What is the one thing you'd change in history?

[Republic of Coldwater]

Of course, they would ideally import all cotton as there is more cotton, and the law of supply and demand means that the prices would be cheaper, which would benefit the British people. However, they could easily get by by importing Egyptian and Indian Cotton. They don't have to import southern cotton and still get by perfectly fine.

So best case scenario, the south is an irrelevant backwater, because they can be outsold by the Britain's own colonies. Great.

Given the previous actions of the British, which include using military force to stop the slave trade and deciding against helping the CSA once they were painted as slavers, they would be certainly willing to pressure a nation that would rely on their cash and would need to surmount strong relations to combat the US when they have nothing to lose.

Not very convincing, since there were still politicians and an upper class, along with the fact that it only patrolled international waters. Also, they might be too occupied with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa

Furthermore, they wouldn't feel very easy aiding or allying with a nation with slavery as they themselves are against slavery.

Doesn't mean they'd go deliberately out of their way to pick up where the north left off.

Furthermore, that Declaration was written by the upper 25% of the population, the plantationers, and there are even some plantationers who think that the institution was evil.

You keep bringing up slaveholders that thought it was evil, and ducking behind the fact that they're slaveholders by calling them "plantationers" (which is cowardly) but know this: it's all talk. They say it's evil, but they still take part in it, and you have no demographics on how many of these people actually exist and think the way they do.

They said that it won't end in the Declaration,

They still want it to continue forever. You read that part, right?

but it has no legal meaning and doesn't dictate any laws,

Doesn't really change anything.

and nor will it stop the CSA from ending slavery once the abolitionists rally up that 75%

Which will take 50 years or more.
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/s ... b1861.html

Abolitionists would concentrate their efforts on the CSA,

And yet you haven't proven that in the slightest.

10-15 years would be enough time for the CSA to realize that their economy is failing due to the lack of exports,

Any way you look at it, this would be the case, and abolishing slavery wouldn't help them. The British have a new source, and there's no point in threatening the CSA at all, when you're just going to leave them entirely anyway to have more money in your pocket.

and to see that there are many anti-slavery politicians and that a good portion of the 75% of non slaveholders are anti-slavery.

More assertions with no basis in reality. Wonderful.

When we have all of these factors in conjunction, the CSA Government itself might have enough Congressmen and Senators to pass a bill that ends slavery or does the "compromise" I stated above.

Key word there is might, which you yourself put. Might. You see why your argument is terrible? It's based completely off of wishful thinking. 10 to 15 years is still too long for me to wait in chains. But you don't respect black people so you wouldn't understand that.

Fair enough, things weren't very nice for slavery, but by no means were things better in Reconstruction. Blacks suffered the same treatment, and actually starved, whilst back in slavery although the diet wasn't very healthy, they didn't starve to death.

Five Points District, Weeksville, Davis Bend, Freedmen's Town, Muchakinock, Buxton, New Philadelphia, Freedman’s Village, Blackdom, Greenwood, Allensworth, Rosewood, the community of Nicodemus, movements to New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago, southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California all are great examples of many of us being free after Reconstruction.

White people raided these settlements,

Not all of them. There's no way to say most of them, either, since there were a ton that were undocumented.

and the condition was probably terrible given the lack of monetary resources blacks had, as they were paid little to nothing during slavery, and were still paid little to nothing during Reconstruction.

The name "Black Wall Street" says they weren't all living in absolute poverty.

These beatings are cruel and immoral, but it didn't suddenly halt during slavery,

Never asserted that they did.

what the KKK did to freedmen was the same as what happened during slavery,

Not exactly. The difference is there were many towns and more places to escape to.

Then can you explain why a Union Lieutenant went and said that there wasn't a surrender?

Can you explain why a confederate Sergent says there was? Along with evidence that points to a massacre and other Union sources saying it happened?

I have yet to see evidence pointing to him doing it for some reason other than supporting equality for blacks, especially when at such a time, most people which espouse such beliefs won't make a speech to avoid violence, as if Forrest said such a thing in front of the KKK or the White League, they would probably get really pissed.

He started the KKK, which you keep saying is worse than slavery. His goal was also

The British used military force to halt the slave trade,

In international waters.

abolitionists would see the CSA as the last bastion of slavery, and they would concentrate their efforts,

You haven't proven this.

Giving the abolitionists 10 years is more than enough to end slavery.

But it would take far longer, because slavery was embedded in southern culture.

Lose faith when a single nation leaves the Union?

And wins a war.

I don't think anti-Islamists in America would lose faith if ISIS takes the Middle East,

False equivalent. Slavery wasn't viewed in the same way as radical Islam.

Interesting. I personally haven't seen any of these micro aggressions, but from what I can see, shouting the N word or being overtly racist is taboo in today's society.

It isn't necessarily the N word, but things can get pretty heated. At school, there was an anti-police brutality protest and before too long someone was shouting at the protestors that they [the person shouting] hated black people. And it wasn't one lone crazy person, since they had friends who stood by them.

Yes, there were black settlements, but if you watch the documentary, there were cases in which white people raided these freedmen's settlements.

But it's less prevalent now, since there are many settlements and not all of them are subject to raids. Reconstruction is not worse than slavery.

and they might feel preferred by the plantationer as the person is white, not black, and of course, back in the day, blacks were seen as inferior.

Not necessarily in the workplace. We were seen as sub human beasts whose place on the planet was to serve.

If you can get white southerners to agree that slavery is only beneficial to a quarter of the white population,

Which wouldn't happen.

the farmers and plantationers are happier paying a white man wages than a black man wages, given that they think that blacks are inferior,

Not as workers, because then they would have stuck to indentured servitude.

if I remember correctly comprised of 10% of Charleston's population.

