It's Robert E. Lee Day, January 19th: How Will You Celebrate This Hero, Southern Pride And Heritage?

[SassyIrishLass]

England and France both gave serious thought to siding with the Confederates, if they had it was an entire new war. Gettysburg and one infamous charge prevented it

It's one America great historical 'what if's' but I am still not convinced they would have sided with the Confederacy. The Union made it quite plain that recognizing them diplomatically meant war. England and France were more concerned about expanding their empires and markets in Latin America. The public opinion in both nations were spilt but more so in France b/c the 'cotton famine' greatly harmed them economically.

England had more need of cotton, but the unbelievably stupid idea the confederate traitors had to burn their cotton crop failed miserably. England turned to Brazil, Egypt, and India to make up the supply. The cotton market was never the same again after the war.

Yeah, it was a pretty big mistake. Though cotton exports to Europe dropped sharply, England had a surplus of Southern cotton stockpiled from bumper years just before the war. Cotton Diplomacy didn't have the desired effect, in fact, the exact opposite occurred.

The south couldn't ship the cotton, the Union naval blockade was strangling them

The Confederacy imported and exported quite a bit through Mexico with French complicity.

Through Nassau and the Bahamas also

 

[Liminal]

On January 19th, Americans will celebrate a true hero, a national treasure of Southern Pride and White Heritage. Robert E. Lee is a true icon and he should be remembered as such. How will you celebrate this remarkable gentleman?

There is a bona fide reason to recognize the valor and loyalty of Confederate soldiers.
But blatant racists like you shoot it in the foot and set everything back because you give ammo to the left wing racists and democrat fascists who deny and destroy that legitimate American history.

Many people these days like to interpret history through the narrow lense of contemporary equivalencies.

 

[Liminal]

It's one America great historical 'what if's' but I am still not convinced they would have sided with the Confederacy. The Union made it quite plain that recognizing them diplomatically meant war. England and France were more concerned about expanding their empires and markets in Latin America. The public opinion in both nations were spilt but more so in France b/c the 'cotton famine' greatly harmed them economically.

England had more need of cotton, but the unbelievably stupid idea the confederate traitors had to burn their cotton crop failed miserably. England turned to Brazil, Egypt, and India to make up the supply. The cotton market was never the same again after the war.

Yeah, it was a pretty big mistake. Though cotton exports to Europe dropped sharply, England had a surplus of Southern cotton stockpiled from bumper years just before the war. Cotton Diplomacy didn't have the desired effect, in fact, the exact opposite occurred.

The south couldn't ship the cotton, the Union naval blockade was strangling them

The Confederacy imported and exported quite a bit through Mexico with French complicity.

Through Nassau and the Bahamas also

A primary source of imports from Britain. They also got arms and equipment from other European powers through Cuba.

 

[Unkotare]

Emperor Max knew his ass would be cesped if he tried to fuck around too obviously during the American Civil War. Not that it would matter very long for him anyway...

 

[mdk]

On January 19th, Americans will celebrate a true hero, a national treasure of Southern Pride and White Heritage. Robert E. Lee is a true icon and he should be remembered as such. How will you celebrate this remarkable gentleman?

There is a bona fide reason to recognize the valor and loyalty of Confederate soldiers.
But blatant racists like you shoot it in the foot and set everything back because you give ammo to the left wing racists and democrat fascists who deny and destroy that legitimate American history.

Many people these days like to interpret history through the narrow lense of contemporary equivalencies.

This actually one of the reasons why I don't often discuss history here despite having advanced degrees in the subject.

Also, trying to correct all the inaccurate statements would take up every second I spend here. lol

 

[Liminal]

People who haven't studied the Civil War have no idea how close the Confederate States came to achieving independence recognized by England and France. If Gettysburg had went to the south both France and England would have done so

England's disdain for slavery and the cultivation of Egyptain cotton made intervention in the war unlikely.

The Confederacy had some allies in France as well but military aid seemed unlikely as they were too busy trying to rebuild on an Empire at the expense of Mexcio. It didn't turn out as they planned. lol

England and France both gave serious thought to siding with the Confederates, if they had it was an entire new war. Gettysburg and one infamous charge prevented it

It's one America great historical 'what if's' but I am still not convinced they would have sided with the Confederacy. The Union made it quite plain that recognizing them diplomatically meant war. England and France were more concerned about expanding their empires and markets in Latin America. The public opinion in both nations were spilt but more so in France b/c the 'cotton famine' greatly harmed them economically.

