Here's my defense of the South about the war between the states. Read and say if it's either unreasonable or reasonable.
Omg! Where to begin? This whole argument is un winnable with people who only read pseudo history that supports their emotional point of view.
1. Lincoln was trying to preserve the union.
2. The south was defending slavery.
Those are the well worn facts.
Mid war Lincoln had a change of heart and became convinced that he had to destroy slavery to preserve the union.
The symbols mean what modern people feel they mean. If they are offensive it is because of modern meaning. The confederate flag no longer means honor, struggle and Robert E Lee. It is used mainly to support white supremacist ideas. To deny that is to have your eyes closed.
That said, the first amendment right to free speech does not just protect non offensive speech but offensive speech as well. So you have the right to be an asshole and I have the right to ignore you.
an asshole and I have the right to ignore you.
The south has a loser mindset. 👎🏾👎🏾👎🏾💩 poor leadership
Don't care about what people think, the Romans had slaves, and caused war yet no liberal on here gives a shit (yet) if you have their symbol as your profile picture. No need to justify any position.
This goes for old history. Nobody would complain about the Roman eagle in any shape but anyone using a fascist symbol will probably be under constant fire. Could also happen with a commie one, hammer and sickle.
Just give them an old Italian Fascist phrase "Me ne frego". ;)
I reverted to the eagle I once started with.
The circle says me ne frego 😏
Well maybe just maybe that's because that happened 1000 years ago on another continent and it was back during a time when dudes were routinely getting nailed to two-by-fours ...
Idk. Maybe 1000 years and it being a distant country makes a tiny bit of a difference in how people feel.... Idk... Just a crazy idea
The "crimes" are still the same either way. You're just ignoring one, and focusing on the other. By that logic I could say the Confederacy was almost 200 years ago, in a seperate generation. Why should you care?
I'm not ignoring it. Just doesn't hold as much sting. Still pretty freaking awful.
200 years ago isnt even close. The confederacy was like 150 years ago. Even if it wasn't and it was 200 years, 200 years isn't a long time. That's like 4 generations.
1000 years is.
Who made you the judge of deciding how long it should be before something is ignored? The Turks sold slaves way after the U.S., and all European countries banned it, should we cencor the Turkish flag as well?
Also, don't catch me on semantics. Saying about 200 years for the Confederacy is closer than your estimation for the Roman Empire.
People aren't as sensitive to things that happened a millennia ago.
When you get traumatized and you're 5, you're hurt. You get scared and you might be scared for years.
But you're most likely not going to find a lot of people still traumatized at 80 years old. Maybe some... But most people have forgotten and/or let go.
Slavery was not long ago. Especially not because it continued on long after its official "demise". Today, someone's great grandpa could've been a slave.
Actually your close, "People aren't as sensitive to things that happened til the millennials came" is a better example.
Also, there's not a single person alive that went through slavery in the U.S. By your logic I should hate the French flag because they mistreated my great uncle in the 30s because he was Italian.
"Who made you the judge of deciding how long it should be before something is ignored?"
- no one. That's common sense. Time heals wounds.
Alright, if time heals wounds then I hate the French, German, and Allied flag for mistreating my relatives.
"By your logic I should hate the French flag because they mistreated my great uncle in the 30s because he was Italian"
..... I explicitly recall you citing your butthurt about how the allies firebombed Dresden and other German cities as a major reason your name is Luftwaffe.....
Apparently, my logic is quite sound. LOL!
Apparently, you feel something despite you not having been alive to experience it.
Funny how that works, huh!
Maybe because I don't like seeing civilans fire bombed like my relatives had to also go through in Italy. That dosen't mean I'm going to get offended if I see the Allied flag, or tell you that you're a horrible person for being sympathetic to them. Difference between me and you as I can tolerate what offends me, you have to hide it.
I'm going to use some words YOU said earlier but tweak it just a little.
You acknowledge the pain, but you feel like people's reactions should be different. So...
When did YOU get to decide how people should react to painful events and memories? When did YOU get to say what hurts or offends people?
Your butthurt about some people getting bombed... But somehow people who's family were treated like farm animals, who were hung, beaten and dragged behind horses for no reason... People who were robbed of their entire humanity in every conceivable way... People who had their mothers and fathers get raped by white men whenever they felt like.... Those people should get over it. Those people shouldn't be so sensitive.