Get an actual source.

If they were slaves, if they voluntarily fought, I don't know what is wrong.

They're fighting for slavery, and they're the ones who are being enslaved. That's pretty wrong.

Yes, blacks were tortured, but that didn't stop during Reconstruction, it continued on for at least a decade with all of these terrorist organizations around.

There was some tortured, but as I've already shown, many were free.

You guys were still afraid and suffered from the same atrocities for years following Emancipation.

You aren't black, yet you suddenly know how we all felt. Interesting.

Far longer despite all of the pressures from abolitionists using the 75% of non slaveholders to oppose slavery,

They wouldn't, though. This 75% still would support slavery.

and foreign pressures and denial of strong military relations? I think not.

It's pretty entrenched in southern society, and time would only worsen that.
“It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.”
It's pretty entrenched in southern society, and time would only worsen that.
“The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.”
And that's Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, talking about what would happen if black people were set free.
(French political theorist Montesquieu)

Not necessarily. The Europeans would want more cotton to lower prices through supply and demand, which helps their people, and their textile industry. However, they can get by with the European colonies, but ideally would want to trade with the CS. They know that the CS Economy would be export based, and that means they would have to export their cotton and other agricultural items to foreign nations, with England and France being the most likely. The CSA would get the message regardless of what is stated in their Declaration. Sure, it talks about preserving slavery, but it likely won't have any effect once their economy and exports stagnate and when the British and French say no to a military alliance and large scale importation of machinery to industrialize the south.

They were still willing to stop slavery with military force though. They would still want to pressure the south regardless, especially when they come and ask for a military alliance or large scale trade, in which the British can say "no", which would harm the CS Strategically and economically. I think the Crown will still tend to proposals of a strong military alliance and large scale trade.

They may not go and invade the south, but they surely can say no to large scale trade and military alliances, which hampers industrialization and the strategic position of the CSA. The CSA will have to industrialize if they want to not seem as a weak power, and their strategical concerns would be paramount in the years following their war, especially with the disadvantages the CSA clearly has.

As I stated before, Robert E. Lee freed his slaves by 1862, and although the slaveholders, or plantationers, or whatever they are called may own slaves, their belief that slavery is evil can be used as a starting point to get them to free their slaves and oppose slavery. Of course, this would be a minority of the upper 25%, but given that there are those who hate the idea, abolitionists do have the hope of convincing a few to oppose the idea.

They want it, but can they realize such a thing? Probably not when so many other concerns of the CSA are at hand. Furthermore, potential future CS Presidents, most likely being Robert Toombs, Robert E. Lee (he himself can be swayed on the slavery issue), Judah P. Benjamin, Alexander Stephens and others weren't at the secession conferences, and had little to no influence over the documents. Yes, some of the Declarations said that they wanted to preserve slavery, but none of the potential CS Presidents and many other political leaders were at the conference, and although they are ideologically close, they will not mind the documents as much, and would probably be more focused on building a nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Mexic ... _in_Mexico
Slavery was very uncommon in Mexico, it is gone in the Union, which leaves the CSA as the last bastion of slavery in North America. With no other target, they will launch political programs to end slavery on the CSA, with their goals achieved elsewhere.

They would want more sources of cotton to lower costs, which is good for the British economy, but they would get by with the colonies, and that can be used as leverage to get the CSA to end slavery, not to mention that they can tell the CSA to end slavery as a condition for a military alliance or large scale industrial importations to the CSA to let them compete with the Union.

That 75% of the southern white population can vote, and they can vote in anti-slavery politicians who can hasten slavery and begin to end slavery. There were white southerners who can't simply obtain a lot of jobs since they were occupied by slaves, and once the slaves are freed, they have a good chance of getting that job. That would mean that these people would be very inclined to be supportive of the idea of ending slavery for their jobs.

Everything is a might, we cannot be 100% certain on anything. If you were a freedmen back then, you would be chased by the KKK or the White League, and you would still be subject to the same immoral and brutal treatment that you had suffered during slavery. You would still have little to no money, you would still be in that same, terrible conditions that you still were back during slavery. That lasted for 10-15 years until things really became better, but before that, most blacks in the south suffered persecution and the same, terrible treatment that they received during slavery from an angered population.

Oklahoma isn't leaving the south, Oklahoma is quite southern. Same can be said about Missouri, and Oklahoma was actually largely controlled by Confederate-aligned Native Americans. Furthermore, from what I can see, the movements took play in the 20th Century, after Reconstruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migr ... n_American)

Well we don't really know, as a lot of things were undocumented, but from what we can see, many were raided.

Yeah that was in the 1910s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_(Tulsa)#.22The_Black_Wall_Street.22

And still have terrible conditions and have a fair chance of being raided by the KKK.

He didn't. Six ex-Confederate Soldiers in Pulaski founded it. He was in the KKK, but we don't know if he was the Grand Wizard (that name cracks me up, as that name is the most childish name I've heard) of the Klan. You are not always a stagnant person, and in the case of Forrest, he publicly espoused his belief for racial equality in a time where most people would want to keep such views quiet, as not many people were fans of such ideals. Unless he really believed in what he was saying, he wouldn't do such a thing. Furthermore, what would be his goal of supporting ideas that wasn't very popular in society back in the day?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Kl ... and_naming

As I said, in the case of a CS Victory, the CSA would be the last bastion of slavery in North America, and the only thing abolitionists, who view slavery as evil, would do is to support the end of slavery in the CSA.

Embedded in rich, southern white culture, sure, but I don't know how much those who are harmed by slavery and don't benefit from it think. They wouldn't be that big of fans and could easily be disillusioned with the rich, upper 25% of slaveholding plantation owners or other slavers who use slaves for whatever purpose.

