x-pand on traditional farmer post O/T

flying belgian

Well-known Member
Traditional farmer responded on the "old stories" post about General Lee. I have read more then once that Lee was a better general then Grant and if it were not for luck Grant would not have won the war. Wonder how history would have changed? I think we would be in about the same place by today. Maybe would have taken longer to get here. Take note I am a "northerner" but am fascinated by history of both sides. Can we have a friendly discussion on this?
 
Lee was probably a better strategist and tactician, but he was forced to be by his logistical realities. He had to take risks, make audacious gambles, and audacity will work in many cases. Grant was not hindered so much by logistical considerations, but neither were his predecessors. Unlike them, Grant understood that he had to wage total war, a war of attrition, and to never allow his enemy to catch his breath.

Lee was also hindered by the loss of his commanders, with no one of competence to take their place. At the end, Grant had a pretty good cadre of top generals.

Both had their strengths, both had their flaws. Don't see how you can determine one was better than the other, except by the final outcome.
 
I am sure the quality of the generals has a lot to do with it, but I think the civil war was won by the industrial might of the north. My great grandfather was wounded and taken prisoner at Gettysburg.
 
What was "morally wrong" about the South? I'm taking a leap here to say this, but if your post is reffering to slavery, as would be expected nowdays, know this. The war was not fought over slavery as many seem to believe. In fact, in a nut shell, the war was fought over states rights, and basically limiting the hold of the federal government on the union as a whole. Granted it goes beyond that somewhat, but that was what the war was really fought over at it's most basic.

It's true that some Southern states wanted to continue to have slaves, so that was part of the whole deal, but at the same time there were also many Northern states that had just as many slaves as the Southern ones did. In the end the North was just as guilty of being 'morally wrong' as the South.....

In the end, saying that the South was 'morally wrong' simply due to the existance of slavery is about as far off the mark as you can get. Thing is there are millions of people out there that have no real clue about the true reasons, etc behind the war and as a result often feel this way or that based on inaccurate and incomplete information.

Unfortunately that prevelant lack of historical knowledge nowdays leads us into the realm of an old saying...just wish I could remember exactly who said it, but regardless of the speaker it's as true as can be. The saying goes something like this. "Those that chose to forget their history are doomed to repeat it..." Saddly I see that happening with the younger generation more and more the older I get....
 
That is a very thoughtful answer Jerry. I can see you have an interest and knowledge of the Civil War. It is refreshing to see people talk about something besides sports. General Lee said that General Grant was the greatest General since Julius Caesar.
 
Gettysburg. Historians have never fully agreed on what caused Jeb Stuarts delay in getting intelligence relating to the actual strength of the Union forces to General Lee or why General Leed decicied to attack without that information. It was out of character for general Lee to act without the information and he relied on Jeb Stuart but he never blamed Jeb Stuart and never really explained his decision. Lincoln picked Grant because he believed Grant would do what was necessary regardless of casulties and he was proven right.
 
NC Wayne,
You have fallen under the spell of the "Myth of the Lost Cause." Slavery in the North was mostly eliminated in the generation after the Revolution and virtually eliminated by 1840.

Sure, the South fought for States Rights, but the State Right was SLAVERY. The South was willing to break up the Union-The Great Experiment of the founding fathers merely because they had lost a legitimate Constitutional election in 1860. They didn"t even wait to let the moderate lincoln take office before seceding.

Do you really believe keeping 4 million people in human bondage was "moral?" The war was fought first, so that in Lincoln"s words, "Government of the people, for the people and by the people shall not perish from the earth," and secondly to free the slave.

Slavery was perpetually argued from the Constitution-Misssouri Compromise of 1820-Compromise of 1850-Kansas Nebraska Act 1854-Dred Scott Decision 1857- Lincoln Douglas Debates 1858- Election of 1860. Slavery was the root cause of the Civil War!
 
Lincoln was to have allegedly said that if keeping slavery would prevent a civil war he would allow slavery to continue. Lincoln didn't want war. But he thought that keeping the Union intact was very important if the united States were to survive. The slavery issue was used as a calling card for recruiting and to get the north behind the war effort when things were not going well.