England had more need of cotton, but the unbelievably stupid idea the confederate traitors had to burn their cotton crop failed miserably. England turned to Brazil, Egypt, and India to make up the supply. The cotton market was never the same again after the war.

See if you can imagine the political deadlock if secession had never happened. Slavery would very likely have continued well into the 20th century.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

On January 19th, Americans will celebrate a true hero, a national treasure of Southern Pride and White Heritage. Robert E. Lee is a true icon and he should be remembered as such. How will you celebrate this remarkable gentleman?

There is a bona fide reason to recognize the valor and loyalty of Confederate soldiers.
But blatant racists like you shoot it in the foot and set everything back because you give ammo to the left wing racists and democrat fascists who deny and destroy that legitimate American history.

Many people these days like to interpret history through the narrow lense of contemporary equivalencies.

This actually one of the reason why I don't often discuss history here despite having advanced degrees in the subject.
Also, trying to correct all the inaccurate statements would take up every second I spend here. lol

I love history but too many want to whitewash it or erase the facts. It's sad, you can't change it and it should be embraced, lessons can be learned from it

 

[Unkotare]

People who haven't studied the Civil War have no idea how close the Confederate States came to achieving independence recognized by England and France. If Gettysburg had went to the south both France and England would have done so

England's disdain for slavery and the cultivation of Egyptain cotton made intervention in the war unlikely.

The Confederacy had some allies in France as well but military aid seemed unlikely as they were too busy trying to rebuild on an Empire at the expense of Mexcio. It didn't turn out as they planned. lol

England and France both gave serious thought to siding with the Confederates, if they had it was an entire new war. Gettysburg and one infamous charge prevented it

It's one America great historical 'what if's' but I am still not convinced they would have sided with the Confederacy. The Union made it quite plain that recognizing them diplomatically meant war. England and France were more concerned about expanding their empires and markets in Latin America. The public opinion in both nations were spilt but more so in France b/c the 'cotton famine' greatly harmed them economically.

England had more need of cotton, but the unbelievably stupid idea the confederate traitors had to burn their cotton crop failed miserably. England turned to Brazil, Egypt, and India to make up the supply. The cotton market was never the same again after the war.

See if you can imagine the political deadlock if secession had never happened. Slavery would very likely have continued well into the 20th century.

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

On January 19th, Americans will celebrate a true hero, a national treasure of Southern Pride and White Heritage. Robert E. Lee is a true icon and he should be remembered as such. How will you celebrate this remarkable gentleman?

There is a bona fide reason to recognize the valor and loyalty of Confederate soldiers.
But blatant racists like you shoot it in the foot and set everything back because you give ammo to the left wing racists and democrat fascists who deny and destroy that legitimate American history.

Many people these days like to interpret history through the narrow lense of contemporary equivalencies.

Translate.

 

[mdk]

I love history but too many want to whitewash it or erase the facts. It's sad, you can't change it and it should be embraced, lessons can be learned from it

Spot on!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

England's disdain for slavery and the cultivation of Egyptain cotton made intervention in the war unlikely.

The Confederacy had some allies in France as well but military aid seemed unlikely as they were too busy trying to rebuild on an Empire at the expense of Mexcio. It didn't turn out as they planned. lol

England and France both gave serious thought to siding with the Confederates, if they had it was an entire new war. Gettysburg and one infamous charge prevented it

It's one America great historical 'what if's' but I am still not convinced they would have sided with the Confederacy. The Union made it quite plain that recognizing them diplomatically meant war. England and France were more concerned about expanding their empires and markets in Latin America. The public opinion in both nations were spilt but more so in France b/c the 'cotton famine' greatly harmed them economically.

England had more need of cotton, but the unbelievably stupid idea the confederate traitors had to burn their cotton crop failed miserably. England turned to Brazil, Egypt, and India to make up the supply. The cotton market was never the same again after the war.

See if you can imagine the political deadlock if secession had never happened. Slavery would very likely have continued well into the 20th century.

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

Industrialization would have been the darwinistic solution.

