How long could slavery have lasted in the south?

[Arrian]

MtG - I concede that point about Delaware (I knew one of those border states was gonna burn me!). And yeah, the Emancipation Proclamation was brilliant political doublespeak of the 1st degree. If the South had capitulated then and there, slavery was safe. Not a bad try by Abe, if you consider his primary objective: preservation of the Union.

Japher - I know that the slaveowners down South were a minority, and furthermore the big slaveowners were a still smaller subset. Makes sense, actually, because slaves did cost money, and so owning a bunch of them meant you had to be rich. And the rich are usually a small group at the top.

What's your point?

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand



I'd appreciate it if you would kindly stop bastardizing what I say.

What you allude to, is where I once again pointed out as the need to deal with Carpetbaggers.

You keep illustrating the points I make though, so keep it up.


Let me repeat, it wasn't hate of Blacks, it was hate of Northerners.

See MrFun for examples.

I am at work, but when I get back home this evening, if I have time, I will refer to the sources I have available in regards to the benevolent Ku Klux Klan.

I will also find information at home, about the improvements that were made in the South thanks to ambitions of those carpet baggers that were not corrupt.

[Bosh]

most of the slave supply in the US by the time of the Civil War was generated locally (children of slaves), not imported

Right but slave importation was officially illegal so its hard to get good figures. Also it made a difference, for example when the trans-atlantic slave trade was officially banned most of the sales were local and it led to a large jump in slave prices.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MrFun


I am at work, but when I get back home this evening, if I have time, I will refer to the sources I have available in regards to the benevolent Ku Klux Klan.

I will also find information at home, about the improvements that were made in the South thanks to ambitions of those carpet baggers that were not corrupt.

Listen, Poofta.
I'm not saying anything other than the KKK was formed to deal with Carpetbaggers.
You don't like it, deal with it.
****ing Yankees.
What'd I tell you?

[Japher]

Japher - I know that the slaveowners down South were a minority, and furthermore the big slaveowners were a still smaller subset. Makes sense, actually, because slaves did cost money, and so owning a bunch of them meant you had to be rich. And the rich are usually a small group at the top.

My point was a) That the war wasn't about slavery because Northerners had slaves and dealt in slaves b) you were right in me being wrong that "most" northerns had slaves, which was what you were calling bullshit on..

Also, the North made much of their money on slave dealings... more gusto for point (a)

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Boshko

Right but slave importation was officially illegal so its hard to get good figures.

Hmm, good point.

Also it made a difference, for example when the trans-atlantic slave trade was officially banned most of the sales were local and it led to a large jump in slave prices.

I wasn't aware of that. Given that, I guess it's safe to say that Slavery was becoming less and less economically viable. That's a theory that's been around for quite a while (I remember it from my Civil War class in college), but I think there is more to it than that. First off, people don't aways do the coldly logical thing. People like the VP of the CSA there wouldn't have easily given up on slavery. Further, even if the economy because increasingly industrialized, I think people could have found enterprises that could utilize slave labor.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Japher


My point was a) That the war wasn't about slavery because Northerners had slaves and dealt in slaves b) you were right in me being wrong that "most" northerns had slaves, which was what you were calling bullshit on..

Also, the North made much of their money on slave dealings... more gusto for point (a)

First off, a) is irrelevant to this thread. The question was whether or not slavery would have survived in the South if not for the Civil War, or if the South had won its independence.

Second, I disagree with a). It surely wasn't all about slavery. I don't think anyone who knows the history argues that. The South clearly felt it was being pushed around by the North, and resented it to the point of wanting out of the Union. But what issue were the Southern politicians mainly concerned about, when *****ing about those pushy Yankees? Slavery. That was the flashpoint issue. There were others, to be sure, but the big 'un was Slavery.

-Arrian

[MRT144]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Listen, Poofta.
I'm not saying anything other than the KKK was formed to deal with Carpetbaggers.
You don't like it, deal with it.
****ing Yankees.
What'd I tell you?

i smell a banning

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
Illegal immigrants come here voluntarily... and they try really hard to do it... sometimes risking their lives. And conditions in Mexico are worse for them.

The largest number of them come from southern Mexico and Central America, even northern South America. A much smaller number come from Mexican border states in the north. The result is that most of them have very little direct contact with the US, or with trustworthy people who've been to the US, so they know little or nothing about the risks, the potential level of exploitation, or their likelihood of getting caught and deported before they even manage to find jobs.

They're called "pollos" for a reason here. A lot of the ones who get rescued (the lucky minority) in the mountains and desert northeast of here, and in the Tohono crossing in the Sonora-central Arizona border area, are told that it's only a half day walk, so they bring little or no food, only a small bottle of water, etc. Then these tropical climate people, most of whom have never seen desert, let alone snow in winter, find themselves on days long journeys in summer desert conditions or winter mountain conditions.

Smugglers don't want to be caught with dead migrants, or slowed by weakened migrants, so if one slows down due to heat or cold, they're abandoned to their fate. At the first sign of trouble, the smugglers take off and abandon everyone. A lot of them are never found, and a lot of the dead that are found are never identified - the number of pollos who go and simply disappear and are never heard from again is in the thousands every year, and it's not because they're sunning themselves and having cocktails at the yacht club.

Those who do get deported back (I see the Great White Bus discharge it's human cargo at the border a couple of times a week, at least) somehow magically never have more than the clothes on their backs by the time they're processed back here and turned over to Mexican immigration (who wants to separate the Mexican citizens from our illegals from Central America, etc.) So it's not like they can simply go home. If you're from Oaxaca or Tabasco and get tossed back to Baja California or Nuevo Leon with the clothes on your back and nothing in your pocket, it's a long, hard, hungry journey home. One you most likely won't make.