Lee was loved by his troops but tactically he wasn't much. Sure if he had the best terrain and was being attacked he was great because his troops loved him and would hold their positions. But on the attack he was really bad. Gettysburg is case in point. Even some of his early successes can be blamed on the Union war department and Lincoln and not on him. They insisted that the field commanders attack even though the field commanders knew that they shouldn't. One of the reasons he decided to fight at Gettysburg was because even the Southern papers were calling him "the King Of Spades" because he liked to dig in and let them come to him. Today the formula is 3 to 1 odds to attack. Back in those days it was higher because a charging soldier couldn't reload while the dug in guy could reload and fire many times before they got into hand to hand.

It's claimed that officers who did not like Grant told Lincoln that Grant was a drunk and Lincoln was supposed to have replied that he wanted to know what Grant was drinking cause he would send some to his other commanders.

Rick
 
That is not a leap but maybe a stretch at least.
The war was in fact as you say fought over states rights. The states right to have slavery, which the nation as a whole knew was wrong and an issue that had been brewing since 1776 and "all men are created equal". Therefore, slavery was the issue at its most basic.

Even today we fight the ever tightening strangle hold of the Federal government over the States rights, but it NEVER would have come to an all out brother against brother war had it not been fought over the immorality of slavery.

That said, you can't lessen the importance of that fact by saying the North had slaves too so their arguement doesn't hold water any more than the North could be allowed to say that all in the South wanted slavery when there were many, many, many Southerners who abhorred the practice but had no political strength to make a difference.
 

April 12, 1861 was the day hostilities started. The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863. Almost 2 full years AFTER the war started. The argument before that was if they should contain slavery to the slave states or expand it. Lincoln wanted to contain it to the existing slave states.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 23:14:25 02/12/12) They fought at Gettysburg because that's where the two armies stumbled into each other.

No there are always opions. Lee could have pulled back and dug in forcing the Union Army to attack.

I spent 4 years teaching Armor Tactics at Ft Knox. First thing you learn is there are alway options. #2 is never plan on what you think the enemy may do, plan for the worst case (thats what allowed the Germans to pull off the offensive known as the Battle of the Bulge, no one looked at worst case on Ikes staff)!

After the initial skirmish, Lee could have fallen back and because of the circumstances at the time the Union Army would have had no other options but to pursue. A couple of more skirmishes by the Rebs would have slowed the Union Army down and allowed the main body the time to dig in and prepare defences.

As far as Jeb is concerned, while for the most part he was a great calvery commander he got over confident and thought the war was all but over and he tried to make a name for himself before the Union surrendered. So he was out there raiding and "making a name for himself". Again Lee showed that he was a true gentleman and never placed the blame on him. But there were major failings on Lee's part too. He failed to understand the pressure place on Mead to perform. Mead who was known for being timid was under the gun to produce. He did rise to the demands placed on him. Same kinda thing happened with England in the early days of WWII. That's what led to Montgomery getting command of the ground forces in North Africa. Ole Monty was a great planner but a very poor field commander who because of the circumstances was more concerned with not loosing a battle than winning one.

If you ignore wikapedia and actually research Monty's battles you will fine he was overly causes. Then look at Lee. Yes he got his troops to endure more, but tactically he wasn't much.

Rick
 
The Confederacy was doomed the day war broke out. It lacked the industrial capacity to fight a sustained war. Although Lee was a brilliant general, you can't fight a war without materiel. It is hardly coincidental that Lee surrendered three months after Fort Fisher fell and Wilmington, NC, the last major Confederate port, was captured.
 
Whether or not the South was morally right or wrong had no effect on the outcome of the war. If the South had won, would slavery have been morally vindicated?
 
The idea that the American Civil War was not fought over slavery is historical revisionism at its worst. The "right" that the South fought to defend was the right to own another human being as property. The debate over slavery was the underpinning of every other dispute between northern and southern states.

The violence in Kansas was not over "states' rights", since it wasn't even a state. It was over slavery. Slavery was also the reason for John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. No one can dispute that Bleeding Kansas and Harpers Ferry were events that helped lead the nation to war.
 
Yeah, Monte was overated.. Patton, now there was an Armor General..

My wife attended his son's change of command taking over his father's old division the 2nd AD at Fort Hood.

Saw his son at the O-Club once, looked just like father.. I was about to shout out "That's George Patton!"
 
Slavery would have died a natural death and run its course in short order, war or not. Economics, as always, was the principal driver, the industrial revolution and mechanization of farming was fast displacing hand labor and was much cheaper and efficient. Few people know or admit that most business people in the South always opposed ''Jim Crow'' laws because they wanted the customers, it was the (nnalert) politicians that drafted, imposed and enforced Jim Crow in the South, one reason I know this is because I grew up in the deep south during the 50's and 60's and have lived here all my life.
 
