not a single thing you said in that entire retarded reply was anywhere in the area of truth.
blacks in the south did not have it better in 1850 than in 1950.
being held as a slave in 1850 was not better than being a free person in 1880.
there was no hatred "generated" towards blacks by the civil war, it already existed because you southern retards viewed them as subhuman.
slavery in the south would have gone on for a long, long, long time with idiots like you trying to argue that it is better to be enslaved than be free and subject to the repugnant racism that you spew.
You have a certain aversion to reality, don't you?
Anyone, if given the choice would chose to be free over being a slave, that isn't up for discussion, I did not say they were better off as slaves, I said in ways their lives were rougher as free persons than slaves.
Once free, where did they go? They had nothing and no one. They had to go off somewhere to land no one wanted to try to scratch out a living on. They had absolutely no protections from laws after the occupation army left after Reconstruction. Sure, no one was going to sell your child (an event that didn't occur often) but it might starve to death. They were given nothing, denied many ways to get what they needed, and blocked at every opportunity when one finally started to get ahead. At least prior to the war they were fed and given basic medical care.
How many books about pre-civil war race relations have you read? I've read several. And I can tell you that prior to the civil war, FREE blacks enjoyed a level of social acceptance that they did not reach again until well into the 20th century.
Slavery is like a drug, in many ways. It wasn't 'the south' that set up the slave economy. England did. Those who lived in the south just so happened to be born into a society shaped by those who had come before and made them dependent on slavery. What do you do when you inherit a vast amount of wealth and a substantial part of it is slaves, and what is left over is dependent upon those slaves to be productive? You keep them until it no longer makes sense. How do you make it make sense? You boycott the goods produced by slaves.
The south had tentative support from France and England during the war. They were willing to end slavery, after the war, in exchange for aid. The aid never came because on the same day the dam broke in the western front (Vicksburg) and the Army of Northern Virginia was fatally wounded at Gettysburg. It became evident the south could not win, and negotiations ceased.
The United (Confederate) States of America was the last western nation to have slavery in its own territory. Other countries in the western hemisphere (Brazil, Peru, etc...) held slaves for 30 more years or so. Today they have much better race relations than we do. Their black slaves of African ancestry were treated much worse than ours, we outlawed slave importation in 1808, it made slaves scarce, and very valuable. Compared to their counterparts in Brazil, a slave here was very well fed and treated. There, they were worked to death, literally.
Do you honestly think that the American south was unique in the world and would have kept slaves into the twentieth century?
You have fallen victim to propagandist history that seeks out to make totally evil men who did something evil. Undoubtedly you will spin this into something it isn't, an advocacy of slavery. I don't advocate for slavery, what I do say that had slaves in the US been freed under different, more natural and gradual circumstances, those who were newly freed would have enjoyed more freedom, and less hatred upon their liberation. This is common sense, and the way it is in every other country where the process happened more normally.
