The North did benefit greatly from the slave trade, to be sure. Not only in shipping, but in the development of financial institutions, including banks and insurance companies. While the slave trade ended (legally, at least) in 1808, these other institutions did continue to benefit for decades, as did Northern mills processing cotton, etc.
Having raised some good points, however, you reveal your own racism and your own lapses in logic. You claimed that since it was "based on fantasy and Lee's desire for constant victimhood" it "can't be considered satire." Several posters, including myself, have pointed out how it DID bring into the fictional narrative (of Southern victory and continued slavery) several aspects of American race relations that DID actually occur: legal segregation, racist depictions of Blacks in advertising and popular culture, historians and laypeople who celebrated the "glorious cause" and downplayed the negative aspects of slavery, and so forth. Again, it is not meant to be taken as a step-by-step guide as to how history would have been different had the South won. It illuminatest the way that RACISM won and the ways that the South dictated American racial policy for generations.
If you have the time or inclination to respond, what exactly do you mean when you write, "They paint slavery not as it was, but as they want to believe it and want for you to believe it." It seems that you are attacking those who believe that slavery was brutal, violent, and degrading to African Americans, an institution that established the foundation for continued legal and extralegal abuses of Black rights to the present. What, pray tell, is the "real" story of slavery if it is not this? Also, what evidence do you have that "the South was more opposed to slavery than the North"? Last time I checked, there were some people in the South opposed to slavery, many of whom were driven out of the region or silenced. The region's postal workers confiscated abolitionist literature from the mail for fear it would incite riots. Southern states sent committees of representatives to one another in 1860-1 trying to convince other states to join the secession movement on the grounds that slavery had to be protected. Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, proclaimed that it had been founded on the basis of white supremacy over blacks. And some Southerners opposed slavery only because it granted extra power to slaveholding regions in state legislatures at the expense of areas with increasing numbers of Whites that did not own slaves (see the debates in Virginia in the early 1830s, for example).
As far as I can see, you threw in a few accurate facts over the way the North benefitted from slavery to take the heat attention away from the South. If anything, your points about Northern racism reinforce the filmmakers' point about the national problem of racism and the ways the South did win the Civil War. Nobody here is claiming the North was perfect or free of racism, but you seem to use Northern racism as an excuse to deny the South did ANYTHING wrong. There is nothing to separate your writings on this site from those racists who claim that slavery was good, the South didn't really want to keep it, and that it was a "dying institution," when all historical evidence points to the contrary.
reply
share