(quoted from post at 22:32:07 02/12/12) Lincoln was to have allegedly said that if keeping slavery would prevent a civil war he would allow slavery to continue. Lincoln didn't want war. But he thought that keeping the Union intact was very important if the united States were to survive. The slavery issue was used as a calling card for recruiting and to get the north behind the war effort when things were not going well.

Lee was loved by his troops but tactically he wasn't much. Sure if he had the best terrain and was being attacked he was great because his troops loved him and would hold their positions. But on the attack he was really bad. Gettysburg is case in point. Even some of his early successes can be blamed on the Union war department and Lincoln and not on him. They insisted that the field commanders attack even though the field commanders knew that they shouldn't. One of the reasons he decided to fight at Gettysburg was because even the Southern papers were calling him "the King Of Spades" because he liked to dig in and let them come to him. Today the formula is 3 to 1 odds to attack. Back in those days it was higher because a charging soldier couldn't reload while the dug in guy could reload and fire many times before they got into hand to hand.

It's claimed that officers who did not like Grant told Lincoln that Grant was a drunk and Lincoln was supposed to have replied that he wanted to know what Grant was drinking cause he would send some to his other commanders.

Rick

Throughout the war the Confederates fought almost invariably from a position of holding "the good ground". At Gettysburg, due mainly to lack intelligence, Lee decided, with disastrous consequences, to forgo this tried and true advantage believing that haste was what they needed.
 
That's a good answer. In school when I was a kid, slavery was taught as the principle cause of the war, sectional differences and states rights barely mentioned. As I have studied over the years, I have changed my mind. I grew up in western Pennsylvania. I would say that if I were alive during the time of the Civil War and knew what I know now, I just might have headed south to help out.

Christopher
 
Lee's other problem at Gettysburg was his unwillingness to listen to his other Corps commanders like Longstreet and his insistance on only using Staurt's Corps for gathering information. He had other cavalry units available but failed to utilize them.

Lee never won another major battle after Jackson died at the battle of Chancellorsville.
 
(quoted from post at 03:15:25 02/13/12) The Confederacy was doomed the day war broke out. It lacked the industrial capacity to fight a sustained war. Although Lee was a brilliant general, you can't fight a war without materiel. It is hardly coincidental that Lee surrendered three months after Fort Fisher fell and Wilmington, NC, the last major Confederate port, was captured.

Mark, At the time of Gettysburg public opinion in the north may have resulted in the south winning if Lee would have won there. People were tired of a war they thought would only last a few months. Had Lee fallen back toward Washington, leaving skirmishers to slow the Union army his main body could have dug in on key terrain and circumstances would have forced the union Army to attack. And battles like Fredricksberg shows what Lees Army could do in the defence.

Yes the Union did blockade the southern ports and the south was hurting for the material to wage war and the loss of major ports did speed Lee's surrender.

Lee was not a great tactician, his hey diddle diddle right up the middle attack that destroyed Pickets division shows his tactical competence on the offense. But he was a great leader who's troops loved him. After a mojor fight, although tired and with sagging moral they withdrew in good order back to Va. Most other commanders would have lost half of the Army after that to desertions.

In another forgotten blunder of Gettysburg, Mead gave the Army of VA a full days lead before starting after them when Lee withdrew. Had Mead given chase right away he could have trapped Lee and destroyed the Army of Va. That could have forced the south to sign a peace documnet.

Rick
 
Read the Harry Turtledove series.

He wrote several large volumes of alternate history books covering the period from the civil war to WW2. Essentually his story is based around the idea that the North and South would have continued fighting minor and major conflicts reducing the US and Confederacy to regional powers with the American people and the world suffering as a result. Picture North American being more like the Balkans only with more power and ibigger wars.

When you think about it, it is doubtful that a country split by civil war would have ever been at peace for any length of time.
 
(quoted from post at 08:55:44 02/13/12) Picture North American being more like the Balkans only with more power and ibigger wars.

When you think about it, it is doubtful that a country split by civil war would have ever been at peace for any length of time.

I too think that would be the case.

