Confederate Emblems to be Removed Nationwide.

[The Rich Port]

Does a flag count as a monument? I've been getting the feeling that's the reason for that recent vote in North Carolina.

Not really. If North Carolina wants to pass that law, let them. The flag can come down, I just don't agree with taking down monuments.

Especially considering it was the governor of North Carolina that ordered the flag taken down.

[Free Sahara]

Yes, it's just a flag? Your point? Why are people so offended by the flag in that case? The Confederacy lost a war against the US and now people are butthurt, because some people decided to rewrite history?

I unno, looks more like people are really butthurt because worshipping a slaver state is starting to be seen as the despicable act that it is.

The Confederacy can be remembered for other things than just slavery. I mean, it would probably a look a lot different today than almost two centuries ago. It's not like they would have continued with the slavery for a very long time, anyway.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I unno, looks more like people are really butthurt because worshipping a slaver state is starting to be seen as the despicable act that it is.

The Confederacy can be remembered for other things than just slavery. I mean, it would probably a look a lot different today than almost two centuries ago. It's not like they would have continued with the slavery for a very long time, anyway.

What other things can it be remembered for?

If slavery would not have continued for a very long time, anyway, then why did the Confederate Constitution prohibit the national and state governments from passing any laws prohibiting the practice of slavery or the slave trade in the states of the Confederacy, and in any new territories acquired by the Confederacy?

[Laerod]

The Confederacy can be remembered for other things than just slavery. I mean, it would probably a look a lot different today than almost two centuries ago. It's not like they would have continued with the slavery for a very long time, anyway.

What other things can it be remembered for?

Didn't you read what they wrote? Alternate History scenarios. We should remember the South for the beacon of enlightenment and hedge against the German Union that it was in Bring the Jubilee.

[USS Monitor]

I unno, looks more like people are really butthurt because worshipping a slaver state is starting to be seen as the despicable act that it is.

The Confederacy can be remembered for other things than just slavery. I mean, it would probably a look a lot different today than almost two centuries ago. It's not like they would have continued with the slavery for a very long time, anyway.

They would probably have less issues with illegal immigration from Latin America on account of being an underdeveloped country with no jobs to attract immigrants. The planters were against industrializing the South. They might have changed their tune when the boll weevil starting fucking with their cotton, but it's quite possible that slavery would not be sorted out yet, which would make industrialization more difficult.

The fact that the US is a prosperous country in our timeline does not mean that all of its territory was just destined to be prosperous no matter who governed it or what people did. The antebellum South was far behind the North in terms of economic development, and separating the two politically would probably just allow the South to fall further behind. They probably would have maintained slavery into the 20th century. There are plenty of places that did.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What other things can it be remembered for?

Didn't you read what they wrote? Alternate History scenarios. We should remember the South for the beacon of enlightenment and hedge against the German Union that it was in Bring the Jubilee.

WON'T ANYONE THINK OF HARRY TURTLEDOVE?!

[Alien Space Bats]

It's not like they would have continued with the slavery for a very long time, anyway.

I hear this all the time.

The funny thing is, I have YET to hear a convincing argument SUPPORTING such a claim; rather, it's just thrown out there as a given, as something that we should all just accept without challenge or proof. Yet it took until the 1950s for the Arab world to abandon slavery — which is telling, because:

• Slavery was never as central to Arab culture as it was to the culture of the South; if the Arab world took until the 1950s to abandon slavery, why should we not imagine that an intact antebellum Southern culture brought forward to the present day would STILL not renounce it, given its importance to THEM?
  
  
• In many ways, de facto slavery still exists in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf principalities today. If THEY still find it useful (even if only in clandestine form), why wouldn't a contemporary version of the antebellum South find it equally (or even more) useful, especially given the way in which the racialized nature of African slavery within a still-extant Confederacy would allow them to forestall the invariable rise of a Black independence movement in the wake of the breakup of the British and French colonial empires in the 1950s and 1960s?
  
  
• It's not at all clear that groups like ISIL won't bring slavery back in a heartbeat if given half a chance; clearly then, there is nothing magical about 21st Century life that makes slavery either globally unthinkable or practically impossible, even if it WOULD quite clearly be an institution subject to near-universal condemnation by "modern" nations everywhere.

So explain to me WHY the Confederacy would have given up slavery, when it was clearly something they were willing to fight and die for, and when s much of their wealth was (quite literally) tied up in human capital. Give me a reason to accept this assertion that everybody tells me should be taken as a given, without proof or question.