Like I said, funny how that works...
I'd say contemporary history becomes ordinary history after the events have gone from living memory because no witnesses of the events are still alive. This takes about 100 years.
After that, it's just dead history.
I never said I was supportive of the Confederacy, nor liked them. But I'm damn well not going to judge Prae for putting a rebel flag as his profile picture, or being sympathetic towards their cause. Hell, everyday when I see the Sickle and Hammer it reminds me of the Tsar, and innocent Europeans getting killed, that doesn't mean I'm going to act all offended or act as a victim when I see it. Like I said, I at least can tolerate what offends me, and not care that much. Liberals on the other hand must point it, and make it the center of attention. You're probably more sensitive to seeing that Confederate flag, than even slaves at the time were. It's just a fucking flag, get over it.
Luft, you need to "get over it" when it comes to your objections about what other people think.
BTW, "liberals" are not a writhing interconnected mass of indistinguishable goo. There are many individuals, with many and varied stances who fall into that category.
For example: I could not care less what flag a person flies, as long as they behave like a decent human being and don't shit all over people just because they disagree with them.
not in any way to imply that praet is less than a decent human being.
"Liberals on the other hand must point it, and make it the center of attention"
I rarely see this. Very very few people care what you wear or hang. You're most likely referring to people's objections to it being flown on public property. Who cares what you do with your private life.
I don't need to get over anything, I don't really care what you any liberal thinks. That being said, don't act as if the Confederate flag dosen't trigger many liberals. Walmart, Amazon, and Ebay all removed the flag so you wouldn't be offended. Also, there's liberals that would try to vandalize civil war statues, and memorials. Hell there was even #burnaconfederateflagday on twitter a while ago. Don't even try to play dumb and say the anger was directed at just a flag on a goverment building.
Any of you*
Lol well that's that I guess hahaha
Unreasonable and grossly uninformed. Here's a nice rebuttal from a conservative source by the way -
The South mainly defended slavery but the North defended the Union first.
Listen to the video it blows that outta the water too.
I've seen it but there are tons of others that point to economic reasons other than slavery, here one:
You've gotta do better at considering the source. Sons and the daughters of the confederacy are well known for their gross distortions and revisions of history. My source is creditable yours and the hundreds of other videos disagreeing are not.
Reasonable, but I disagree. I see what you're saying, but I don't think there's any way to tell if slavery could have been abolished peacefully. It was possible, but nevertheless, the two sides were deeply divided on the issue and both were adamant for numerous reasons, which is understandable. There were several decades of failed compromises and “gentle reforms”. I don't place any of the blame on Lincoln- the south started seceding before he even took office. The South did attack first.
As you said, at the beginning of the war Lincoln made it clear that he was fighting to preserve the Union. While he viewed slavery as evil and amoral, he was not a radical abolitionist. He didn't "jump the gun". He finally issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, abolishing slavery in the south and giving a greater purpose to the already-costly war.
He did so in a way to keep the approval of the North (many of which did NOT want to fight to abolish slavery, just to preserve the Union). He pushed hard for the passage of the 13th Amendment to ensure that slavery would not survive after the war. Looking at the situation from Lincoln’s perspective, I don’t see how he could have handled it better. He was no tyrant. Nobody who ends slavery is a tyrant. He had a special way of advancing his positions with moderation and balance but yet did so without compromising.
Check this out. It handily refutes his view.
I watched the video. I agree with everything presented in it.
Your defense sounds just like what most people say here.
I agree with you though that the north wouldn't have been so ready to end slavery if their economy depended upon it the way south's did.
Money has a way of blinding people to morality.
I don't think there was a good way to undo it though. I've read a bit about slavery in different places in the Americas... And it never ends well.
I think the sooner they put an hard stop to it, the better. The founding fathers actually had tried to phase it out, but it didn't work.
When you think about how the Southern United States is in some ways comparable to many of the islands in the Caribbean in terms of our history with slavery, I'd say we are doing pretty okay. I know it definitely isn't exactly the same, but still.
I highly recommend reading about the Haitian revolution. It is super interesting and super enlightening. The effects of that revolution in the United States were large. It scared people a lot.
TFW you have a revolution and you're still a shithole decades later 😕
Yeah it is really sad.