Rick
 
Slavery at the start of the war was a non-issue.States rights didnt incude slavery in any way.Its was simply (just as it is today)a right to self determination.IN the case of the civil war it was the right to determine who you were going to trade with.It was fought at its most basic level simply for MONEY.Let me explain,and theres years of history leading up to this point,but the southern white plantation owners didnt invent slavery.the slavery in the us went back long before the white man came here. cherokees kept slaves,as did most southern indian tribes.BUT there was a major difference.first and fore most if you were a slave to the cherokee ,you had full rights as a member of the tribe,you could own land,and you could keep slaves yourself.The way it was setup you more or less sharecropped for your owner.There were literaly thousands of white folks who came to the US that indentured themselves to the cherokee because they had its so much better than the rest of the world where they came from.MY OWN FAMILY WAS ONE OF THEM!.Then a little thing happened that changed this,that was the removal act and the resulting trail of tears.White endentured folks decided they would simply take over the plantations built by the cherokee and they are the ones who made slavery what it was.They simply moved into the plantation houses as the cherokee were forced out.BUT they had one little problem,when the cherokee left so did the work force.So they began importing slaves for forced labor.Big bucks were made,and in fact cotton became so important that it constituted 62% of the ENTIRE wealth and exports of the us at the start of the civil war.BUT right along with that came another problem.The problem of feeding,clothing,etc a massive human workforce.The plantation system simply HAD to have cheap goods to survive.But there was another problem,under the cherokee system it was always expanding. New slaves or indentured folks were given help to clear new ground to raise their crops.Not so after the whites took over.This meant that the ground was simply getting poorer and poorer.Massive amounts of fertilizer had to be imported.And the cotton gin could do more work in one hour than a slave could in one week.all this lead to a system that was failing, slavery had been outlawed in much of the rest of the world,simply because those countries couldnt afford to feed any more people.And machines were doing more and more work.Slavery and the whole plantation system was simply imploding.In the north pretty much the opposite was true.Workers were there by the thousands,living in rampant squaller in slums.And worked in mills and factories.these factories needed raw materials,mainly cotton, at that time.so these folks and mill owners resented the southerners shipping cotton to europe and other places in payment for the cheap goods needed to sustain there ever needy human workforce.The north had to import raw materials which drove the price of their goods even higher ,which meant that often the mills were closed and the northern worker who immigrated on a promise of a better life were less well off than when they started out.They were rioting in the streets demanding the jobs etc that were promised by the industrialized north.All this led to a situation,where the south had the raw material,the north needed it,but their goods were so expensive the south did buisness elsewhere.When the northern mill owners petitioned congress,there were a series of taxes and tariffs placed on imported goods ,designed to force the south to buy comparably priced goods from the north.This of course spelled the doom of the southern way of life,simply because the whole southern economy depended on inexpensive goods to be able to support that style economy.you couldnt simply buy a slave ,work him for three or four days and starve him to death,you had to feed and clothe him to make the system pay.The northerners didnt really need slaves simply because they had so many immigrant workers who would work for pennies,go home and the mill owners didnt have to feed or clothe them.BOTH systems 100% relied on the simple contingent of exploiting your fellow man.There were for all intents and purposes no differences north and south,the main difference was in the south you fed your workforce.When the war started,the first action by the north was to blockade southern ports and to take any cotton seized north.the south responded with what almost imediatly spelled doom for the south.they banned shipping of cotton during the first year of the war.that was absolutly the single one thing that cost the south the war,more than any other thing ,more than any battle fought.What that did in effect was to keep england ,france,and others from supporting the south.davis did that simply to keep seized cotton from going north,but by simply refusing to try to get exports out there was no reason for european countries to get involved.IF davis had been able to prove that cotton being sent to europe was being seized by the north,these countries would have had a reason to enter the conflict to protect their own intrests.Slavery it self was a nonissue at this point.and it only BECAME a issue when immigrants getting off the boats were sent straight into the army ,it didnt take much thinking to realize they were fighting for the intrest of the mill owners.the mill owners needed a moral reason for the war and found it in slavery.The net extent of all this was the demise of the slavery system all right,but it simply meant the south reverted back to the sharecropping system.it was not the same though,,before you were able to eventually work you way up to a position of wealth if you were a sharecropper,under the new system that choice was gone.ex slaves sharecropped simply because you had no choice,that was the only way they had to survive.They were technically worse off,simply because they did the same work,but they now had to support themselves. They were of course free to choose,but what do you do with nothing and no real options of getting something.Some were able to do skilled work simply because they were trained on the plantations to be blacksmiths,cooks,waiters,groomsmen etc. the vast majority were unskilled in anything but chopping and pulling cotton.
 