Regardless of how different the world views Radical Islam and slavery differently, why would the world simply give up once a nation weaker than the one it left in terms of manpower, size, strategical position and industry winning a war, which can be as simple as Congress deciding against trying to send the south back into the Union with force somehow change the world's beliefs on slavery, which generally is entrenched in the opposition to the institution.

Hmm, personally, I haven't seen much, but correct me if I'm wrong, racism is dying fast. We see WASPs, the same who would vote in George Wallace and Strom Thurmond vote in Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal, we see less and less acceptance of racism, as more start to decide against such things. Compared to Europe, the growth of the racist groups like the KKK have been minimal. Sure, it is now what, 3000 strong, but compared to Golden Dawn or Jobbik, its nothing.

And I'm sure not all blacks were subject to being shot by the KKK, the same way not all blacks were subject to torture and whipping during slavery.

Yeah, but I'm sure they would rather help out a white man than a black man, and when you have to pay them wages, I don't know how plantation owners would feel about paying blacks wages.

It was only beneficial to the 25%, and many can easily be disillusioned. Slaves took a variety of jobs in fields that a lot of that 75% would want to join, not all pulled tobacco and picked cotton, many were artisans, chefs, carpenters, blacksmiths and other jobs that whites would take if they had the chance to.

In other words, planters expected enslaved people to perform a wide range of jobs that included carpenter, cooper, boatman, cook, seamstress, and blacksmith, to mention only a few of the skilled functions required around plantations.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tse ... elabor.htm

By using that idea of entering fields that were once only slave, or predominantly slave, you can bypass the racism of the southern population and thus create the idea of more white jobs, which is certainly appealing to southern whites, especially the ones who don't own slaves, basically most of the population.

http://civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm


There were some free blacks in the CSA, namely more than 100,000 of them
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-afr ... ation-1860

Free, legally, but really, they suffered the same brutal and immoral things that they suffered under slavery, and they had little money and little way to get money.

I think any person would be scared if their race was constantly persecuted by the KKK and White League, and suffered the same horrors they did during slavery.

That 75% was supportive of slavery, but it is easy to disillusion them. If they realize that blacks occupy numerous sectors that leave them with less job opportunities and ultimately less white jobs, they can easily be opposed to the idea of slavery on the basis of more white jobs. This can get the ethnocentric people of the south to oppose slavery, and rally up that 75% to oppose slavery, and once we get a good percentage of that 75%, they can easily vote in politicians who aren't so nice to slavery as what was in the Declartion.

Oh yeah, indentured servitude? I don't think the ethnocentric people of the south would like to do that to their own race, as they haven't done that to Cubans and nor have they even done that to most Native Americans (with the Lumbee being the exception, but we even had Native American Generals in the CS Army).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_Watie

[Islamic State of UKIP]

He wasn't eligible to be president. He was born in Panama, which at the time held the same status as Puerto Rico does today as he was naturalised at birth.

If he wasn't eligible to be president he wouldn't have got the nomination.

He was nominated by the Republicans. With Palin. Do you really think their best and brightest were in charge that year? He would have had a birth certificate fiasco like Obama, thing is he isn't natural born but rather naturalised so that would result in a massive court case. He may have been eligible, but it is very much in a grey area and it would have made what happened to Obama look nice. Citizens of Puerto Rico who were born there are not eligible to run, at the time Panama was the same status as PR is today so therefore I believe he was ineligible.

[Marcurix]

If he wasn't eligible to be president he wouldn't have got the nomination.

He was nominated by the Republicans. With Palin. Do you really think their best and brightest were in charge that year? He would have had a birth certificate fiasco like Obama, thing is he isn't natural born but rather naturalised so that would result in a massive court case. He may have been eligible, but it is very much in a grey area and it would have made what happened to Obama look nice. Citizens of Puerto Rico who were born there are not eligible to run, at the time Panama was the same status as PR is today so therefore I believe he was ineligible.

You do realize you have to submit documentation and such in the presidential nominating process? The Obama birth certificate fiasco was just that, a fiasco with no real chance to succeed made by desperate people to discredit someone they didn't like.

Literal legions of lawyers, judges and legal experts take part in this process, and if they found McCain eligible your belief that he wasn't doesn't amount to much.

[Meryuma]

I'd find the one guy (if there is one) who first thought of the idea of God or gods and eliminate him. Seriously, I think religion crippled us as a society, the belief that there is an invisible magician up there in the sky, watching everything you do, keeping score, and if you disobey any of His laws you shall be punished and sent to suffer and burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Religion is a way to maintain an obedient citizenry and has been the justification for countless unspeakable atrocities throughout human history.

How many religions do you think there are? Apparently 2... 4 or 5 max.

[Sebastianbourg]

If he wasn't eligible to be president he wouldn't have got the nomination.

He was nominated by the Republicans. With Palin. Do you really think their best and brightest were in charge that year? He would have had a birth certificate fiasco like Obama, thing is he isn't natural born but rather naturalised so that would result in a massive court case. He may have been eligible, but it is very much in a grey area and it would have made what happened to Obama look nice. Citizens of Puerto Rico who were born there are not eligible to run, at the time Panama was the same status as PR is today so therefore I believe he was ineligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Can ... itizenship
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-a-puert ... peculates/

[Sahrani South]

I would change Obama so that GOP would still rule USA!

[The Transcaucasian Democratic Republic]

I would change Obama so that GOP would still rule USA!

[Islamic State of UKIP]

He was nominated by the Republicans. With Palin. Do you really think their best and brightest were in charge that year? He would have had a birth certificate fiasco like Obama, thing is he isn't natural born but rather naturalised so that would result in a massive court case. He may have been eligible, but it is very much in a grey area and it would have made what happened to Obama look nice. Citizens of Puerto Rico who were born there are not eligible to run, at the time Panama was the same status as PR is today so therefore I believe he was ineligible.