Go for it. I await such an argument with bated breath.

[Laerod]

Didn't you read what they wrote? Alternate History scenarios. We should remember the South for the beacon of enlightenment and hedge against the German Union that it was in Bring the Jubilee.

WON'T ANYONE THINK OF HARRY TURTLEDOVE?!

I did, but he only edited that anthology and his Alt History short was about the conversion of the Bulgars.

[Greater Mobile]

It's not like they would have continued with the slavery for a very long time, anyway.

I hear this all the time.

The funny thing is, I have YET to hear a convincing argument SUPPORTING such a claim; rather, it's just thrown out there as a given, as something that we should all just accept without challenge or proof. Yet it took until the 1950s for the Arab world to abandon slavery — which is telling, because:

• Slavery was never as central to Arab culture as it was to the culture of the South; if the Arab world took until the 1950s to abandon slavery, why should we not imagine that an intact antebellum Southern culture brought forward to the present day would STILL not renounce it, given its importance to THEM?
  
  
• In many ways, de facto slavery still exists in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf principalities today. If THEY still find it useful (even if only in clandestine form), why wouldn't a contemporary version of the antebellum South find it equally (or even more) useful, especially given the way in which the racialized nature of African slavery within a still-extant Confederacy would allow them to forestall the invariable rise of a Black independence movement in the wake of the breakup of the British and French colonial empires in the 1950s and 1960s?
  
  
• It's not at all clear that groups like ISIL won't bring slavery back in a heartbeat if given half a chance; clearly then, there is nothing magical about 21st Century life that makes slavery either globally unthinkable or practically impossible, even if it WOULD quite clearly be an institution subject to near-universal condemnation by "modern" nations everywhere.

So explain to me WHY the Confederacy would have given up slavery, when it was clearly something they were willing to fight and die for, and when s much of their wealth was (quite literally) tied up in human capital. Give me a reason to accept this assertion that everybody tells me should be taken as a given, without proof or question.

Go for it. I await such an argument with bated breath.

Sorry for jumping in, but:

First of all, you have to understand that the majority of White people in the South were not slave-holders at the time of the Civil war, or any point before the war. So to say that the Confederate soldiers were, individually, fighting to preserve slavery is a falsehood. The Confederate government, which was dominated by rich plantation owners, had a vested interest in preserving the instittution, but your average Confederate family had no real direct dependence on slave labor.

Another thing you have to understand, is that the Confederacy was not in unanimous agreement about ANYTHING. No nation ever has been. The CSA’s highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were not slave holders and did not believe in slavery. These men were military geniuses, heroes, and highly influential in the South. Were they to emerge victorious in the Civil War, they would likely be influential abolitionists.

The fact that Confederates had many different opinions on slavery can clearly be seen in the Confederate constitution. Article I Section 9(1) of the Confederate Constitution effectively banned the over-seas slave trade. If the South truly wanted to grow the institution of slavery, they would have re-opened their ports and allowed the over-seas slave trade continue.

Lastly, you have to understand that the US is effectively the only Western nation that had a war that resulted in the ending of slavery. Every other nation outlawed slavery with relative peace, yet the US entered in to the bloodiest war ever to be fought on this continent. Based on what I know, I believe slavery as an institution would have ended in the South within the first thirty-thirty-five years of it's existence. That is simply due to public opinion, influential abolitionists, and (arguably most importantly) foreign diplomatic pressure. Implying that the South would never have abolished slavery is like implying that the North would never have ended child labor. Societies and laws evolve and change, that has always been true, and it will always be true. The Confederacy is not exempt from that fact.

Finally, I leave you with this: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." -Robert E. Lee, letter dated December 27, 1856

[Spirit of Hope]

It's not like they would have continued with the slavery for a very long time, anyway.

I hear this all the time.

The funny thing is, I have YET to hear a convincing argument SUPPORTING such a claim; rather, it's just thrown out there as a given, as something that we should all just accept without challenge or proof. Yet it took until the 1950s for the Arab world to abandon slavery — which is telling, because:

• Slavery was never as central to Arab culture as it was to the culture of the South; if the Arab world took until the 1950s to abandon slavery, why should we not imagine that an intact antebellum Southern culture brought forward to the present day would STILL not renounce it, given its importance to THEM?
  