Whether slavery would have died on its own is debatable. It has been argued that the invention of the cotton gin prolonged slavery, because of the increased demand for cotton which couldn't be mechanically harvested. After the war, slavery was simply replaced by sharecropping.

As someone who spent a good portion of his life in the south, I'm aware that support for Jim Crow had less to do with one's political affiliation than it did with the color of one's skin. The Democratic Party was the party of both Bull Connor and George Wallace, as well as most businessmen of the day.
 
I"d usually stay out of the slave discussions,etc-- but the ponts about economic conditions, living conditions of northern industrial workers compared to southern slaves was brought up during abolition times--and northern factory workers were determined by many to have the worse conditions, made the abolitionist mad when papers noted that. Tariffs point favoring north is taught in Canadian and English history books along with point of English abolition acts about 1835 on compensating former owners and having some social training programs for former slaves- often in army like "Ethiope/black" regiments in carribean after revolutionary war- but the freedman laws did a bit more than nnalert Jim Crow laws. The US government and political movements have a history of stealing from a weaker party- "liberals" with some votes can try whatever legal loophole they can find to get what they want cheap. 1995 or so a Canadian school thesis paper had the cost comparison of English Abolition law that was used a few times in Canada question of "how much would it have cost American Abolition Societies to do same purchase/compensation of former slave owners for freedmen"? compard to how much did Civil War cost-- about 1/3 cost to purchase freedmen and a lot less kjilling but the abolitionists would have had to pay most of it themselves if original acts/conditions of induced sale were used. SO, cheaper for the abolitionists to get a war going that also helped northern manufacturers and some northern politicians. RN
 
If you want to know what we'd be like,get ahold of a copy of Spike Lee's movie CSA Confederate States of America. Not only one of the funniest movies I've ever seen,but excellent at using actually history to speculate how things would be.
 
(quoted from post at 09:59:15 02/13/12) Slavery at the start of the war was a non-issue.States rights didnt incude slavery in any way.Its was simply (just as it is today)a right to self determination.IN the case of the civil war it was the right to determine who you were going to trade with.It was fought at its most basic level simply for MONEY.Let me explain,and theres years of history leading up to this point,but the southern white plantation owners didnt invent slavery.the slavery in the us went back long before the white man came here. cherokees kept slaves,as did most southern indian tribes.BUT there was a major difference.first and fore most if you were a slave to the cherokee ,you had full rights as a member of the tribe,you could own land,and you could keep slaves yourself.The way it was setup you more or less sharecropped for your owner.There were literaly thousands of white folks who came to the US that indentured themselves to the cherokee because they had its so much better than the rest of the world where they came from.MY OWN FAMILY WAS ONE OF THEM!.Then a little thing happened that changed this,that was the removal act and the resulting trail of tears.White endentured folks decided they would simply take over the plantations built by the cherokee and they are the ones who made slavery what it was.They simply moved into the plantation houses as the cherokee were forced out.BUT they had one little problem,when the cherokee left so did the work force.So they began importing slaves for forced labor.Big bucks were made,and in fact cotton became so important that it constituted 62% of the ENTIRE wealth and exports of the us at the start of the civil war.BUT right along with that came another problem.The problem of feeding,clothing,etc a massive human workforce.The plantation system simply HAD to have cheap goods to survive.But there was another problem,under the cherokee system it was always expanding. New slaves or indentured folks were given help to clear new ground to raise their crops.Not so after the whites took over.This meant that the ground was simply getting poorer and poorer.Massive amounts of fertilizer had to be imported.And the cotton gin could do more work in one hour than a slave could in one week.all this lead to a system that was failing, slavery had been outlawed in much of the rest of the world,simply because those countries couldnt afford to feed any more people.And machines were doing more and more work.Slavery and the whole plantation system was simply imploding.In the north pretty much the opposite was true.Workers were there by the thousands,living in rampant squaller in slums.And worked in mills and factories.these factories needed raw materials,mainly cotton, at that time.so these folks and mill owners resented the southerners shipping cotton to europe and other places in payment for the cheap goods needed to sustain there ever needy human workforce.The north had to import raw materials which drove the price of their goods even higher ,which meant that often the mills were closed and the northern worker who immigrated on a promise of a better life were less well off than when they started out.They were rioting in the streets demanding the jobs etc that were promised by the industrialized north.All this led to a situation,where the south had the raw material,the north needed it,but their goods were so expensive the south did buisness elsewhere.When the northern mill owners petitioned congress,there were a series of taxes and tariffs placed on imported goods ,designed to force the south to buy comparably priced goods from the north.This of course spelled the doom of the southern way of life,simply because the whole southern economy depended on inexpensive goods to be able to support that style economy.you couldnt simply buy a slave ,work him for three or four days and starve him to death,you had to feed and clothe him to make the system pay.The northerners didnt really need slaves simply because they had so many immigrant workers who would work for pennies,go home and the mill owners didnt have to feed or clothe them.BOTH systems 100% relied on the simple contingent of exploiting your fellow man.There were for all intents and purposes no differences north and south,the main difference was in the south you fed your workforce.When the war started,the first action by the north was to blockade southern ports and to take any cotton seized north.the south responded with what almost imediatly spelled doom for the south.they banned shipping of cotton during the first year of the war.that was absolutly the single one thing that cost the south the war,more than any other thing ,more than any battle fought.What that did in effect was to keep england ,france,and others from supporting the south.davis did that simply to keep seized cotton from going north,but by simply refusing to try to get exports out there was no reason for european countries to get involved.IF davis had been able to prove that cotton being sent to europe was being seized by the north,these countries would have had a reason to enter the conflict to protect their own intrests.Slavery it self was a nonissue at this point.and it only BECAME a issue when immigrants getting off the boats were sent straight into the army ,it didnt take much thinking to realize they were fighting for the intrest of the mill owners.the mill owners needed a moral reason for the war and found it in slavery.The net extent of all this was the demise of the slavery system all right,but it simply meant the south reverted back to the sharecropping system.it was not the same though,,before you were able to eventually work you way up to a position of wealth if you were a sharecropper,under the new system that choice was gone.ex slaves sharecropped simply because you had no choice,that was the only way they had to survive.They were technically worse off,simply because they did the same work,but they now had to support themselves. They were of course free to choose,but what do you do with nothing and no real options of getting something.Some were able to do skilled work simply because they were trained on the plantations to be blacksmiths,cooks,waiters,groomsmen etc. the vast majority were unskilled in anything but chopping and pulling cotton.