But the slaves there killed nearly all of the white people before the end of it. And one of the reasons white people in the south (even those without slaves) were afraid to free the slaves was because they were scared that the slaves there would organize a massacre like the slaves in Haiti in the massacre of 1804.
Or the Nat Turner rebellion:
@HadleyS take five minutes and look at a video containing a video that shows this view as grossly unreasonable, uninformed, and intellectually impoverished. It's also unbelievably from a conservative source.
Also praetorious the Nat Turner thing was small potatoes compared to anything that happened in the islands. I too recommended you read history there.
This user is currently being ignored
"The South never seceded so there was no treason and no reason to start the war. "
- lol wut? Is this really what revisionists are trying to propagate these days? Dude, you're not even slick. We have it IN WRITING that they stated "hey, btw, we're seceding cuz y'all bastards won't let us beat the shit out of niggers and treat them like livestock"
It's literally written down.... By them.... proudly..... What the HECK are you talking about? That's a pretty bold lie to just sit there and state.... Wow
"Many soldiers no longer wanted to fight the civil war once the emancipation proclamation was signed, claiming in letters that they weren't fighting for the lives of "n*****s"."
-- irrelevant. They're soldiers. They take orders. Whether it's to take a god forsaken rock I'm the pacific or to "free niggers"
"If the country was so anti slavery then why were they allowing the new territories to choose slavery based on popular vote?"
-- because the South demanded they be allowed to on threat of secession
@palindrome clearly you know your history and it has not been revised. Lol. Good stuff indeed.
"The South was under represented in Congress and needed votes because they were getting screwed by the North. Picture the government taxing the 1% now except back then it was taxing the South."
-- yes, if by "under-represented" you mean slavery wasn't represented and by "getting screwed" you mean not getting more pro-slavery support and by "imagine taxing the 1%"... You mean not looking kindly only the Southerners literally owning people and raping them, murdering them, beating the shit out of them and stealing everything they've ever produced ...? Then yeah, sure... It was "like taxing the 1%"..... Sure...
Smdh... I hopped on SoH for after work unwinding and now I'm just goddamned depressed
No saying the south succeeded is the truth lol.
Apparently lol you need to review the video again.
Also, @lolilover a good book on the subject "What hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815 - 1848" Daniel Walker Howe. It clearly demonstrates that South Carolina lead the succession movement as early as the Jackson Administration - when they threatened succession 30 years before the Civil War - why? Slavery - so no surprise they succeed first during the civil war. Interestingly, President Jackson dispatched General Winfield Scott down with orders not to shoot unless they did. About the same as what LINCOLN told his generals years later. Anyway, they backed down when other states wouldn't succeed with them.
Other states such as Georgia wouldn't succeed with them. Oh, and "Lincoln was a bad president" that's your argument 😂😂😂😂👌.
Okay sounds good.
Do I *really* have to do this again?? Ok.
"trying to justify the war against slavery."
-- Right. Because you need to go to great leant the to justify a war against slavery. Right.
"The South didn't secede because the Constitution makes that impossible"
-- the Constitution didn't say anything about secession. It wasn't prohibited not allowed. It was a gray area.
It is NOW a settled matter due to the Civil War and the subsequent decisions by the courts. But the COTUS doesn't explicitly forbid secession.
"the North wasn't fighting to end slavery"
--Except it was. Again, there are PRIMARY documents by Lincoln and others that this was a conflict to preserve the union and get rid of slavery once and for all.
As a matter of fact, the US had been trying to get rid of slavery for DECADES before the Civil War but it was always met by stiff resistance by southern states.
@Palindrome I don't mind saying I'm just loving this and you are so concise and matter of fact. A thing of beauty indeed.
"the North didn't plan on fighting and risking their lives to free negroes"
-- The US also didn't enter WW2 to save Europeans from Nazism. The US didn't go to war in Iraq to free Iraqis. The US didn't go to war in Korea to protect South Koreans or in Vietnam to protect South Vietnamese.
There are ALWAYS overarching policy goals. That doesn't mean that protecting people and doing the right thing for people isn't a major component that led to, justified and fueled these conflicts. The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union, as well as fighting for a just cause.
If the Union wasn't fighting to eliminate slavery, then they would have given guarantees to the South to preserve slavery in exchange for their surrender and return. If the elimination of slavery hadn't been an objective, then they would have allowed the south to keep it.