You do realize you have to submit documentation and such in the presidential nominating process? The Obama birth certificate fiasco was just that, a fiasco with no real chance to succeed made by desperate people to discredit someone they didn't like.

Literal legions of lawyers, judges and legal experts take part in this process, and if they found McCain eligible your belief that he wasn't doesn't amount to much.

It does though as he was naturalized at birth and therefore ineligible. A naturalised citizen cannot become president. It's in the Constitution, read it

[Keronians]

I'd find the one guy (if there is one) who first thought of the idea of God or gods and eliminate him. Seriously, I think religion crippled us as a society, the belief that there is an invisible magician up there in the sky, watching everything you do, keeping score, and if you disobey any of His laws you shall be punished and sent to suffer and burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Religion is a way to maintain an obedient citizenry and has been the justification for countless unspeakable atrocities throughout human history.

Yeah, "the guy".

So what you're saying is you want to go back and eliminate humanity?

[Keronians]

You do realize you have to submit documentation and such in the presidential nominating process? The Obama birth certificate fiasco was just that, a fiasco with no real chance to succeed made by desperate people to discredit someone they didn't like.

Literal legions of lawyers, judges and legal experts take part in this process, and if they found McCain eligible your belief that he wasn't doesn't amount to much.

It does though as he was naturalized at birth and therefore ineligible. A naturalised citizen cannot become president. It's in the Constitution, read it

Your opinion is irrelevant in the face of the best legal experts of the country.

If he wasn't eligible for the presidency, he wouldn't have been nominated. As simple as that.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

It does though as he was naturalized at birth and therefore ineligible. A naturalised citizen cannot become president. It's in the Constitution, read it

Your opinion is irrelevant in the face of the best legal experts of the country.

If he wasn't eligible for the presidency, he wouldn't have been nominated. As simple as that.

False. Lawyers can be, and quite often are, wrong in America. Their opinion is irrelevant as they do not represent the will of the people and therefore cannot dictate the democratic process in any way

[Herargon]

I'd make it that my grandmother still lives.

[Marcurix]

Your opinion is irrelevant in the face of the best legal experts of the country.

If he wasn't eligible for the presidency, he wouldn't have been nominated. As simple as that.

False. Lawyers can be, and quite often are, wrong in America.

And what makes you think you aren't wrong in this case? Sure, they can be wrong, they're human, but the difference here is it's their field of work they were educated for and they're much more likely to know about the ins and outs than you and your "read the constitution" answer are.

Their opinion is irrelevant

Only if you have no idea of how the legal system of the country works.

as they do not represent the will of the people and therefore cannot dictate the democratic process in any way

Actually they can, by interpreting the legal qualifications of candidates set out by electoral law of the United States to see if they qualify to run under the current rules. They did, and found McCain eligible probably because he was born to military personnel stationed overseas, and many western countries have citizenship rules for such cases.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

If he wasn't eligible to be president he wouldn't have got the nomination.

He was nominated by the Republicans. With Palin. Do you really think their best and brightest were in charge that year? He would have had a birth certificate fiasco like Obama, thing is he isn't natural born but rather naturalised so that would result in a massive court case. He may have been eligible, but it is very much in a grey area and it would have made what happened to Obama look nice. Citizens of Puerto Rico who were born there are not eligible to run, at the time Panama was the same status as PR is today so therefore I believe he was ineligible.

actually he was born on a US military base, which like an embassy is treated as US soil when it comes to citizenship.

[Jamjai]

sometimes, I would like to change myself into a talking chicken and run with my chicken feet...


if that is possible

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

actually he was born on a US military base

I didn't know that, makes him even more badass
The US missed a great opportunity. Would have been the best pres ever.

[SaintB]

If he wasn't eligible to be president he wouldn't have got the nomination.

He was nominated by the Republicans. With Palin. Do you really think their best and brightest were in charge that year? He would have had a birth certificate fiasco like Obama, thing is he isn't natural born but rather naturalised so that would result in a massive court case. He may have been eligible, but it is very much in a grey area and it would have made what happened to Obama look nice. Citizens of Puerto Rico who were born there are not eligible to run, at the time Panama was the same status as PR is today so therefore I believe he was ineligible.

Fun fact: Obama was one of the Senators that sponsored and voted for a resolution that confirmed that John McCain was in fact a natural born citizen that was capable of running for POTUS.
Another fun fact: If one or both of your parents is/are a citizen, if you are born in the USA or any area under its jurisdiction (that includes territories, military bases, ships, etc.), then your an American citizen by birth. That is what the Constitution and over 100 years of legal precedence says about it. Your opinion is not just factually wrong but completely invalid.

[Farnhamia]

I certainly wouldn't have taken out that long-term lease in Corinth in 147 BCE.

[MERIZoC]

actually he was born on a US military base

I didn't know that, makes him even more badass
The US missed a great opportunity. Would have been the best pres ever.

McCain? Not likely.

[The Black Forrest]

I would Shanghai the creators of Whatizit and Barney!

[Ndaku]

I would have ordered extensive protection for Prime Minister Lumumba during 1950 Belgian Congo!

[The Cobalt Sky]

The CSA would get the message regardless of what is stated in their Declaration.

You still haven't proven that.

Sure, it talks about preserving slavery,

Which is their goal.

but it likely won't have any effect once their economy and exports stagnate

You haven't proven this, either. Baseless assumption.

and when the British and French say no to a military alliance

Although it's clear many did have a distaste for slavery, the upper class and many politicians still did support the south, so you haven't proven that, either.

and large scale importation of machinery to industrialize the south.

Which would make slavery worse.

They were still willing to stop slavery with military force though.

