|
Posts:
9,858
Registered:
11/18/04
|
|
(1 of 119)
What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 2, 2009 7:25 PM
|
I must give credit to Vareb for this question, I hope I frame it well;
Scenario 1;
If the south had not seceded would slavery have survived?
Scenario 2.
The south negotiates and treaty which allows them to seceded from the north;
Would slavery still exist there today?
In my opinion slavery was doomed, the die was caste. The European markets would have boycotted cotton produced by slavery by 1875, if the south insisted on continuing the practice their economy would have been in worse shambles then it was after the Civil War.
--
The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.
There's never a right time to be in the wrong place
jasser
|
|
|
Posts:
10,794
Registered:
1/18/06
|
|
(2 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 2, 2009 7:47 PM
|
According to historian William Freehling, in the book "Road to Disunion".... it would take a constitutional amendment to end slavery.
<snip>
The U.S. Constitutional amendment process guarded Slave Power’s power. As William Lloyd Garrison conceded, the federal government would need a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. Three-fourths of existing states had to approve constitutional amendments. In 1860, the nation contained seventeen free labor states and fifteen slave states. If all fifteen states perpetually rejected anti-slavery, only a union swollen to sixty states, forty-five of them free labor states, could have forced abolition upon the South. In some future century, the Union might balloon to sixty states. No such gargantuan swelling could be imagined in the mid-nineteenth century.
--
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
|
|
|
Posts:
3,539
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(3 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 2, 2009 8:04 PM
|
> I must give credit to Vareb for this question, I hope
> I frame it well;
> Scenario 1;
> If the south had not seceded would slavery have
> survived?
Not for long, it wasn't profitable once free labor became available. With millions of Chinese coolies, Irish blighters European immigrants and Mexican laborers coming in, there was no more need for profit from slavery.
Also, the market was becoming more specialized, thus shutting out the slave-labor market.
> Scenario 2.
> The south negotiates and treaty which allows them to
> seceded from the north;
> Would slavery still exist there today?
This is what I call "The Retardation Proclamation."
Slavery would have ended within a YEAR, since the most productive slaves would escape, while the most dependent slaves would remain, creating a negative cash-flow. And so the South would be forced to ban slavery, for the same reason as the North did-- ECONOMIC NECESSITY.
As for slavery existing TODAY, that's so absurd it's stupid. Slaves would simply jump the train to the nearest free state, and they'd be gone.
> In my opinion slavery was doomed, the die was caste.
> The European markets would have boycotted cotton
> produced by slavery by 1875
NOBODY boycotted it, EVER. It's silly to say that EVERYONE would "boy-howdy-bango" start boycotting between 1860 and 1875.
, if the south insisted on
> continuing the practice their economy would have been
> in worse shambles then it was after the Civil War.
There is NO WAY that could EVER happen. The war devastated the South so badly that it's NOW a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.
I can't believe how STUPID these big-mouths are.
> The state that separates its scholars from its
> warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and
> its fighting done by fools.
Welcome to reality.
>
> There's never a right time to be in the wrong place
> jasser
You would know.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,858
Registered:
11/18/04
|
|
(4 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 2, 2009 8:19 PM
|
TJ
Have you ever had a civil discussion in your life?
As it is a what if question based on events that never happened, one scenario is a valid as any other!
But why do you believe the south couldn't have controlled it's borders?
--
The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.
There's never a right time to be in the wrong place
jasser
|
|
|
Posts:
312
Registered:
1/29/06
|
|
(5 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 3, 2009 6:28 AM
|
Slavery was around because it was an economic necessity. Many question who was worse off, the slave or the slave owner, who was in debt up to his ears for the slave, had to be careful in control, and had to take care of the slave to keep him fit for work. So the question has been asked weather it was the master or the slave who was the biggest slave? Around the 1920's when machines started to take over the labor in the field do you see a drop in share cropping. And the Black starts to move North in large numbers. They called it "freedom land" when they crossed the Ohio River. By 1940 the first "race" riot took place in Chicago. So much for freedom land. The O Jay's had a song in the early 70's called "Backstabbers" which points out the difference in racism in the North and West (hypocritical), and the in your face racism in the South which is more honest but just as bad.
If not ended sooner, Brazil ended slavery in 1883, the last larger country to do so, slavery would have died out by the 1920's for the same reason as the share cropping die. The post on the Maine Vol. said it, if the North could have made slavery work the North would have had slaves but when it no longer becomes a profitable venture all countries dropped it like a hot potatoe. Slaves weren't treated as bad as a large number of people believe they were treated. It was the exception to the rule were lots of bad things happened to the slaves. The man with his back all scared up was from Jamaica, and had moved to the US after slavery was ended by England.