Yours isn't even a decent attempt at historical revisionism. Entertaining, but not the least bit logical, convincing or well thought out
"and the whole thing could've been solved with a temporary, very pro slavery, compromise."
-- I wonder why that wasn't offered 🤔
Almost as if the North fought to eliminate slavery....
It's funny how lawmakers, leaders and even the president of the confederacy could be so explicit to the point of almost being comical... I mean, for gods sake, there are PRIMARY documents from lawmakers and governors stating that there should be NO DOUBT that their secession was so that they can keep slavery forever.... They would literally say "let there never be any doubt!!!"
... And we STILL have historical revisionists like this guy saying "nah. They were kidding bro"
It's like when people make excuses for and explain trump's own words for him. Never mind what the source itself said... Let THESE guys tell you what you need to think.
Right! 🙄 that might work for you, but it ain't workin for me
Exactly sir. I couldn't agree more.
Lol "you revisionists"
I find it interesting that you bring up a unique standard for the civil war (that everybody had to 100% agree with the mission) that is never in place for any other conflict the US has waged. Why does what the states wanted suddenly matter in this case?
Lol that's dumb. You're basically arguing "the north wasn't 100% committed to fighting for slavery therefore the war wasn't about slavery"
That's irrelevant. We have primary documents stating why this war was fought. To preserve the union and rid it of slavery. That's why it was fought.
If those states *really* didn't agree with that, they would have seceded too! Funny how non of the northern states implemented Jim Crow like the South either.
Your logic doesn't stand up to the smallest scrutiny. The only revisionist (a colorful one at that) is you.
"The war was to preserve the union"
-- right. A war was fought to preserve the union.... Which had been torn apart due to *drumroll*
"It is revisionism to say it wasn't"
-- well it's a good thing nobody here said otherwise
"Lincoln considered writing a deal allowing slavery until 1899"
-- but he didn't, did he? So that shows you just how resolute he was in defeating that. In other words, you're just reinforcing my point. Lincoln had MULTIPLE chances to abandon slavery. He never did which proves beyond any doubt that slavery was a defining cause of why the north waged it's war.
"The north wasn't fighting the south, they were fighting to stop the conflict"
-- if anyone wants to see cognitive dissonance, here's exactly what it looks like. This guy JUST conceded that Lincoln had options and mulled over possible resolutions to stop the conflict.
Yet it didn't abandon slavery. Yet you still claim that they were "fighting to end a conflict". Sir, that does not compute. You can't say "Lincoln considered a way to end the conflict" --- THAT HE DIDNT TAKE and then follow that up with "they were fighting to end the conflict".
"Seriously, there's nothing saying it was a war against slavery until well into the war and after many had already died."
-- that's just a flat out lie. It was spoken about BEFORE, during and AFTER.
Either you're lying or you're ignorant of this topic you seem to want people to think you're very knowledgable of.
I'd advise you to abandon this folly of trying to sell your revisionism here. It ain't gonna work with me around.
You keep talking about the north and slavery so lets recapitulate. The Northern States Ohio (1803), Indiana (1816), Illinois (1818), Michigan (1837), Iowa (1846), Wisconsin (1848), and Minnesota (1858) – were all free created as free states, because of the Northwest Ordinance.
Then 5 of the Northern self-declared states adopted policies to at least gradually abolish slavery: Pennsylvania (1780), New Hampshire and Massachusetts (1783), Connecticut and Rhode Island (1784). Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, while it was still independent, and when it joined the United States as the 14th state in 1791 it was the first state to join untainted by slavery. These state jurisdictions thus enacted the first abolition laws in the entire "New World". Then by 1804 (including, New York (1799), New Jersey (1804)), all of the northern states had abolished slavery or set measures in place to gradually reduce it. So basically for
All intents and purposes slavery in the north was gone by the civil war. Note how the northern states used their "States Rights" vs the southern use to preserve slavery.
Not obvious to you apparently as you've continued to insist that the north was somehow tolerant and even complicit in an institution they basically fully banished from their societies well before the civil war. Had the south done so they wouldn't have been so dependent on free labor and economically underdeveloped and stratified in their society.
Correct on the date for the north and even up to the civil war the north didn't want to kill about slavery.