International slave trade. Not slavery directly.

They would still want to pressure the south regardless,

You have no good evidence that they'd go that far.

As I stated before, Robert E. Lee freed his slaves by 1862, and although the slaveholders, or plantationers, or whatever they are called may own slaves,

It's slaveholders. If you haven't altered your spell check, you'll see that "plantationers" isn't a word.

their belief that slavery is evil can be used as a starting point to get them to free their slaves and oppose slavery.

First of all, you have no idea how many of these people there actually are. Secondly, they don't think it's that evil, or else they wouldn't be taking part in it.

Yes, some of the Declarations said that they wanted to preserve slavery,

And that's clearly what this was all about.

but none of the potential CS Presidents and many other political leaders were at the conference, and although they are ideologically close, they will not mind the documents as much, and would probably be more focused on building a nation.

Doesn't disprove what I said.

With no other target, they will launch political programs to end slavery on the CSA, with their goals achieved elsewhere.

You haven't proven this, either.

you would still be subject to the same immoral and brutal treatment that you had suffered during slavery.

I’ve already proved why this is false. Not every single black person was forced into conditions like slavery. In fact, most of us were free by then.

you would still be in that same, terrible conditions that you still were back during slavery.

No. Five Points District, Weeksville, Davis Bend, Freedmen's Town, Muchakinock, Buxton, New Philadelphia, Freedman’s Village, Blackdom, Greenwood, Allensworth, Rosewood, the community of Nicodemus, movements to New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago, southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California all are great examples of many of us being free after Reconstruction.

but before that, most blacks in the south suffered persecution and the same, terrible treatment that they received during slavery

You haven't proven that it was “most”.

the movements took play in the 20th Century, after Reconstruction.

Nope. The movements I cited are all recently after slavery.
And, finding another source to back me up:
“Blacks established their own churches, towns and businesses. Tens of thousands migrated to Mississippi for the chance to clear and own their own land, as 90% of the bottomlands were undeveloped. By the end of the 19th century, two-thirds of the farmers who owned land in the Mississippi Delta bottomlands were black.[67]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-Am ... nstruction

Well we don't really know, as a lot of things were undocumented, but from what we can see, many were raided.

There’s absolutely no proof of that.

Yeah that was in the 1910s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_(Tulsa)#.22The_Black_Wall_Street.22

I don’t know what this is in response to. Greenwood was destroyed but my point remains intact.

a fair chance of being raided by the KKK.

You keep saying that, but You have no proof to back it up.

He didn't. Six ex-Confederate Soldiers in Pulaski founded it. He was in the KKK, but we don't know if he was the Grand Wizard (that name cracks me up, as that name is the most childish name I've heard) of the Klan.

He does, apparently, become Grand Wizard. Also, apparently trying to turn it into a second military, he shapes it into something new.
“It was at about this time that Forrest, learning of the KKK, expressed a desire to join. The eminent recruit was elected grand wizard, the Klan's highest official, and tried to bring the rapidly multiplying dens under a centralized authority — his own.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/pa ... 01A41.html

Embedded in rich, southern white culture, sure, but I don't know how much those who are harmed by slavery and don't benefit from it think.

They’re white supremacists, and think slavery is where black people should be.

Regardless of how different the world views Radical Islam and slavery differently,

No, that’s what makes your point irrelevant. They aren’t the same thing, and they aren't viewed in the same way.

Hmm, personally, I haven't seen much, but correct me if I'm wrong, racism is dying fast.

Blatant racism is becoming somewhat harder to spot since society has generally rejected it, but subversive racism is still prevalent.
Stuff like this:
http://aattp.org/20-of-the-most-racist- ... cal-signs/
Still goes around, and apparently some people are ok with it. Although I don’t necessarily agree with the general point of the site, it does show that racism is still existent.

And I'm sure not all blacks were subject to being shot by the KKK, the same way not all blacks were subject to torture and whipping during slavery.

No. More blacks are free that blacks that weren't whipped. Substantially more.

Yeah, but I'm sure they would rather help out a white man than a black man, and when you have to pay them wages, I don't know how plantation owners would feel about paying blacks wages.

There’s a good chance they’d want a return to slavery.

It was only beneficial to the 25%, and many can easily be disillusioned.

You haven't proven that they can. Although it may appear logical in hindsight, you seem to think white supremacy was nonexistent then.

Free, legally, but really, they suffered the same brutal and immoral things that they suffered under slavery, and they had little money and little way to get money.

I’ve already shown you a great deal of free settlements. You seem to not be reading my posts. I’m starting to think my time here is a waste.

and suffered the same horrors they did during slavery.

But this isn't the case for all black people.

That 75% was supportive of slavery, but it is easy to disillusion them.

You have provided no good evidence to legitimately assert this.

If they realize that blacks occupy numerous sectors that leave them with less job opportunities and ultimately less white jobs, they can easily be opposed to the idea of slavery on the basis of more white jobs.

But they think that free African Americans would potentially mean an uprising, and that slavery is where African Americans are meant to be, and that supersedes this.

Oh yeah, indentured servitude? I don't think the ethnocentric people of the south would like to do that to their own race,

Prove that all indentured servants are of one race and that the south is completely one ethnicity.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

I'd find away to supply General Patton with enough fuel to take Berlin over before the Soviets did. That way it would change of the Cold War for the better. Another wish is to not let Jeb Bush be selected to be the tie breaker during the fiasco voting tally of the presidential election of 2000. And last but not least, put a lead in Lewis Powell's head before he could even right that memo which destroyed much of America's democracy.

[Republic of Coldwater]

The CSA would get the message regardless of what is stated in their Declaration.

You still haven't proven that.