The only place I could see slavery stay around would have been out West were the mines would or could have used a couple hundred slaves. But when then mines "played out" the slave would have been freed or sold to another mine. If no takers they would have been freed. It was all about the pocket book, not racism that kept people in bondage.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,344
Registered:
2/27/03
|
|
(6 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 3, 2009 6:38 AM
|
I agree it's hard to imagine slavery enduring, but I'm darned if I can say when and how it would have ended, let alone a date like 1875. Even after Reconstruction, the powers-that-be in the south did everything they could to keep blacks subservient until the federal government forced integration on them in the 1950s-60s. The same legislators etc. would be in power in either of these scenarios, and I doubt they'd be any more desirous of empowering blacks. I suppose they could still set up some kind of Jim Crow system, but the first and biggest step is abolishing slavery, and from their point of view, why take it?
The problem, again from their point of view, is that even if they could do without slavery economically, they'd be sharing their communities with free blacks in numbers comparable to their own - greater numbers in Mississippi and South Carolina IIRC.
Before someone jumps up and says "Aha!" I'll note that most northerners were no more eager to live in integrated communities. I imagine a lot of Civil War soldiers from say Detroit might be shocked if they could see the end result of freeing the slaves and holding the Union together.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,305
From:
Shenandoah Valley
Registered:
1/6/04
|
|
(7 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 3, 2009 6:50 AM
|
> Slavery was around because it was an economic
> necessity. Many question who was worse off, the
> slave or the slave owner, who was in debt up to his
> ears for the slave, had to be careful in control, and
> had to take care of the slave to keep him fit for
> work. So the question has been asked weather it was
> the master or the slave who was the biggest slave?
> Around the 1920's when machines started to take over
> r the labor in the field do you see a drop in share
> cropping. And the Black starts to move North in
> large numbers. They called it "freedom land" when
> they crossed the Ohio River. By 1940 the first
> "race" riot took place in Chicago. So much for
> freedom land. The O Jay's had a song in the early
> 70's called "Backstabbers" which points out the
> difference in racism in the North and West
> (hypocritical), and the in your face racism in the
> South which is more honest but just as bad.
>
> If not ended sooner, Brazil ended slavery in 1883,
> the last larger country to do so, slavery would have
> died out by the 1920's for the same reason as the
> share cropping die. The post on the Maine Vol. said
> it, if the North could have made slavery work the
> North would have had slaves but when it no longer
> becomes a profitable venture all countries dropped it
> like a hot potatoe. Slaves weren't treated as bad as
> a large number of people believe they were treated.
> It was the exception to the rule were lots of bad
> d things happened to the slaves. The man with his
> back all scared up was from Jamaica, and had moved to
> the US after slavery was ended by England.
>
> The only place I could see slavery stay around would
> have been out West were the mines would or could have
> used a couple hundred slaves. But when then mines
> "played out" the slave would have been freed or sold
> to another mine. If no takers they would have been
> freed. It was all about the pocket book, not racism
> that kept people in bondage.
Money and Power.
|
|
|
Posts:
10,794
Registered:
1/18/06
|
|
(8 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 3, 2009 7:15 AM
|
> Slavery was around because it was an economic
> necessity.
Why? By 1860, several of the Caribbean Islands were using a combination of indentured servants and freed slaves. Over a quarter of Brazil's slave population had been freed by that time. Several islands under plantation society were steadily moving away from slave labor. The Atlantic slave trade was unlawful, and freed slaves were repopulating islands with freely born blacks. The Spanish colonies in particular had an enormous freed populations.
Only the United States slaves were not receiving manumission at the rate of tropical plantation societies. They were actually going in the opposite direction.
There's no reason in the world by slavery had to continue in this country as an issue of labor. By the 1850s, it was all political.
--
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
|
|
|
Posts:
9,305
From:
Shenandoah Valley
Registered:
1/6/04
|
|
(9 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 3, 2009 7:24 AM
|
There's no reason in the world by slavery had to continue in this country as an issue of labor. By the 1850s, it was all political.
Power and Money!! Even during the war, the north was getting richer off Southern Cotton. They had the power and they got the money.
Power and money.
|
|
|
Posts:
10,794
Registered:
1/18/06
|
|
(10 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 3, 2009 7:29 AM
|
> Power and Money!! Even during the war, the north was
> getting richer off Southern Cotton. They had the
> power and they got the money.
> Power and money.
I'm pretty sure everyone agrees without you repeating yourself. Like I said, saying war is about power and money is like saying trade is about the exchange of goods.
Slaves were currency. The power to hold that currency was a determining factor for the South.
--
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
|
|
|
Posts:
3,539
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(11 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 3, 2009 7:33 AM
|
> According to historian William Freehling, in the book
> "Road to Disunion".... it would take a constitutional
> amendment to end slavery.
>
> <snip>
>
> The U.S. Constitutional amendment process guarded
> Slave Power’s power. As William Lloyd Garrison
> conceded, the federal government would need a
> constitutional amendment to abolish slavery.
> Three-fourths of existing states had to approve
> constitutional amendments. In 1860, the nation
> contained seventeen free labor states and fifteen
> slave states. If all fifteen states perpetually
> rejected anti-slavery, only a union swollen to sixty
> states, forty-five of them free labor states, could
> have forced abolition upon the South. In some future
> century, the Union might balloon to sixty states. No
> such gargantuan swelling could be imagined in the
> mid-nineteenth century.