Not really under Andrew Jackson sent General Winfield Scott with troops to South Carolina when they were threatened to succeed. During his administration in the 1830s. Also, John Adams and others predicted it would eventually happen.
South Carolina was threatening to secede for slavery just like the second time. Lol.
You are completely full of crap. That's all I can say. It's amazing watching you make it up as you go along.... I wish I had that luxury.
"So you believe that the reason we went to war was to end slavery?"
I don't know how many more times I have to say this, but this war was to preserve the union. I've said it at least 3 times already....
This is just funny
Go ahead and quote me on that, champ
See, we both agree that the war was fought to preserve the union lol
YOU are trying to take that fact and omit a key part. It's like the people who claim the south fought for state's rights...
Yes. BOTH those things are true but you are *intentionally* omitting the crux of it:
Slavery was the DEFINING issue that fueled the conflict between North and South. The south wanted to preserve it and the North wanted to abolish it. The south decided to secede in order to preserve that horrible institution and the north decided to bring their candy asses back in line and back in compliance with the law of the Union, which went so far as to *constitutionally* forbid slavery.
The Union was preserved, the South taken to task and the entire country was finally rid of slavery once and for all.
In other words, the Union fought a conflict that had, as its overarching goal: the preservation of the Union and the final elimination of slavery as a legitimate, lawful institution.
Excellent and exactly. ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️😂😂
"The north wasn't trying to abolish slavery. Show me one source saying they had done anything against slavery prior to the civil war outside of the North"
-- I believe Brings already provided MULTIPLE examples.
As a matter of fact, the reason the South flipped when Lincoln was elected is because the republicans were running on a strong abolitionist platform 😂😂😂
Lol they explicitly stated they were running on a platform of abolishing slavery 😂😂
The Union had already taken NUMEROUS moves towards ending Alavert pre-civil war. Numerous northern states had begun outlawing slavery ... 😂😂😂
Lol this is not going well for you
Lolilover - listen to yourself you're still arguing but your making no sense.
This is sad. This is a perfect example of someone who doesn't want to admit they're wrong
Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you keep going. Holy shit. Touché sir.
"nothing done against slavery in the south. Everything done against slavery wasn't for the slaves. It was against slaveowners."
Wew fuckin lad
Lol and I love how you just keep ignoring stuff that's inconvenient to your narrative haha like how so many northern states had abolished slavery by the time of the civil war 😂😂
Wew fuckin lad 😅
A 10 year old could look this up and know you're full of it.
We live in sad times where grown ass people are trying to rewrite history and sanitize the horrible crimes of the south and its secession and war over keeping human beings captive.
Time for another review of the video no reading required and everything he says is verifiable using primary sources.
More information, read all about the NUMEROUS compromises and concessions anti-slave forces in the north made to try and control and eventually eliminate slavery... Dating back to efforts by Thomas Jefferson. Your assertion that the north never cared about slavery before he civil war is
.... PAINFULLY uneducated. And I mean ****PAINFULLY**** uneducated
"There never was slavery in the north so abolishing it there is just preventing southerners from corrupting their way of life."
You just proved how willfully ignorant you are. If you so much had bothered to educate yourself by clicking the link, you would have plainly seen the chapter "Abolition in the North" and read the history of slavery in the north.
Jesus Christ. You're a bonehead. It's not that you don't know, it's that you don't care. It doesn't jive with your narrative so you reject it and ignore everything. You make statements easily proven false over and over and over again.
You know absolutely nothing about this topic and I'm not going to keep wasting my time with a braying bonehead who refuses to listen or learn anything.
"With a little patience and gentle reforms, the whole clusterfuck could have been avoided and thousands of lives spared."
Lol what? You do know that even after the North won the war, the South had to be occupied by northern troops to try to enforce the reconstruction amendments and the second those troops left, the Southerners went back to lynching black people and psuedoslavery while denying them basic rights (to the extent that it ever stopped to begin with).
There was never in a million years going to be a peaceful way to take the right to chain up and kill slaves from southerners. And if there was it would take a million years. Sometimes you have to think about the lives of the slaves in addition to the lives of the people who wanted to keep them enslaved.
Would you have supported a permanent separation?
United States and Confederate states? I mean, if two regions totally don't get along, why not go separate ways for good?
@praet Absolutely not. Anything that would have allowed slavery to continue to exist is wrong. Letting the southerners continuing to enslave people should never have been an acceptable option. Never.