  
• In many ways, de facto slavery still exists in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf principalities today. If THEY still find it useful (even if only in clandestine form), why wouldn't a contemporary version of the antebellum South find it equally (or even more) useful, especially given the way in which the racialized nature of African slavery within a still-extant Confederacy would allow them to forestall the invariable rise of a Black independence movement in the wake of the breakup of the British and French colonial empires in the 1950s and 1960s?
  
  
• It's not at all clear that groups like ISIL won't bring slavery back in a heartbeat if given half a chance; clearly then, there is nothing magical about 21st Century life that makes slavery either globally unthinkable or practically impossible, even if it WOULD quite clearly be an institution subject to near-universal condemnation by "modern" nations everywhere.

So explain to me WHY the Confederacy would have given up slavery, when it was clearly something they were willing to fight and die for, and when s much of their wealth was (quite literally) tied up in human capital. Give me a reason to accept this assertion that everybody tells me should be taken as a given, without proof or question.

Go for it. I await such an argument with bated breath.

You could passably argue that large scale plantation slavery was likely to end soon after the Civil War, even if the Confederacy had won. Largely because changing technologies were making slave labor uneconomical. It probably would have taken a couple of decades though, and even then wouldn't have ended the institution of slavery or necessarily have freed all of those slaves. They would have just been moved to some other portion of the economy where slave labor could still be used productively.

I doubt they would have continued slavery to the modern era, outside political pressure technological advances, possible resistance and many other factors would likely have ended slavery. However the delay in ending slavery would likely lead to delays in the civil rights movement, so I wouldn't be surprised if the "modern" confederacy didn't look like South Africa a couple of decades ago.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Sorry for jumping in, but:

First of all, you have to understand that the majority of White people in the South were not slave-holders at the time of the Civil war, or any point before the war. So to say that the Confederate soldiers were, individually, fighting to preserve slavery is a falsehood. The Confederate government, which was dominated by rich plantation owners, had a vested interest in preserving the instittution, but your average Confederate family had no real direct dependence on slave labor.

Another thing you have to understand, is that the Confederacy was not in unanimous agreement about ANYTHING. No nation ever has been. The CSA’s highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were not slave holders and did not believe in slavery. These men were military geniuses, heroes, and highly influential in the South. Were they to emerge victorious in the Civil War, they would likely be influential abolitionists.

The fact that Confederates had many different opinions on slavery can clearly be seen in the Confederate constitution. Article I Section 9(1) of the Confederate Constitution effectively banned the over-seas slave trade. If the South truly wanted to grow the institution of slavery, they would have re-opened their ports and allowed the over-seas slave trade continue.

Lastly, you have to understand that the US is effectively the only Western nation that had a war that resulted in the ending of slavery. Every other nation outlawed slavery with relative peace, yet the US entered in to the bloodiest war ever to be fought on this continent. Based on what I know, I believe slavery as an institution would have ended in the South within the first thirty-thirty-five years of it's existence. That is simply due to public opinion, influential abolitionists, and (arguably most importantly) foreign diplomatic pressure. Implying that the South would never have abolished slavery is like implying that the North would never have ended child labor. Societies and laws evolve and change, that has always been true, and it will always be true. The Confederacy is not exempt from that fact.

Finally, I leave you with this: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." -Robert E. Lee, letter dated December 27, 1856

1. Whether or not the majority of the people in the South had slaves is utterly irrelevant. They were still fighting to preserve the institution. If they were somehow misled by their leaders into thinking that this was about anything else whatsoever, then they were lied to. Good thing we never went to war based on a lie again, eh?

2. Robert E. Lee did own slaves, They were his father-in-law's, and passed to his family. The will stated that they were to be freed within six years after his father in law's death. He could have freed them earlier, but worked them for six years before finally releasing them. Hardly a man who had significant issues with the institution. Johnston did not care for slavery, but also didn't see how the slaves could realistically be freed.

3. As neither had ever stated abolitionist sympathies in the years before or during the War, there is no reason to realistically presume a change of heart towards abolitionism following the war, particularly since the practice of slavery was explicitly enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

4. The South was unable to have an overseas slave trade and they knew it, as England was patrolling the waters and sinking slave ships. However, they had enough slaves here in the United States. They did, however, ensure that their Constitution not only prohibited laws against slavery, but forced any new territory acquired by the union to accept the practice.

5. Again, considering the enshrinement of the practice within the Constitution, there is no reason to believe in the accuracy of your remarks, as abolitionists were widely despised in the South, and often killed, particularly following Brown's raid.

[Farnhamia]

I hear this all the time.