Wow that was a mouthful! But pretty much accurate. Again what we were taught at school makes Lincoln look noble and justifies the civil war. But as both you and I and others have stated at the beginning slavery was a none issue except for the proposal that only the current slave states be allowed to keep slaves, new states would be not be allowed slaves. That's the platform that Lincoln ran on. Lincoln was quoted as saying that "if allowing slavery would prevent the war he wouldn't stop it and if abolishing it would prevent the war he would abolish it".

Rick
 
oddly enough there was a REASON why missouri became a focal point in those days.It just so happened that those cherokees who went west willingly ( see northern /southern cherokee) settled in western missouri/eastern kansas.There they simply resumed their plantation life style,and their practice of indentured slavery. Again by the time of the civil war,whites were pushing to have them removed this time into indian territory where the southern cherokee lived.Since they now owned the land by treaty,only the legal abolishment of slavery in the west could force them off,and open a huge portion of kansas and missouri to white settlement And ultimatly a large portion of indian territory in okla since the southern cherokee was no longer recognized after the war as a nation. Again this was absolutly needed to have room for the overflow of immigrants flooding into the north.they wanted land,had came here on the promise of it,and were again rioting in the streets of northern cities demanding what they were promised. Lincoln saw the advantage of opening these areas,this one act alone would guarantee him the support of the north.after all he was first and foremost a politician,and votes were the prize he was after.by pacifying the north with its large population,he got those votes.the south had a very large population but the vast majority were slaves with no rights whatsoever.and it should be pointed out they had no rights after emancipation either,and no politician wanted them to have any!
 
Owners would not have went to the expense of keeping slaves to harvest cotton once a year, they would have hired pickers to do the job same as a modern farmer hiring a wheat harvest crew to save the expense of owning seldom used machines. Sharecropping came about because the federal government did not make good on the ''40 acres and a mule'' promise. Regardless of the lofty principals expounded by politicians all lasting social change in mans recorded history was brought about by an economic need. In short, capitalism has emancipated far more people than wars or legislation ever concieved of.
 

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Back
Top