The North should have been heavy handed in enforcing rights. If we can't protect rights, we are nothing as a nation.
@lol. I would have never supported slavery to begin with because I'm an utterly morally corrupt human being. You make it sound like "forcing" people not to torture, chain, and lynch black people is an inconvenience that the Northerners have no right to impose. There should have been no sympathy for slavery sympathizes when it meant allowing slavery to continue.
And let's not forget, it was the South that started the war. It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression. The South started a morally reprehensible war and it lost. And we are a hundred times better as a nation for it.
If by "doing nothing" you mean fighting to keep people enslaved, and if by "theft" you mean slavery and treason, then sure.
And your solution is to take it out on innocent former slaves? There is no way to justify what the South did and that parts of the North did before that. So don't bother trying.
I agree veritas. Short video supporting your views from a conservative source.
Great video! I didn't know the part about Mississippi opposing New York's state right to ban slavery. Puts a nail in the coffin of the state's rights argument.
Totally. This is an excellent video that correctly summarizes lots of history. Sadly most folks here are ignoring it but it's great.
I understand what you're saying, but the South was not justified in seceding from the Union, therefore not justified in the Civil War.
That's a very important question.
Are the conditions to join a union (mutual agreement) the same as leaving it?
Is leaving a union of states treason or just states' rights?
The federal government was not in violation of the Constitution, so yes, it was treasonous.
Let's start with the casus belli.
The infamous letter to Greeley by honest Abe tells us that he didn't start that war over slavery but to preserve the union.
Yes, the Southern states did secede mainly over ending slavery but the North had it easier since their more industrialized economy didn't depend that much on slaves.
Still, the yanks attacked and achieved the following:
- 400,000 or more Americans dead
- the economy of the South in ruins
- millions of slaves now "free" but also homeless and jobless
- many former slaves returned to the plantations to work
- no plans were fleshed out what to do with the former slavea
The industrial revolution would by and by have phased out slavery anyway, but no, Lincoln had to jump the gun.
With a little patience and gentle reforms, the whole clusterfuck could have been avoided and thousands of lives spared.
How can the yanks attack their own country? Confederates attacked fort Sumter in land legally belonging to the United States. The confederacy was a southern hiccup not recognized by anyone
Also, there is no jumping the gun when it comes to abolishing slavery. Slavery is a terrible act and was long overdue to be abolished
Jump the gun? Seriously? Slavery was in every regard, evil and un-American. There is no jumping the gun when it comes to granting natural rights to people who are being stripped of them.
Then how come only the North seemed to see this? Don't kid yourself, if the Northern economy had depended on slaves as much as the Southern, they would have had no incentive to end it. After all, Yanks formerly also kept slaves.
Hahaha jumping the gun? What are you saying? It's slavery dude, there is no gun to be jumped, end that shit ASAP.
Imagine you had been a plantation owner in 1860.
You had slaves, each worth about as much as a car.
Then suddenly, all were declared free and you are financially ruined and without laborers.
Happy? Well, that was the mindset then, not 20/20 hindsight
Slavery was gone in the North as soon as possible. The Founding Fathers hated it because of what it was. Don't fool yourself into thinking this was purely economical.
It doesn't matter if I'm happy or financially ruined. They are human beings forced into slavery. That trumps money issues.
@dominiclandry: you're right, while slavery was omnipresent during colonial times, it faded quite fast in the Northern states:
F uck you
Troll time I think and I probably know why.
"Then how come only the North seemed to see this? Don't kid yourself, if the Northern economy had depended on slaves as much as the Southern, they would have had no incentive to end it. After all, Yanks formerly also kept slaves."
So did Great Britain. So did Spain. So did Portugal. They ALL got rid of it anyway..... You can argue the industrial revolution for Britain. But not the rest. Yet they still did it. And earlier too
Also, the south attacked the north.
"millions of slaves now "free" but also homeless and jobless"
I don't see why you listed this. I know you're not suggesting they were better off under slavery.....
.... Please tell me that's not what you're saying......
I'm surprised praet, I always thought of you as reasonable and level headed even though we don't always agree. I must admit this is pretty shocking.
@palindrome: no, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying the abruptness of emancipation left them in a situation not much better than slavery. The transition should have been slower and maybe involved regulated work contracts with the plantations.