 

[mdk]

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

Likely. Allowing the new states a plebiscite on wether or not they would allow slavery lead to quite a few deaths. I consider the years of 'Bleeding Kansas' to be the opening shots of The Civil War.

 

[Ravi]

Scratch my ass and burp in public like any proud southerner.

Because we all know what exemplars of decorum people in other parts of this country are.

^deflection

 

[Liminal]

England's disdain for slavery and the cultivation of Egyptain cotton made intervention in the war unlikely.

The Confederacy had some allies in France as well but military aid seemed unlikely as they were too busy trying to rebuild on an Empire at the expense of Mexcio. It didn't turn out as they planned. lol

England and France both gave serious thought to siding with the Confederates, if they had it was an entire new war. Gettysburg and one infamous charge prevented it

It's one America great historical 'what if's' but I am still not convinced they would have sided with the Confederacy. The Union made it quite plain that recognizing them diplomatically meant war. England and France were more concerned about expanding their empires and markets in Latin America. The public opinion in both nations were spilt but more so in France b/c the 'cotton famine' greatly harmed them economically.

England had more need of cotton, but the unbelievably stupid idea the confederate traitors had to burn their cotton crop failed miserably. England turned to Brazil, Egypt, and India to make up the supply. The cotton market was never the same again after the war.

See if you can imagine the political deadlock if secession had never happened. Slavery would very likely have continued well into the 20th century.

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

That's all very interesting I'm sure, but how exactly would slavery have ended? Would the US government have offered financial compensation to slave holders? How would this political compromise have come about?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

Likely. Allowing the new states a plebiscite on wether or not they would allow slavery lead to quite a few deaths. I consider the years of 'Bleeding Kansas' to be the opening shots of The Civil War.

Many people believe the assassination of Elijah P. Lovejoy and the dumping of his printing press into the Mississippi River (for the third time) were the real first shots of the Civil War.

 

[Liminal]

Scratch my ass and burp in public like any proud southerner.

Because we all know what exemplars of decorum people in other parts of this country are.

^deflection

You probably didn't need to reemphasize your being a shallow simpleton.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

Likely. Allowing the new states a plebiscite on wether or not they would allow slavery lead to quite a few deaths. I consider the years of 'Bleeding Kansas' to be the opening shots of The Civil War.

Many people believe the assassination of Elijah P. Lovejoy and the dumping of his printing press into the Mississippi River (for the third time) were the real first shots of the Civil War.

Ironically, this being MLK Day, Lovejoy's murder was because he was an abolitionist and his newspaper was from the same southern Illinois town that was home to James Earl Ray.

 

[mdk]

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

Likely. Allowing the new states a plebiscite on wether or not they would allow slavery lead to quite a few deaths. I consider the years of 'Bleeding Kansas' to be the opening shots of The Civil War.

Many people believe the assassination of Elijah P. Lovejoy and the dumping of his printing press into the Mississippi River (for the third time) were the real first shots of the Civil War.

It's funny that you mention Lovejoy b/c my professor and I used to go round for round debating that point. We would chomp down pints and bicker like old ladies over historical minutia. lol.

 

[Unkotare]

England and France both gave serious thought to siding with the Confederates, if they had it was an entire new war. Gettysburg and one infamous charge prevented it

It's one America great historical 'what if's' but I am still not convinced they would have sided with the Confederacy. The Union made it quite plain that recognizing them diplomatically meant war. England and France were more concerned about expanding their empires and markets in Latin America. The public opinion in both nations were spilt but more so in France b/c the 'cotton famine' greatly harmed them economically.

England had more need of cotton, but the unbelievably stupid idea the confederate traitors had to burn their cotton crop failed miserably. England turned to Brazil, Egypt, and India to make up the supply. The cotton market was never the same again after the war.

See if you can imagine the political deadlock if secession had never happened. Slavery would very likely have continued well into the 20th century.

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

That's all very interesting I'm sure, but how exactly would slavery have ended? ...

The way the small number of Southerners who owned significant numbers of slaves feared: Congressional representation and social momentum.

 

[Unkotare]

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

Likely. Allowing the new states a plebiscite on wether or not they would allow slavery lead to quite a few deaths. I consider the years of 'Bleeding Kansas' to be the opening shots of The Civil War.

The opening shots of the American Civil War were fired at Lexington and Concord. (let it sink in - it's deeeep, baby)