The funny thing is, I have YET to hear a convincing argument SUPPORTING such a claim; rather, it's just thrown out there as a given, as something that we should all just accept without challenge or proof. Yet it took until the 1950s for the Arab world to abandon slavery — which is telling, because:

• Slavery was never as central to Arab culture as it was to the culture of the South; if the Arab world took until the 1950s to abandon slavery, why should we not imagine that an intact antebellum Southern culture brought forward to the present day would STILL not renounce it, given its importance to THEM?
  
  
• In many ways, de facto slavery still exists in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf principalities today. If THEY still find it useful (even if only in clandestine form), why wouldn't a contemporary version of the antebellum South find it equally (or even more) useful, especially given the way in which the racialized nature of African slavery within a still-extant Confederacy would allow them to forestall the invariable rise of a Black independence movement in the wake of the breakup of the British and French colonial empires in the 1950s and 1960s?
  
  
• It's not at all clear that groups like ISIL won't bring slavery back in a heartbeat if given half a chance; clearly then, there is nothing magical about 21st Century life that makes slavery either globally unthinkable or practically impossible, even if it WOULD quite clearly be an institution subject to near-universal condemnation by "modern" nations everywhere.

So explain to me WHY the Confederacy would have given up slavery, when it was clearly something they were willing to fight and die for, and when s much of their wealth was (quite literally) tied up in human capital. Give me a reason to accept this assertion that everybody tells me should be taken as a given, without proof or question.

Go for it. I await such an argument with bated breath.

Sorry for jumping in, but:

First of all, you have to understand that the majority of White people in the South were not slave-holders at the time of the Civil war, or any point before the war. So to say that the Confederate soldiers were, individually, fighting to preserve slavery is a falsehood. The Confederate government, which was dominated by rich plantation owners, had a vested interest in preserving the instittution, but your average Confederate family had no real direct dependence on slave labor.

Another thing you have to understand, is that the Confederacy was not in unanimous agreement about ANYTHING. No nation ever has been. The CSA’s highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were not slave holders and did not believe in slavery. These men were military geniuses, heroes, and highly influential in the South. Were they to emerge victorious in the Civil War, they would likely be influential abolitionists.

The fact that Confederates had many different opinions on slavery can clearly be seen in the Confederate constitution. Article I Section 9(1) of the Confederate Constitution effectively banned the over-seas slave trade. If the South truly wanted to grow the institution of slavery, they would have re-opened their ports and allowed the over-seas slave trade continue.

Lastly, you have to understand that the US is effectively the only Western nation that had a war that resulted in the ending of slavery. Every other nation outlawed slavery with relative peace, yet the US entered in to the bloodiest war ever to be fought on this continent. Based on what I know, I believe slavery as an institution would have ended in the South within the first thirty-thirty-five years of it's existence. That is simply due to public opinion, influential abolitionists, and (arguably most importantly) foreign diplomatic pressure. Implying that the South would never have abolished slavery is like implying that the North would never have ended child labor. Societies and laws evolve and change, that has always been true, and it will always be true. The Confederacy is not exempt from that fact.

Finally, I leave you with this: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." -Robert E. Lee, letter dated December 27, 1856

... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

It's always better to quote the whole passage than just that one sentence. Then Colonel Lee was bemoaning the evil slavery did to white people, though he doesn't say what that evil is, and that while the institution might be harsh for the blacks, they are so much better off here, learning to be civilized, than back in Africa being savages. He concludes, and you can almost hear him sigh, that only God will make it right, in His own time.

[Cannot think of a name]

Sorry for jumping in, but:

You're going to regurgitate one of the six or so already addressed Confederate appologist arguments?

First of all, you have to understand that the majority of White people in the South were not slave-holders at the time of the Civil war, or any point before the war. So to say that the Confederate soldiers were, individually, fighting to preserve slavery is a falsehood.

Yep. A #4, 'not all Southerners owned slaves ergo it wasn't about slavery.' A classic to be sure. While better equipped folks have already detailed the many reasons you're wrong as hell, let me take a moment to reinforce why you never got out of the gate.

This argument works if, say, the government that lead them to war told them it was about, say, weapons of mass destruction. Or they were bringing freedom to the North. Or that the North was going to steal their Lucky Charms...anything but 'the North is looking to abolish our peculiar institution.' Then you can go, "Well, they thought they were fighting for something else because that's what they were told."

