Good point, but if France got involved, I think the North would've lost, and then the United States would be more like little countries/territories with totally different laws. Like Europe. I don't think the British would've gotten involved, because they were offering slaves their freedom if they fought on their side during the Revolutionary War, prior.

*were

No it's like saying you're less fat. If you weighed nine hundred pounds and lost 20, you got less fat. You're still fat as hell, but you're less fat.

At no point did I say it was humane.

He is, compared to the man who beats his dog to death.

I said nothing of compassion. Where do you come up with this stuff?

You based an entire post of things I didn't say.

Haha, now that's fact. I guess I don't pay attention to it, which is awful...but spell check always corrects me on it even if I didn't know I made a mistake.

Absolutely and totally agreed. If you'll notice though, the argument was started by the poster saying that the slavery here was the most egregious of all slavery, as if it were some sort of "slavery-exceptionalism". Which, in turn, I responded that his assessment wasn't entirely correct.

I really think you underestimate the long standing issues between Britain and France, and how France helping the Confederacy could freak Britain out about Canada and France trying to take it back via Quebec (and also France helped us get free from Britain and become the US). It also goes the other way, lots of Quebec people are still not enthused about Britain taking over before the Revolutionary War, and they are French Canadian, not French Frenchian (thanks for the poutine!). I'll give you the Trent Affair incident, but once the Emancipation Proclamation was signed no European power would help the Confederacy because it was now a slavery issue, and Britain abolished slavery in 1833/34/38 (except a few places), with France and other European nations doing this before and after Britain did.

Granted we still had slavery after the Emancipation Proclamation, Native Americans were still slaves in places like California, and this shouldn't be surprising considering Native Americans weren't considered citizens until 1924 and still couldn't vote in some states after that. Makes the passport joke to leave the rez in Smoke Signals even funnier when one is aware of that. Furthermore some Native Americans owned slaves as well, and tribes and individuals served for both the Union and the Confederacy.

Yeah they hated each other. They were with war with each other more often then they were at peace. Like a friend of mine said, it was a fact of life back then. "The sky is blue, and we are at war with France."

No matter how you cut it, there is no way with numerous documentations and citation that US chattel slavery was 'more humane'. It's still a crime against humanity.

This is why some people still get pissed when symbols of the South are venerated because it is still a dark reminder to what could have been.

As some posters stated earlier ad nauseum, the Confederate flag is almost along the same lines as the Nazi swastika and in some ways even moreso.

Opponents of the Confederate flag see it as an overt symbol of racism

Others view the flag as a symbol of rebellion against the federal government of the United States

And what doesn't help is that hate groups in the US rally behind the flag.

It's funny when you think about it because the swastika was the same way as it is used as a religious Hindu symbol and was found in Pre Christian Europe. Thanks Germany.

...and where did I get "compassion" from? Well next time in your efforts to correct me, try looking up the definition of the word, "humane".

When you say that slavery was "more humane" you are saying that masters here showed "more compassion" for their 3/5th of a human they kept. I call it bullshit.

This!

One last point too...compared to the man who beat his dog to death, well:

1. When you are, in some instances, paying tax on a property, what does it benefit you to kill it and lose all that hard earned money that you spent getting that free labor/breeding program out of?

and on the other hand...

2. How many acounts are there of slave masters killing their slaves and no one batted an eye?

I completely ignored the OP and you didn't have to follow the white rabbit down the hole. ;)

Let's see, you beleive American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery and you also deny the exsistence of race...
I suppose that is consistent, since part of the travesty of American slavery is the fact that a 'Race' or at the very least an indigenous group of people with a definable, distinct and unique phenotype were targeted. Your failure to acknowledge this let's you minimize thier suffering with a clean conscience. Race-based slavery started with the Africans, and is partly why it lasted so long and thoroughly. The inability of African slaves to escape and mingle with the enslaving population made it easier for the slavemasters to create a permanent 'subservient population' that had effects that are still felt today. The most noticeble contrast is to the Native Americans, who proved almost unenslaveable, as there was no way to tell the runaway Indian slaves from the free indignious population. Obviously, the American government came up with another soultion to that problem.. :-(

No where else, and I ask you to prove me wrong.

And perhaps you will be more careful on whom you call fool.

CSA soldiers *not* terrorists.
 

As far as I've been able to tell, there was almost no difference in the rules of war that the Confederates fought under versus the ones that the Union fought under (and *those* were not that different than the ones in the European wars of the 1850's,'60s and '70s such as the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War).

As far as I can tell, a *higher* percentage of the Confederate generals were West Point graduates than the Union generals. Grant not only didn't take Lee into custody when Lee surrendered, he didn't even take Lee's sword when offered. General Grant afforded General Lee the highest respect at his surrender, I don't think there is any indication that Grant considered Lee anything close to a terrorist. (And was certainly willing to be seen with him after the war)

To pick some examples given earlier...

Grant: The major difference between Grant and Lee was that Grant was willing to use the fact that his troops outnumbered Lee's by a large enough ratio that he could lose a greater number of troops than Lee in battle and still be better off. If Grant had 9K troops and Lee 6K and during battle Grant lost 5K troops and Lee 4K, then Grant is in even better shape after the battle (now 4K to 2K) than he was before. The confederacy simply didn't have the troops. Prior Union Generals had been unwilling to make that decision.

Sherman: What Sherman did wasn't terrorism, it was rather "total war", During Sherman's march to the Sea, and especially during the trip North after he got to Savannah, people were *very* aware he was coming. If you personally got out of the way, you were fine. Your removable property, OTOH....

