery.

 

WTF? We are talking about the CSA -- they weren't rejecting it, and it wasn't dying out.

The CSA wrote slavery into the "Shareholding Confederacy" -- in perpetuity.

It was THE POINT of the Confederacy -- the CORNERSTONE.

CSA Constitution - Article I Section 9(4): No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The CSA had a dream. A theory. A plan to expand slavery as far as they could, because they were in ****ing love with the notion nearly four in ten of their population being in bondage, and they wanted to breed more, and drown themselves in White Supremacy of all the darkies they owned as cattle, and their plan -- their destiny was to conquer more land and own the black race.

In perpetuity.

That doesn't answer the question.

Nearing half their population were slaves,and they Southerns weren't about to give them up. They fought a bloody war to the end to keep their slaves and slavocracy.
Lincoln offered compensated emancipation to the slaveowners in Kentucky. Even they refused it. A freaking border state. One with a much lesser degree of involvement of slavery than most of the CSA -- and nope. No chance. We're keeping our slaves.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South. And most all southerers knew it.

Nearly ALL their wealth was tied up in it - slavery ran the heart of the engine of the south. Blackhumanblood as property. To give some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was nearly 4 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. nearly four BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure, Think on that.

The South was not about to give that up. It was most certainly wasn't "dying out."

 

My family all the way back to my grandfather who supported Lincoln were for freedom.

BUT!!! all this slave half truth and outright lies is getting sickening because it is causing innocent people on both sides to be attacked and sometimes killed,so some lib can feel good about themselves. .
Let me educate you about real true history. First off the original slaves coming out of Africa were sold by their BLACK SLAVE MASTERS long before their was an America.
Another FACT is the black slave masters are still selling and using black slaves in Africa right now this second today.

And the same ones who abolished it here are the only ones collecting money to buy back their freedom from their black masters, buying back freedom are THE WHITE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE. You don't see any ULTRA RICH black athletes or movie stars going over there spending their money to help free these people, do you?
Now there is the real story. The truth.
You also dont know a thing about who ,what or why WW11 was even started and who 90% of the dying and who benefitted. Hitler was evil but so were those who backed him that now have museums and movies every month about the whole scenario. No museum or movie about all the Christians who died ,just those about the ones who backed the scumbag murderer. Still starting wars for us to fight today while they wipe out our nations all over the west today. Apathetic ignorant people don't deserve ant better I guess.

 

You cut off the part where I said what wouldv'e happened. Nothing would've had to 'been done' with them at all. They would've done it themselves, just like they did.

 

No, it's not a no. You make a strawman argument. Try reading it again. The South indeed had been spreading it for generations - and - they have to win the war first. Duh.
It misses the point of the whole freaking plan of the newly formed confederacy, one which you didn't even understand wanted to expand or that racism or White Supremacy was at the heart of it.

Stay stuck in your vacuum/

 

White Christians buying back slaves from Africans today.

 

It wouldn't "have happened." You seem to be living in la la land -- where the South didn't wage a war to the bloody end to keep their slaves. It wasn't "dying out" before that. Geeze.

You did not address my post either. Nice way to not address the extent and the value of their blackhumanblood property.

 

Some confederate defenders really think with the enormity of slave population in the south - approaching near half the population, accounting for 4 billion dollars (in 1860's dollars) - the single greatest wealth for property in the entire country - would just be surrendered, dissolved....relinquished by a half million slavers, and the entire southern economy which depended on slaves as its literal lifeblood in the space of some 20 years?

Ha!
If so, I've got some slave built bridges to sell you.

 

The white man is the only man on earth who not only owned slaves for less time than Spain, China, Asia ,and especially Africa [ who still enslaves their own people today] . But he is also the only race on earth who started the abolishment of it.

 

Another fake accusation. There were few private slave owners and common sense should tell anyone with a brain that most American were poor and couldn't afford a slave and they worked like slaves themselves to build this nation you victim pushing libs are tearing down.
Your agendas will not just hurt Americans but you too will suffer because you have no place to go when this all comes down on your own foolish heads. See if you can get the life in Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, China, or any of thee nation you have here. You have destroyed us but you never could have done so if we had paid attention to the warnings long ago. So we commited suicide.

 

In Germany it is literally against the law to openly praise or emulate Nazism. In the South, they still celebrate the legacy of degeneracy and slavery that defined the American South. You see it every time the confederate flag is flown, and the ignorance people still have about that shameful chapter of our history. There's no doubt that the persecution of Jews and the holocaust was much more destructive in a shorter period of time. It can be argued that the German people realized the horrific nature of Nazism and have taken serious the obligation to atone for their mistakes.

I'd say the legacy of confederate states is far more destructive. I'm sure there are southern children right now being taught by their racist, degenerate parents that the civil war was fought over states rights and not the ability to own human beings. The romanticism of southern military figures who fought for the right to own human beings is evidenced as recently as the debate to tear down confederate monuments. Even our current president, as ignorant and foolish as he is, sided with the legacy of slavery. You can make the argument that the ideology of nazism was far more destructive, yet the legacy of the confederacy still has defenders to this day. Just look in this thread for proof. Unsurprisingly, they're all trump supporters.

 

This is so false it is not even worth defending.

 

^ Whack.

Here's something for you: pretty much every other nation abolished slavery peacefully --

It's a pretty wretched indictment on the South they were one of the few places in the world that would start and fight to the bloody death one of the worst wars in history to preserve human bondage.