Buuuut...they weren't. They were told explicitly that they were fighting to defend their peculiar institution. In fact, the reason I keep saying 'peculiar institution' is because that's the way they referred to it in their founding documents and speeches about how the North was going to come down to the South and let all the darkies go.

And that's just it. They had every reason to believe this was about slavery because every chief decision maker and person speaking publicly about it said in no uncertain terms, "This shit is about slavery." If they created another reasoning in their head they were at best coming up with a justification for themselves to fight for the right to own black people. You don't get a pass for that.

Even if you don't own slaves your self if your local economy is built around slavery, your success is tied to slavery. You're running the general store down the way and your biggest customer is Colonel Whipsalot the Third, if his slave plantation isn't bumpin', neither is your store. You're not selling to him, you're not supplying the people who come to pick up his cotton, you're not selling to the dudes who watch his slaves, you're not selling to the guy who fixes his farm equipment, you're not selling to the person who makes the giant hoops that the women on his plantation put in their dresses. You don't have to own a slave yourself to feel like your livelihood is completely reliant on Colonel Whipsalot being able to keep slaves.

And we know that not all southerners agreed on shit, because in this very thread you'll see again and again people pointing out that southerners joined the Union army because southern as they might be, the idea of getting into a shooting war to protect Colonel Whipsalot's slave owning was abhorrent to them. Where's that memorial? For the Southerners who said, "Yeah, I'm from the south and at present my way of life is kind of reliant on slavery...but seriously...fuck this shit." Carve those guys into a mountain instead of the guys where if you're really selective and squint really hard you can kind of maybe sort of pretend that they really didn't mean it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Sorry for jumping in, but:

You're going to regurgitate one of the six or so already addressed Confederate appologist arguments?

First of all, you have to understand that the majority of White people in the South were not slave-holders at the time of the Civil war, or any point before the war. So to say that the Confederate soldiers were, individually, fighting to preserve slavery is a falsehood.

Yep. A #4, 'not all Southerners owned slaves ergo it wasn't about slavery.' A classic to be sure. While better equipped folks have already detailed the many reasons you're wrong as hell, let me take a moment to reinforce why you never got out of the gate.

This argument works if, say, the government that lead them to war told them it was about, say, weapons of mass destruction. Or they were bringing freedom to the North. Or that the North was going to steal their Lucky Charms...anything but 'the North is looking to abolish our peculiar institution.' Then you can go, "Well, they thought they were fighting for something else because that's what they were told."

Buuuut...they weren't. They were told explicitly that they were fighting to defend their peculiar institution. In fact, the reason I keep saying 'peculiar institution' is because that's the way they referred to it in their founding documents and speeches about how the North was going to come down to the South and let all the darkies go.

And that's just it. They had every reason to believe this was about slavery because every chief decision maker and person speaking publicly about it said in no uncertain terms, "This shit is about slavery." If they created another reasoning in their head they were at best coming up with a justification for themselves to fight for the right to own black people. You don't get a pass for that.

Even if you don't own slaves your self if your local economy is built around slavery, your success is tied to slavery. You're running the general store down the way and your biggest customer is Colonel Whipsalot the Third, if his slave plantation isn't bumpin', neither is your store. You're not selling to him, you're not supplying the people who come to pick up his cotton, you're not selling to the dudes who watch his slaves, you're not selling to the guy who fixes his farm equipment, you're not selling to the person who makes the giant hoops that the women on his plantation put in their dresses. You don't have to own a slave yourself to feel like your livelihood is completely reliant on Colonel Whipsalot being able to keep slaves.

And we know that not all southerners agreed on shit, because in this very thread you'll see again and again people pointing out that southerners joined the Union army because southern as they might be, the idea of getting into a shooting war to protect Colonel Whipsalot's slave owning was abhorrent to them. Where's that memorial? For the Southerners who said, "Yeah, I'm from the south and at present my way of life is kind of reliant on slavery...but seriously...fuck this shit." Carve those guys into a mountain instead of the guys where if you're really selective and squint really hard you can kind of maybe sort of pretend that they really didn't mean it.

It should be noted that despite his unfortunate name, Colonel Whipsalot was quite kind to the slaves on his plantation, was not known to use harsh disciplinary techniques, and manumitted them all in his will.

[USS Monitor]

I hear this all the time.

The funny thing is, I have YET to hear a convincing argument SUPPORTING such a claim; rather, it's just thrown out there as a given, as something that we should all just accept without challenge or proof. Yet it took until the 1950s for the Arab world to abandon slavery — which is telling, because:

• Slavery was never as central to Arab culture as it was to the culture of the South; if the Arab world took until the 1950s to abandon slavery, why should we not imagine that an intact antebellum Southern culture brought forward to the present day would STILL not renounce it, given its importance to THEM?
  