Mosby's Raiders. The confederates considered themselves partisans, and they *were* under the CSA command structure. The Union tended to refer to them as guerillas or at worst "thieves".

There was only *one* confederate official convicted of War Crimes and executed and *he* (Henry Wirz) wasn't even on the battlefield (commandant of the Andersonville POW camp). (Frankly, I think he was more overwhelmed and neglectful than anything else, but that's a separate issue).

Having said all this, I am *quite glad* the confederacy lost.

Naraht - Very good synopsis. It's always nice to read the thoughts another CW history Buff. Sherman's actions after Atlanta was as you described, but many Southerners would beg to differ as far as the Atlanta Siege is concerned. Ultimately though, he was looking to destroy property primarily. However, Atlanta civilians did die at his hand, and so , he is the target of many a Southern ire. I have heard him being referred to as a terrorist because of these actions.

LMAO @ comparing slavery.

da hell?

Wow. Taking this too seriously much? People can't disagree and discuss?

But if you want to be informed that you are in error . . .
The United Kingdom of Great Britain (England/Wales and Scotland) came into existence with the Acts of Union, effective May 1, 1707. They had, of course, shared a monarch (personal union) since the accession of James VI of Scotland as James I of England in 1603, but the Acts of Union created political union, with a single parliament, between the two kingdoms. England and Scotland (and Wales), nevertheless remain separate countries, despite being one state. The second Act of Union in 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which is now, of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

While Great Britain and the United Kingdom can be used interchangeably for that period of time (1707-1801), and while Great Britain (or just Britain or even England) was certainly the more commonly used term, my use of UK was deliberate. I was only talking about how SC's independence from the UK differed fundamentally, in my view, from SC secession from the United States, and whether special pleading was going on. It related directly and pretty much only to the fact that SC was a colony and not a constiuent entity of the UK.

As I see it, the special pleading would arise if we recognize the thirteen colonies' natural right to independence but refuse independence to, say, Puerto Rico, Guam or American Samoa. South Carolina as a state of the United States is, on the other hand, comparable to England or Scotland, whose parliaments entered into the Union, wishing to unilaterally withdraw from the United Kingdom. (Ireland, as you suggest, and Wales are perhaps a bit stickier historically.)

While you think that distinction is irrelevant from a human rights/self-determination point of view, I think it is relevant from a logic point of view. It could, I suppose, be framed a different way: Does a state relinquish some future right to self-determination when it exercises its right to self-determination by choosing to voluntarily enter into union with other states, as SC did by ratifying the Constitution? When it has done so, it has cast its lot with those other states and created some interdependence; must the rights of those other states also be taken into account if one state wishes to withdraw?

That's the extent of my point. Not that big a deal really, and certainly off topic.

Nicely put. I only want to add a little to what you so superbly explained.

Grant, Lee, Johnston, Sherman and others all served together in the Mexican/American War. They were all very familiar with each other and that is a huge factor in the way Lee and Johnston were treated when they surrendered. The Generals considered themselves "Brothers in Arms".

My understanding is that Sherman did not really want his troops to lay waste during the "March to the Sea". Instead some believe that he was a weak disciplinarian and would not stop what was being done.

Per Moseby's Raiders one must remember that the Cavalry during this time was designed to circle behind the armies and disrupt supply lines tear up communications and create holy hell. They lived off what they could steal and/or take. Both sides did it as evidenced also by Colonel Benjamin Griersons extended cavalry raid through Mississippi during the flanking of Vicksburg. These were search and destroy missions from both sides.

To a previous posters concern about France coming in on the side of the Confederates. The real concern was Great Britain helping the South. France was very weak at the time and did not pose too much of a threat. Too many wars of conquest and too many defeats. Witness the defeat of the French at the Battle of Puebla in Mexico while under Napolean the Thirds reign.

First, a clean conscience? I don't have any conscience about it. I didn't have any part in it. My English side who had been here forever...were Quaker and thus were abolitionists. My German side came after the war. I don't believe in "Collective conscience" anyways, but if I did it would be clear. If you're speaking to my "far more humane" bit and my conscience, I think the basis in fact makes it okay but what happened was nothing near humane.

Furthermore, I'm not denying the social construct of race. I am disagreeing about race as a physical construct.

Really? So race-based slavery with Africans started before the Jewish enslavement. Now, one can argue whether or not the Jews were/are a "race". I think that's debateable certainly. And race-based slavery occured well before Africans were thought of in Europe. There is nothing new under the sun.
No, I would argue that total government intervention in multiple areas created a "permanent subservient population".
Yes, except for the millions who were enslaved..or worse killed in South and Central America. Totally "unenslaveable". Really? Come on man.
At no point did I say it wasn't a crime against humanity.

I disagree. Had the Confederacy won, slavery would have still been abolished. That's assuming that the war was even fought over slavery which I'm not sure it was (Marx didn't think it did, among other of his contemporarys)

They're more than welcome to see it as that. Doesn't mean it's correct, but they can think that way.

That is not a bad thing.

I agree.

More compassion than the Spaniards in Latin America, the Russian tsars towards their peasants, and the Spartans to the helots, yeah.

The entirety of the point is this: Slavery is inhumane. People are cruel to each other. But to pretend that American slavery was much worse or much different than slavery elsewhere in the world is silly. There is no "slavery exceptionalism".

Shoot, I found out that some of my ancestors were slaves recently. They moved from Russia to Germany to escape years and years back. Interesting.