Sure, it talks about preserving slavery,

Which is their goal.

but it likely won't have any effect once their economy and exports stagnate

You haven't proven this, either. Baseless assumption.

and when the British and French say no to a military alliance

Although it's clear many did have a distaste for slavery, the upper class and many politicians still did support the south, so you haven't proven that, either.

and large scale importation of machinery to industrialize the south.

Which would make slavery worse.

They were still willing to stop slavery with military force though.

International slave trade. Not slavery directly.

They would still want to pressure the south regardless,

You have no good evidence that they'd go that far.

As I stated before, Robert E. Lee freed his slaves by 1862, and although the slaveholders, or plantationers, or whatever they are called may own slaves,

It's slaveholders. If you haven't altered your spell check, you'll see that "plantationers" isn't a word.

their belief that slavery is evil can be used as a starting point to get them to free their slaves and oppose slavery.

First of all, you have no idea how many of these people there actually are. Secondly, they don't think it's that evil, or else they wouldn't be taking part in it.

Yes, some of the Declarations said that they wanted to preserve slavery,

And that's clearly what this was all about.

but none of the potential CS Presidents and many other political leaders were at the conference, and although they are ideologically close, they will not mind the documents as much, and would probably be more focused on building a nation.

Doesn't disprove what I said.

With no other target, they will launch political programs to end slavery on the CSA, with their goals achieved elsewhere.

You haven't proven this, either.

you would still be subject to the same immoral and brutal treatment that you had suffered during slavery.

I’ve already proved why this is false. Not every single black person was forced into conditions like slavery. In fact, most of us were free by then.

you would still be in that same, terrible conditions that you still were back during slavery.

No. Five Points District, Weeksville, Davis Bend, Freedmen's Town, Muchakinock, Buxton, New Philadelphia, Freedman’s Village, Blackdom, Greenwood, Allensworth, Rosewood, the community of Nicodemus, movements to New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago, southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California all are great examples of many of us being free after Reconstruction.

but before that, most blacks in the south suffered persecution and the same, terrible treatment that they received during slavery

You haven't proven that it was “most”.

the movements took play in the 20th Century, after Reconstruction.

Nope. The movements I cited are all recently after slavery.
And, finding another source to back me up:
“Blacks established their own churches, towns and businesses. Tens of thousands migrated to Mississippi for the chance to clear and own their own land, as 90% of the bottomlands were undeveloped. By the end of the 19th century, two-thirds of the farmers who owned land in the Mississippi Delta bottomlands were black.[67]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-Am ... nstruction

Well we don't really know, as a lot of things were undocumented, but from what we can see, many were raided.

There’s absolutely no proof of that.

Yeah that was in the 1910s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_(Tulsa)#.22The_Black_Wall_Street.22

I don’t know what this is in response to. Greenwood was destroyed but my point remains intact.

a fair chance of being raided by the KKK.

You keep saying that, but You have no proof to back it up.

He didn't. Six ex-Confederate Soldiers in Pulaski founded it. He was in the KKK, but we don't know if he was the Grand Wizard (that name cracks me up, as that name is the most childish name I've heard) of the Klan.

He does, apparently, become Grand Wizard. Also, apparently trying to turn it into a second military, he shapes it into something new.
“It was at about this time that Forrest, learning of the KKK, expressed a desire to join. The eminent recruit was elected grand wizard, the Klan's highest official, and tried to bring the rapidly multiplying dens under a centralized authority — his own.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/pa ... 01A41.html

Embedded in rich, southern white culture, sure, but I don't know how much those who are harmed by slavery and don't benefit from it think.

They’re white supremacists, and think slavery is where black people should be.

Regardless of how different the world views Radical Islam and slavery differently,

No, that’s what makes your point irrelevant. They aren’t the same thing, and they aren't viewed in the same way.

Hmm, personally, I haven't seen much, but correct me if I'm wrong, racism is dying fast.

Blatant racism is becoming somewhat harder to spot since society has generally rejected it, but subversive racism is still prevalent.
Stuff like this:
http://aattp.org/20-of-the-most-racist- ... cal-signs/
Still goes around, and apparently some people are ok with it. Although I don’t necessarily agree with the general point of the site, it does show that racism is still existent.

And I'm sure not all blacks were subject to being shot by the KKK, the same way not all blacks were subject to torture and whipping during slavery.

No. More blacks are free that blacks that weren't whipped. Substantially more.

Yeah, but I'm sure they would rather help out a white man than a black man, and when you have to pay them wages, I don't know how plantation owners would feel about paying blacks wages.

There’s a good chance they’d want a return to slavery.

It was only beneficial to the 25%, and many can easily be disillusioned.

You haven't proven that they can. Although it may appear logical in hindsight, you seem to think white supremacy was nonexistent then.

Free, legally, but really, they suffered the same brutal and immoral things that they suffered under slavery, and they had little money and little way to get money.

I’ve already shown you a great deal of free settlements. You seem to not be reading my posts. I’m starting to think my time here is a waste.

and suffered the same horrors they did during slavery.

But this isn't the case for all black people.

That 75% was supportive of slavery, but it is easy to disillusion them.

You have provided no good evidence to legitimately assert this.

If they realize that blacks occupy numerous sectors that leave them with less job opportunities and ultimately less white jobs, they can easily be opposed to the idea of slavery on the basis of more white jobs.

But they think that free African Americans would potentially mean an uprising, and that slavery is where African Americans are meant to be, and that supersedes this.

Oh yeah, indentured servitude? I don't think the ethnocentric people of the south would like to do that to their own race,

Prove that all indentured servants are of one race and that the south is completely one ethnicity.