  
• In many ways, de facto slavery still exists in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf principalities today. If THEY still find it useful (even if only in clandestine form), why wouldn't a contemporary version of the antebellum South find it equally (or even more) useful, especially given the way in which the racialized nature of African slavery within a still-extant Confederacy would allow them to forestall the invariable rise of a Black independence movement in the wake of the breakup of the British and French colonial empires in the 1950s and 1960s?
  
  
• It's not at all clear that groups like ISIL won't bring slavery back in a heartbeat if given half a chance; clearly then, there is nothing magical about 21st Century life that makes slavery either globally unthinkable or practically impossible, even if it WOULD quite clearly be an institution subject to near-universal condemnation by "modern" nations everywhere.

So explain to me WHY the Confederacy would have given up slavery, when it was clearly something they were willing to fight and die for, and when s much of their wealth was (quite literally) tied up in human capital. Give me a reason to accept this assertion that everybody tells me should be taken as a given, without proof or question.

Go for it. I await such an argument with bated breath.

Sorry for jumping in, but:

First of all, you have to understand that the majority of White people in the South were not slave-holders at the time of the Civil war, or any point before the war. So to say that the Confederate soldiers were, individually, fighting to preserve slavery is a falsehood. The Confederate government, which was dominated by rich plantation owners, had a vested interest in preserving the instittution, but your average Confederate family had no real direct dependence on slave labor.

How is that even remotely relevant? The people who didn't own slaves had not done anything to dislodge the slavers from state governments before the Civil War, they hadn't done anything to hinder the continuation of slavery, and they didn't do anything to prevent slavery from being enshrined in the Confederate constitution. What makes you think they had any intention of doing anything to end slavery after the war if the CSA won?

Another thing you have to understand, is that the Confederacy was not in unanimous agreement about ANYTHING. No nation ever has been. The CSA’s highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were not slave holders and did not believe in slavery. These men were military geniuses, heroes, and highly influential in the South. Were they to emerge victorious in the Civil War, they would likely be influential abolitionists.

They were both tolerant of slavery before and during the war. Why would they become abolitionists after the war? I am more familiar with Lee's views on the subject than Johnston's, but Lee was in favor of preserving slavery for as long as God and the state of Virginia saw fit to preserve it. He didn't think it would or should last forever, but he was in no hurry to do anything about it.

The fact that Confederates had many different opinions on slavery can clearly be seen in the Confederate constitution. Article I Section 9(1) of the Confederate Constitution effectively banned the over-seas slave trade. If the South truly wanted to grow the institution of slavery, they would have re-opened their ports and allowed the over-seas slave trade continue.

If they truly wanted to preserve slavery, they would have made it unconstitutional for states to abolish slavery at the state level. Oh, wait...

Lastly, you have to understand that the US is effectively the only Western nation that had a war that resulted in the ending of slavery. Every other nation outlawed slavery with relative peace, yet the US entered in to the bloodiest war ever to be fought on this continent. Based on what I know, I believe slavery as an institution would have ended in the South within the first thirty-thirty-five years of it's existence. That is simply due to public opinion, influential abolitionists, and (arguably most importantly) foreign diplomatic pressure. Implying that the South would never have abolished slavery is like implying that the North would never have ended child labor. Societies and laws evolve and change, that has always been true, and it will always be true. The Confederacy is not exempt from that fact.

Did it ever occur to you to consider why we needed a war in the first place? I could imagine the CSA abolishing slavery sometime in the 20th century, but I think it's overoptimistic to think they would have abolished it in the 19th century. What "public opinion" and "influential abolitionists"? Our current conception of human rights is not some universal truth that anybody will come up with if you let them think about it for a few years, and I don't see any evidence that abolitionism was gaining traction in the South at the time of the Civil War. The only reason the abolitionists were becoming influential at the federal level is because the North's population was growing and Northerners were running out of patience with all the slavery-related bullshit that slopped over into the North.

Incidentally, child labor is still around in family businesses. When I lived in Maryland as a kid, there was a restaurant in my town that had elementary school aged kids helping to bring stuff out to the tables and bus tables.

Finally, I leave you with this: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." -Robert E. Lee, letter dated December 27, 1856

Cherry-picking quotes does not make Lee an abolitionist.