>
This is the standard argument of the statist, i.e. "freedom through tyranny--" which simply translates to an idiological belief in a benevolent dictator.
That's the mentality of all Lincoln-lovers, and why they defend and obvious dictator with their lives and credibility, despite that he was clearly a dictator; James G. Randall even called Lincoln a “benevolent dictator,”
That's the mentality of simple minds, i.e. that freedom and justice can be administered by a wise and benevolent all-powerful ruler-- or in this case, an all-powerful state.
Here, Garrison claimed that only the sword of the state to liberate the slaves, despite that only just compensation was required, without ANY coercion whatsoever-- however Garrison clearly didn't WANT any compensation offered, thereby proving from the get-go that the dictator was not benevolent at all, but ruthlessly plunderous-- and just as easily murderous as well. But that's ok, they reason, because it was a JUST plunder-- i.e. a POPULAR one.
However ironically-- but not surprisingly-- such hypocrites who cheer the murder and plunder of slave-owning states due to their unpopularity, are also the first to jeer the exact same targeting of the Jews and other groups who were equally unpopular, by dictators pretending to be "benevolent" by oppressing those considered unpopular: Christians in Armenia and Turkey, Jews in Germany, the upper-classes in Communist-conquered regions etc.
Such people who approve of the dictatorial oppression of those they dislike, are dangerously simple of mind-- and to paraphrase Aesop, a fool and his freedom are soon parted, since they foolishly believe that it can't happen to them in turn, thinking that the dictator can only punish the WICKED, rather than anyone he pleases.
And so they don't speak up when others are oppressed:
as Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. Niemoller stated the version as:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
And so, those who approve of the murder and plunder of slave-holders, won't speak up.
And then when they came for the taxation of the "wealthy," they won't speak up because they're not wealthy.
And then whey come for the draft, they won't speak up because only a minority are drafted etc.
Instead of one excuse, they concoct a million.... and so the end of freedom ends not with a shout-- and NOT even a whisper, since the last person goes without protest.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,539
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(12 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 3, 2009 7:43 AM
|
> > Slavery was around because it was an economic
> > necessity.
Correction: it REMAINED out of economic necessity. It BEGAN in the US because of the British monarchy; and the Revolution came too late to end it while still economically possible to do so.
However again, Britain imported only a pittance -- 5%-- of the 17 million slaves shipped out to the Western Hemisphere out of Africa-- and this was about half of the 33 million total.
And yet, the USA bears ALL of the blame for ALL slavery.
METHINKS the man doth protest too much... and too little; slavery existed not as a true cause for the war, but an EXCUSE for tyranny.
FIrst the tarriffs were opposed by nullification in 1832, and the excuse for tyranny was "treason."
Then the tariffs were opposed by secession an 1861, and this time the excuse became-- of all things-- "FREEDOM."
Irony of ironies: robbed, murdered, conquered, and ruled, all in the name of "FREEDOM--" and not their own, but of those whose bondage they themselvs had SANCTIONED and SWORE TO HONOR.
And thus, we see that they HAVE no honor-- and if posible, LESS than none.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,305
From:
Shenandoah Valley
Registered:
1/6/04
|
|
(13 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 3, 2009 10:27 AM
|
|
Money and power.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,858
Registered:
11/18/04
|
|
(14 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 3, 2009 11:05 AM
|
Abolitionism was and still is, a international movement that arose from the rationalist thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment.
Quakers and evangelical Christian groups in both Europe and America condemned it as un-Christian.
William Wilberforce formed the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in Britain in 1787, he led the Parliamentary campaign to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire, which he lived to see in the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.
Forced servitude had disappeared from Britain in the 17th century, but by the 18th century African and Indian slaves were brought into Britain to serve as personal servants, they were not bought or sold and their legal status was unclear until a legal decision was forced by the case of run away slave James Somersett, as a result of his case Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the Court of the King's Bench came to a conclusion that eventually lead to the emancipation of ten to fourteen thousand slaves in England.
In the US the movement took root in the German and Dutch communities, in 1688 the Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery initiated the movement, the Quakers and the Mennonite's carried the movement with them as they moved west.
The Abolitionist movement was born out of Western philosophy, the Age of Enlightenment and the religious movements that grew out of the German Reformed Churches.
Our Constitution was written by men who were inspired and greatly influenced by the Ideals of the Age of Enlightenment,
Slavery could not have survived in the US, it was a contradiction to the foundations of our religious and political institutions and beliefs.
With or with out the Civil War I doubt it would have survived past 1900.
--
The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.
There's never a right time to be in the wrong place
jasser
|
|
|
Posts:
965
From:
Virginia/Maryland
Registered:
12/10/07
|
|
(15 of 119)
Re: What if; Would slavery have survived if................
Nov 3, 2009 1:53 PM
|
http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/the-book/
Hundreds of thousands of 'free' slaves were still held against their will by the US after the war.
|
|
|
|
|