None of the high ranking leaders in the CSA were at the conferences where the declarations were written. Jeff Davis, Alexander Stephens, Robert E. Lee, Robert Toombs, they were all not there at the conference. Furthermore, in page 27 of the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume I, Davis said this:

Indeed, if Emancipation is to be desired, the dispersion of negroes over a wider area among additional Territories, eventually to become states, and in climates unfavorable to slave labor, instead of hindering, would have promoted this object by diminishing the difficulties in the way of ultimate emancipation (Davis, 27)

Indeed, Davis believed that spreading slaves around would help abolish slavery, and that shows that not all Confederate politicians were big fans of preserving slavery, as in the case of Davis in which he believed that spreading it would ultimately aid emancipation.

They like slavery for economical reasons, and once slavery was shown to harm the economic situation of the south, many would begin to question the necessity to slavery.

Yeah, how many politicians? Clearly not enough to hamper the slave trade and decide against helping the CSA once they were painted as slavers. Furthermore, they may not support the CSA because of their slavery. It could be because of their exports of agricultural products that are appealing, as their companies do need cotton for their textile mills, or perhaps they want to take back some old colonies in North America, and a weakened USA would help them do that. The list goes on and on.

The British can control the imports of machinery to the CSA to avoid screwing up their reputation, as they would be seen as hypocritical to the world, as now they are supporting a nation that has slavery, whilst they were the first nation in the world to abolish slavery. That would make the CS Government worry about their economical and military position, for they have a fraction of the factories the north has, and that doesn't help the CS Economy and nor does it help the military, which needs new arms productions to combat the north.

If you hamper the slave trade, slavery would be hampered too. This shows that they are willing to use their military to hamper slavery, and if they are willing to do such a thing, and they have little to lose when demanding the CSA to end slavery, they would go for it, as not only does it strengthen the British image of being the home of abolitionist thought, but it also would actually make some progress in ending slavery as the export-based CS Economy would stagnate, the CSA wouldn't have strategical allies to combat the numerically superior north, and they can't industrialize, which harms the CSA militarily and economically.

They might think of it as a necessarily evil, and although not the most ideal place to get started, that can easily be used as a base to convince a few slaveholders that it is an unnecessary evil.

It shows that they may not be aligned with the goals set in the Declarations. That is evidenced by what Davis wrote in the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume I, and potential future Presidents such as Robert E. Lee felt that it was evil, and he also had no slaves and doesn't benefit from slavery, which would make it easy for abolitionists to sway him from supporting the institution.

Where else will they launch political programs? If anything, a nation that is painted as a slaver nation winning the war would get abolitionists to be very urgent about the issue, and they would go overdrive on ending slavery. They wouldn't lose hope, as the expansion of slavery into new territories didn't, and neither did the lack of political support for abolition, so how would the CSA winning somehow change their views and make them lose hope?

Most? Nope, watch the documentary I posted a while back. Many were cheated from their wages and physically assaulted by the KKK and other groups.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY4-qO0TwHM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... in_Chicago
I don't know, but I don't see anything about blacks moving to Chicago until the Great Migration.

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Afr ... ns?rec=570
Nothing about blacks moving during Reconstruction.

http://www.myblackhistory.net/reconstruction.htm
Blacks were violently attacked, nothing about blacks leaving the south.

http://www.memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml ... part5.html
500 blacks in Kansas. There were 3.5 Million black slaves in the south.

African American population distribution and migration patterns can be traced using maps published in the statistical atlases prepared by the U. S. Census Bureau for each decennial census from 1870 to 1920. The atlas for the 1890 census includes this map showing the percentage of "colored" to the total population for each county. Although the heaviest concentrations are overwhelmingly in Maryland, Virginia, and the southeastern states, there appear to be emerging concentrations in the northern urban areas (New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago), southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, and scattered areas in the West (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California), reflecting migration patterns that began during Reconstruction.

Blacks were still overwhelmingly concentrated in the south, and only emerging populations took place in the north. Some did leave, I have no doubt about it, but given that only some left the south, and the blacks were still disproportionately in the south until the Great Migration, most still suffered persecution in the south.

Yeah they were still in the south, and as evidenced by the documentary, blacks in such areas were discriminated, to the point where 135 blacks died in a county due to the KKK. I doubt slaveholders killed 135 slaves.

Watch the documentary, it does talk about the raiding of black settlements.

Oh Black Wall Street. That took place in the 20th Century, which disproves your point that freedmen had money. Sure, maybe a few were wealthy, but the vast majority were the underdogs of the underdogs.

And then he dissolved the Klan and spoke to black southerners.

Their white supremacy is what is going to be used to abolish slavery. Slaves take up their jobs and lower the socioeconomic status of whites, which is counterproductive to white supremacy, and that can be used to rally anti-slavery support.

You have evidence for that? What I can see was that blacks continued to have that constant fear, and more blacks were killed than they were during slavery.

25% of the population can't elect many pro-slavery politicians or people who will reinstate slavery. Keep in mind that the CSA is still a Republic.

It did exist, but that can be turned around to oppose slavery, as blacks take up positions that otherwise would be white, and ending slavery means that whites will occupy many previous slave positions, so ending slavery in the south can be painted as an enforcement for the discrimination of blacks.

Once again, many of these settlements were still poor and in derelict conditions, and many were raided, as seen in the documentary from the History Channel that I posted up in my post.

And not all blacks were tortured during slavery.

The 75% don't benefit from slavery, they are hurt from slavery as many jobs are permanently occupied by blacks. Their racism against blacks can be turned to advocate against slavery. That can be used to disillusion them with the rich 25% who own slaves and make a lot of money, whilst the 75% have lower chances of getting jobs and are harmed by slavery.

That can easily be rebutted, as slaves have greater chances of revolt. They can use the north as an example, where blacks haven't rioted that much, and compare it to the south, where slaves escape and rebel all the time, and they can of course, sue Haiti in 1790, where blacks revolted. They can use that to once again disprove the idea that freedmen would revolt.