[Laerod]

Sorry for jumping in,

You have no idea how long I've waited for someone to say tha-

but:

Goddamnit, you were doing so well up until this point!

But yeah, basically, ASB asked for a convincing argument and selective quoting and red herrings aren't convincing. Try again.

[USS Monitor]

4. The South was unable to have an overseas slave trade and they knew it, as England was patrolling the waters and sinking slave ships.

Especially with their shitty navy.

[Alien Space Bats]

Article I Section 9(1) of the Confederate Constitution effectively banned the over-seas slave trade. If the South truly wanted to grow the institution of slavery, they would have re-opened their ports and allowed the over-seas slave trade continue.

What, and glut the internal domestic market for slaves? That would ruin the big slave-breeding plantations along the Southeastern cost.

Methinks you really don't have any understanding of the economics of slavery in the antebellum South.

Many of the older plantations (especially in Virginia and the Carolinas) had soil depletion issues that reduced their productivity. These issues were compounded by large slave populations that, if not properly managed, would increase labor costs to the point where such plantations might be threatened with bankruptcy.

The solution to this was established well before the War of the Rebellion: The older plantations supplemented their diminishing agricultural output by selling surplus slaves to the newer plantations further west, in Alabama, Mississippi, and beyond. This internal slave market kept plantations in the older States going economically, but it also effectively meant that slaves weren't just valuable as agricultural labor, but were effectively valuable as a tangible asset in and of themselves.

Which brings us to this very important fact: In the years before the War of the Rebellion, the price of slaves rose relative to other prices, rather than falling (as we might expect if the number of slaves was increasing due to population growth at the same time as their individual value as workers was falling). Wrap your head around that reality for a minute and consider what it means: If you're going to tell me that slavery as in institution was failing, why was the price of a typical slave rising even as slave population rose? Worthless assets (or those that are declining in utility) don't generally rise in price, so unless you're going to farcically argue that the antebellum South was going through something analogous to a 16th Century Dutch tulip bubble, the inescapable conclusion is that slavery as an institution was not only alive and kicking, but doing damned well on the eve of secession.

But there's another consequence of all of this: Slaves were as ASSET, and the trade in slaves was itself a source of wealth for a GREAT many people, especially in Virginia and the Carolinas, which were TREMENDOUSLY influential within the Confederacy. So it's not at all inconsistent for the Confederacy to have agreed to maintain the ban on the external slave trade while embracing and enshrining it as an eternal aspect of Southern culture within that same Confederate Constitution: The two policies together worked to ensure the continued economic prosperity and centrality of the Old South. Powerful interests always get their due.

Lastly, you have to understand that the US is effectively the only Western nation that had a war that resulted in the ending of slavery. Every other nation outlawed slavery with relative peace, yet the US entered in to the bloodiest war ever to be fought on this continent.

How many of these other nations had a powerful agricultural sector that used slavery to produce a cash crop that was considered a global strategic resource?

Based on what I know, I believe slavery as an institution would have ended in the South within the first thirty-thirty-five years of it's existence.

This is an opinion, stated as if it were fact. As an opinion, it has no weight.

That is simply due to public opinion, influential abolitionists, and (arguably most importantly) foreign diplomatic pressure.

The South banned abolitionist organizations, destroyed their printing presses and pamphlets, and arrested those who expressed abolitionist opinion openly. Indeed, this was one of the causes of secession: They argued that the North's refusal to do so as well was "radical, subversive and dangerous" and constituted aggression against them. It's right there in South Carolina's official declaration of the reasons why they chose to secede.

You seem to forget — or quite possibly never knew — that prior to Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, STATES were not obligated to honor the BIll of Rights if they chose not to do so. Thus the 1st Amendment liberties that you seem to think protected abolitionists from arrest, torture, and even summary execution DID NOT EXIST in the case of a STATE government coming after them for expressing a "radical, subversive and dangerous" opinion — and as a rule it was the STATES who did precisely that, rather than leave it for the Federal government. The South wasn't just intent on making slavery a universal institution; it was intent on making OPPOSITION to slavery impossible, and had already effectively done so South of the Mason-Dixon Line. The War was the next step in carrying the process into the North, and crushing abolition altogether.

Which is why I have to laugh at your assertion that prominent Confederate generals could have ended slavery. They'd have been arrested and imprisoned if they tried, just like loads of abolitionists before them were.

