The north was as racist as the south. They simply didn't like slavery or need it for the economy.

Even Abraham Lincoln was a racist.

Some southern states are doing better than northern states.

Texas is basically the economic champion of us right now, with Houston being leagues better than just about any other city. No literally. Houston is probably a contestant for best city in the world.

Florida and Virginia are looking good.

Louisiana and Mississippi have always been pretty screwed.

"We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience."

the south chose to base it's economy on slavery and agrarianism. they had just as much opportunity as the north to embrace an industrialist economy before the civil war. even before the civil war the north far outpaced the south economically. true they were devastated, but they had no one to blame but themselves.

they were on the wrong side of history and refused to admit it. their economy was based on slavery so of course it was devastated after the civil war.

Yes so the thousands of southerners with no choice over the economy of the southern states must be beaten like dogs, whipped like cattle and be displaced and robbed.

Wrong Genghis.

Pre Civil War, Louisiana and South Carolina were 2 of the overall richest U.S. States.

Though your right; Texas undoubtedly has the best economy... and is also the most conservatice state in the US.


And during the war... the south was literally destroyed. Lincoln gave orders to annihilate everything in order to destroy morale. They burned homes, farms, crops, forests, everything, and killed cattle.


Also: I have black relatives that live in NJ. NJ is EXTREMELY RACIST AGAINST BLACKS.
The North today is more racist than the south, so suggesting that the south would, if independent, be racist against blacks is absurd.

Edited 7/7/2015 22:14:55

yes,poor South! Pure-eh,poor(was meant) murderers,poor racists,poor supporters of
racial discrimination

This sarcasm falls flat when you remember that the North had all of that in abundance in the 1860s as well.

The north was as racist as the south. They simply didn't like slavery or need it for the economy.

This.Besides, Why have slavery when you can work immigrants like dogs in your factories at low wage? Better productivity than plantations and without the moral discomfort!

the south chose to base it's economy on slavery and agrarianism. they had just as much opportunity as the north to embrace an industrialist economy before the civil war. even before the civil war the north far outpaced the south economically. true they were devastated, but they had no one to blame but themselves.

Most of this is pretty true, however I feel the need to point out a few things:

1.Factories outpace agriculture by far economic wise, but the South's situation was made worse due to the North being economically abusive prior to the war.Northern elite saw the South as little more than a resource mine for their factories and pushed for many bills that benefited the North at heavy expense to the South. South Carolina almost started the Civil War way earlier over tariffs.

2.Majority of the South actually didn't have slaves. Even in the deep south you'd be hard pressed to find a 50% slave holding number. The blame for slavery falls on the Confederate government and the rich planter elite in the South, not it's common citizens.

3.The North went out of it's way to devastate the South, with things such as Sherman's march to the sea. It can be argued that the total war tactic was justified. There's no excuse for the horrible failure of reconstruction though. Radical Republicans were dead set on punishing the South and did everything in their power to stifle it's recovery. It's a shame Abe Lincoln didn't live, he would of focused on rebuilding the South rather than rubbing it's face in the dirt.

On of (what I believe) the real reasons the north (hated the south) was because the south was a threat. Imagine if the southern elites had started building factory's. They would've economically severely damaged the north.

Yes Abraham Lincoln would have done wonders for the south and America as a whole. Andrew Johnson was horrible.

@TL: The South wasn't in any position to industrialize. It only managed to catch up during the 1930s and 1940s because of government funding.

The reason there was such an economic disparity between the North and South, in fact, was because the South had a geographic disadvantage when it came to industrialization. The North had cheap hydropower which it used to industrialize, not to mention a massive comparative advantage in industry (since it had less-than-fertile soil, so even if the South had been more industrially efficient, the North would've likely still had a comparative advantage in industrial economic areas).

However, there were economic reasons. Imagine you're a laborer- a farmworker, perhaps. You get paid $7/hr and want to get paid $10, maybe even $15 at some point. But some jerk is working for free. How do you compete with free labor? Not that it was a competitive market, but freeing the slaves would've created one and led to more job opportunities for Northern workers.

This is why there was overwhelming support among laborers for the abolition of slavery (which also kept the British and French from recognizing the Confederacy, because the aristocrats would've had significant opposition from the majority of the population if they did so).

Edited 7/7/2015 22:43:41

Except for, because of sharecropping (which was practically slavery in itself) the civil war didn't really free many people.
Peacefully freeing slaves, even at the expense of it taking 20-40 more years to get rid of slavery, would've been better.


Abolitionists, through there often violent methods, hurt there own cause.

Peacefully freeing slaves, even at the expense of it taking 20-40 more years to get rid of slavery, would've been better.

This is what Lincoln wanted to do. He planned to simply isolate slavery in the South and let it fizzle out on it's own (Which it would have). However, the South seceded anyways and then the gloves came off.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
-Abraham Lincoln

cept for the Emancipation Proclamation ruined that, and ruined any chance of peacefully ending the war.

Also, on another note, some southern general, were, ironically, abolitionists: Robert E. Lee, (who freed his slaves; in fact, one of his former slaves served as his bodyguard and chef during the war), for example.

Lee only joined the confederacy because Virginia did.

Tupac, what did the confederacy do to free black people kidnapped from the north? what has nearly every country done during a total war situation?

I'm not saying what the north did was right, just that what the southerners did even before the war was what caused them to have a smaller economy. remember that they (they as in the people in power, not innocent civilians) started the war. the south could have freed their slaves, like nearly every other country had done by that point.

knyte you are right about geography playing a role, but another reason was that southern politicians resisted federal infrastructure, so banks and investments, thus railroads, thus industry was nowhere near as heavy. especially by the time of railroads and coal power, the south could have integrated more with the north and not been so far behind.

also southern politicians and slavery supporters were very heavy handed and were fighting to impose laws and trade rules that would have hurt the north. there had been factioning since the early 1800s. both sides were attempting to subdue the other.

yes, both sides were extremely racist by today's standards, but one was quite a bit more racist than the other. maybe most abolition supporters were prejudiced and wanted to stay separated from blacks, but they still thought they were equal human beings and not property.

i read a big ass civil war book recently, and i wish i could remember the name so i could cite it. i hope everybody in this thread reads big ass books about the civil war cause it is a super complicated topic.

Difference is:
Today, in the south, races have integrated.

In the north, theres still the seperate (mostly) black, white, and hispanic communities. With self imposed segregation.

Edited 7/8/2015 00:27:38

Rednecks are often super nice to blacks. Not so much to Hispanics, but blacks are like cousins to rednecks. See Blake Shelton : Boys Round Here.

Rednecks are often super nice to blacks

I can attest to this. There were perhaps only two or three black kids in my high school, but they were often treated very well and were good friends with the much more numerous redneck crowd.

That awkward moment when your rural hometown of 5,000 people is less racist than a major city like St.Louis.

actually, having been to many cities and small towns across the east coast (my families travelled and moved a lot, suprisingly) and with all the relatives ive talked to, it seems that GENERALLY, the closer you are too big cities, the more racism you see.

There's more racism in big cities because of higher crime rates and poverty, etc.

yep.
specially in NJ.

Do we still openly claim NJ as our own?