Ethnocentric means that one judges other ethnic groups with their standards, and in this case, the southern whites would view the blacks as inferior, and as such, southern white owners would feel more compelled to get southern whites as workers as it helps their ethnicity and harms blacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

http://public.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/ ... vitude.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
From what I can see, indentured servitude wasn't very common in the south, and mainly happened for people to pay off their travels to the new world.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Furthermore, in page 27 of the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume I, Davis said this:

Indeed, if Emancipation is to be desired, the dispersion of negroes over a wider area among additional Territories, eventually to become states, and in climates unfavorable to slave labor, instead of hindering, would have promoted this object by diminishing the difficulties in the way of ultimate emancipation (Davis, 27)

Indeed, Davis believed that spreading slaves around would help abolish slavery, and that shows that not all Confederate politicians were big fans of preserving slavery, as in the case of Davis in which he believed that spreading it would ultimately aid emancipation.

He said

if Emancipation is to be desired,

Nowhere did he say he himself wanted thought it should end. This is just how he thinks it would be ended.
Also this:
"As a mere historical fact, we have seen that African servitude among us ―confessedly the mildest and most humane of all institutions to which the name “slavery” has ever been applied―existed in all the original states, and that it was recognized and protected in the fourth article of the Constitution."
Would clearly show he doesn't think it's that bad at all.
(Vol. 1 pp. 66, Davis on slavery)

They like slavery for economical reasons,

All right then, prove that they only liked it for economic reasons and that white supremacy had nothing to do with it.

Clearly not enough to hamper the slave trade and decide against helping the CSA once they were painted as slavers.

The reasons they didn't help out were because even recognizing them would mean war with the US.
"The Confederate strategy for securing independence was largely based on the hope of military intervention by Britain and France, which didn't happen; intervention would have meant war with the United States. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... _Civil_War
Also, they lied about what the war was actually about to gain Britain's trust.
" “nearly all the aristocracy and a large portion of the middle classes were adverse to the North and in favor of the South. … Out of four or five hundred English newspapers, only five were bold enough openly to support the North.”"
And
"Nor was this a simple misunderstanding. Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery – the better to win over people who might be appalled at siding with slave owners against the forces of abolition. On March 12, 1861, just 10 days after the Morrill Tariff had become law, The London Times gave editorial voice to the tariff lie. The newspaper pronounced that “Protection was quite as much a cause of the disruption of the Union as Slavery,” and remarked upon how the Morrill Tariff had “much changed the tone of public feeling” in favor of “the Secessionists.” "
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... -lie/?_r=0

They wouldn't lose hope, as the expansion of slavery into new territories didn't, and neither did the lack of political support for abolition, so how would the CSA winning somehow change their views and make them lose hope?

You haven't really proven that they wouldn't. The “last bastion of slavery” just managed to survive a war, and plans on continuing slavery. That’s disheartening.

http://www.memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml/exhibit/aopart5.html
500 blacks in Kansas. There were 3.5 Million black slaves in the south.

It gives one example for Kansas. That’s still a movement to Kansas.
It also says:
“there appear to be emerging concentrations in the northern urban areas (New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago), southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, and scattered areas in the West (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California), reflecting migration patterns that began during Reconstruction.”

Blacks were still overwhelmingly concentrated in the south, and only emerging populations took place in the north. Some did leave, I have no doubt about it, but given that only some left the south, and the blacks were still disproportionately in the south until the Great Migration, most still suffered persecution in the south.

And you still haven't proven that every single black person in the south faced the exact same conditions as slavery. Although they would be in a hostile area, they would still be free. If the south had won, they would still be enslaved.

Yeah they were still in the south,

“emerging concentrations in the northern urban areas (New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago), southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, and scattered areas in the West (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California), reflecting migration patterns that began during Reconstruction.”

Oh Black Wall Street. That took place in the 20th Century, which disproves your point that freedmen had money.

So you’re telling me every single person that had been a slave was dead by then? I find that unlikely. You also haven't shown me proof that all of us were destitute.

Their white supremacy is what is going to be used to abolish slavery. Slaves take up their jobs and lower the socioeconomic status of whites, which is counterproductive to white supremacy, and that can be used to rally anti-slavery support.

Except they do it in a different way. They think African Americans should remain slaves because it’s their place in the world, to be suppressed, regardless of if they take up jobs or not.

What I can see was that blacks continued to have that constant fear, and more blacks were killed than they were during slavery.

Then get your eyes checked. I’ve already proven there were free communities, and you haven't provided any statistics to show that the death toll was any higher than slavery itself.

Once again, many of these settlements were still poor and in derelict conditions, and many were raided, as seen in the documentary from the History Channel that I posted up in my post.

And that’s still not worse than slavery.

The 75% don't benefit from slavery, they are hurt from slavery as many jobs are permanently occupied by blacks.

But they see African Americans as a lower class. Freedom would potentially mean many African American run counties in places where white people were the minority. This was a terrifying prospect to them because they know they’re bigots and think African Americans would want retribution. They want to keep us in chains, because they think that’s our place in the world.

Ethnocentric means that one judges other ethnic groups with their standards, and in this case,

...What? I'm saying prove that they were all one ethnicity, because you said they wouldn't do that to their own people. If this is the case, then indentured servitude wouldn't arise.

the southern whites would view the blacks as inferior, and as such, southern white owners would feel more compelled to get southern whites as workers as it helps their ethnicity and harms blacks.

Or they'd want a return to slavery, and try to employ them again for little to no wages, and try to keep them there with force. Even if your situation is somehow what happens, you've still got a nation full of unemployed people who are probably starving.