And foreign governments? I doubt Europe would have done anything at all to pressure the South to end slavery. Europe had its own issues, thank you; they would have continued to focus on those issues and ignored whatever horrible shit was going on across the Atlantic, pretty much in the same way as they ignored Belgium's (19th Century) atrocities in the Congo or Japan's (20th Century) atrocities in China.

Implying that the South would never have abolished slavery is like implying that the North would never have ended child labor. Societies and laws evolve and change, that has always been true, and it will always be true. The Confederacy is not exempt from that fact.

Last time I checked, there was never a Constitutional clause preventing States or the Federal government from ending child labor.

But of course, that rather skates past the larger point: There were good economic reasons for ending child labor. Yet you STILL have yet to give me even ONE good reason why slavery would have died out. All you've done is said that it could, that certain people might want it to, and that it did in other places where economic and social conditions were not the same as they were in the antebellum South.

Finally, I leave you with this: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." -Robert E. Lee, letter dated December 27, 1856

So what? Are you trying to tell me that Robert E. Lee was some kind of all-powerful God who could single-handedly wipe slavery away in spite of Constitutional clauses protecting it, State governments determined to defend it, and powerful economic interests invested it it?

I mean, I could quote Col. Smedley Butler from a century ago on the insidious influence of the big banks, and yet here we are in 2015, seven years after those same banks damned near blew up the world, and Citibank is bigger and more reckless than ever. What is one man's pissing in the wind, against large forces with much greater power?

[Alien Space Bats]

You could passably argue that large scale plantation slavery was likely to end soon after the Civil War, even if the Confederacy had won. Largely because changing technologies were making slave labor uneconomical. It probably would have taken a couple of decades though, and even then wouldn't have ended the institution of slavery or necessarily have freed all of those slaves. They would have just been moved to some other portion of the economy where slave labor could still be used productively.

I doubt they would have continued slavery to the modern era, outside political pressure technological advances, possible resistance and many other factors would likely have ended slavery. However the delay in ending slavery would likely lead to delays in the civil rights movement, so I wouldn't be surprised if the "modern" confederacy didn't look like South Africa a couple of decades ago.

You need to expand on this argument. Show me why plantation slavery wouldn't have lasted, and show me that slave labor wouldn't have been expanded into other areas. In answering, keep in mind that one of the South's war aims was to secure the West for the future establishment of new plantations and/or slave-based agricultural enterprises.

[The Cobalt Sky]

You need to expand on this argument. Show me why plantation slavery wouldn't have lasted, and show me that slave labor wouldn;t have been expanded into other areas. In answering, keep in mind that one of the South's war aims was to secure the West for the future establishment of new plantations and/or slave-based agricultural enterprises.

HA! ASB's first mistake... I'm glad I'm here to witness it...

[Koritha]

The Confederacy can be remembered for other things than just slavery. I mean, it would probably a look a lot different today than almost two centuries ago. It's not like they would have continued with the slavery for a very long time, anyway.

What other things can it be remembered for?

If slavery would not have continued for a very long time, anyway, then why did the Confederate Constitution prohibit the national and state governments from passing any laws prohibiting the practice of slavery or the slave trade in the states of the Confederacy, and in any new territories acquired by the Confederacy?

It most likely would've dissolved after a while. Really, it most likely would've.

[Dyakovo]

You need to expand on this argument. Show me why plantation slavery wouldn't have lasted, and show me that slave labor wouldn;t have been expanded into other areas. In answering, keep in mind that one of the South's war aims was to secure the West for the future establishment of new plantations and/or slave-based agricultural enterprises.

HA! ASB's first mistake... I'm glad I'm here to witness it...

He's made grammatical errors before. Finding flaws in his arguments is much more difficult.

[Dyakovo]

What other things can it be remembered for?

If slavery would not have continued for a very long time, anyway, then why did the Confederate Constitution prohibit the national and state governments from passing any laws prohibiting the practice of slavery or the slave trade in the states of the Confederacy, and in any new territories acquired by the Confederacy?

It most likely would've dissolved after a while. Really, it most likely would've.

And you base that on what exactly?

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

[Koritha]

It most likely would've dissolved after a while. Really, it most likely would've.

And you base that on what exactly?

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

I base it on the fact that over time, things change, and it would've dissolved sooner or later.

[The Cobalt Sky]

HA! ASB's first mistake... I'm glad I'm here to witness it...

He's made grammatical errors before. Finding flaws in his arguments is much more difficult.

It's a once in a lifetime event, Dyak. Let's just sit back end enjoy it for a little while.