It may not be slavery in the technical, de jure sense, but in the worst of cases, it's so close the differences aren't worth arguing about. And those worst of cases are far too common. Occasionally, though most often with Asian illegals, it is slavery in a de jure sense as well - in the last decade, LA has had two sweatshops busted where the women who worked there were locked in 7/24 with windows barred and guards, while they worked 16-18 hour days, got paid "wages" that were used to pay extortionate prices for the food they ate and "rent," such that they "owed" their masters. Unfortunately, neither was prosecuted as a slavery case, probably to avoid the embarassment in the press.

[Japher]

First off, a) is irrelevant to this thread.

I know, but it was brought up...

Hey MRT, how's school

[Arrian]

And I don't think anyone will argue that those things are good, MtG. Why is that relevent to the topic at hand, again?

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Sloww - chill your ass out now, before I have to put you in the box.

Sloww and MrFunsies, your KKK discussion is a threadjack, so don't bother yourselves with bringing it up here.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
And I don't think anyone will argue that those things are good, MtG. Why is that relevent to the topic at hand, again?

-Arrian

Well, one can play semantic games with the definition of slavery - to the commie extreme, or to the other extreme where nothing less than an actual sale of one man to another constitutes slavery, and that any degree of forced exploitation less than holding actual title on another is permissible.

How long could it have lasted (or did) kind of depends on how exactly you'd define it, doesn't it?

[Shi Huangdi]

Rufus makes an interesting point: Without the Great Black Migration, the South could be looking at a hugely black population. Even if they did manage to abolish slavery, maybe they'd still have apartheid?

[Arrian]

Ok, I suppose, MtG. I was limiting it to a pretty strict "ownership & sale of other people" definition.

-Arrian

[Jack_www]

You know in many parts of world Slavery still exists. So it is still around and alive today.

[SlowwHand]

Slavery is always going to be somewhere, unfortunately.
Personally, I'd like to take a whip to Iowans.
But hey, that's just me.

[Arrian]

Yeah, but I think it was pretty clear the thread was about slavery in the U.S. - officially sanctioned slavery, not the illicit sweatshops MtG mentioned.

-Arrian

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yeah, but I think it was pretty clear the thread was about slavery in the U.S. - officially sanctioned slavery, not the illicit sweatshops MtG mentioned.

-Arrian

Many countries, even though it is illigeal, allow slavery to go on. An example is how they enslave children in south east asia as sex slaves and have people from Europe and America come and do what they want to these children. Also parents sell their children into slavery in many parts of the world when they are in dire stituation.

[Napoleon I]

I guess the question then comes down to economic viability. IMO large scale slavery would have slowly faded away, but slave ownership would have shifted to relatively contained enterprises. Just imagine the sweatshops MtG was talking about, but officially sanctioned and given a tax break for ideological reasons.

[Ramo]

I'd give the institution of slavery as it existed in the Antebellum South another 50 years maximimum. It'd die away in most of the South by the 1880's, but it would stay economically viable in Texas for a bit longer due to its relative abundancy of land and lack of labor. As Southern industry develops (probably initially at a disadvantage relative to the current time line, due to the lack of protective tariffs vis a vis the UK) and the profitability of cotton dies away, the ruling class would turn from feudal lords, to mercantilist industrialists, who would push for greater liquidity in labor. Combine that with the need of maintaining the British alliance, and slavery likely would've been abolished in a few decades.

[Whaleboy]

Slavery sucks.

[Arrian]

Insightful of you, elijah.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

http://civilwarmini.com/list.htm


"Slavery No Longer Needed in the North"
The North no longer needed slavery in the mid 1800's as it saw the rise of factories and a great horde of immigrants arriving to provide the labor. (yep. Irish.)
The South in the meanwhile needed slavery to till its fields.

America was growing at a phenomenal rate. The rail system was spreading west and telegraph buzzed across the land. Expansion was a certainty on the Western frontier. The curtain was about to rise to show the world our maturity as a nation. Then, a disastrous event called the Civil War came along.

It was a dark era in our history and perhaps our greatest shame as a nation. The war ended in 1865, but culturally, it was just beginning. The meaning of it all became significant to modern America and is best described by William James.

Lee's belief about slavery:
"General Robert E. Lee, Confederate States of America, freed slaves under his control and declared slavery, " a moral and political evil." He was convinced a "mild and melting Christian influence" would resolve slavery rather than war. Lee's opposition to slavery was shared by many Southerners. "

"Why did the South fire the first shot?

Because South Carolina seceded and demanded removal of the Federal garrison at Charleston. The secretary of state promised to remove it. Many believe South Carolina provided last minute provisions as a goodwill gesture to the previously starved fort and waited, only to learn President Lincoln had ordered a fleet of war vessels with guns and ammunition. This was done under the pretense of provisioning Fort Sumter. Some historians believe Lincoln only sent provisions. If this is true, Lincoln may have chosen the wrong delivery vessel, which in turn, sent the wrong message to the edgy Southern states!"

"A Southern person may have said," We had a right to pull out. Political parties were out of control in Washington. The North imposed unfair tariff laws on our crops. Northern fanatics were inspiring slave uprisings in our midst. The North was jealous of our prosperous South and of the number of leaders we had sent to the presidency. We never meant war - we just didn't want anything more to do with the Yankees." (Like I said )

[Sava]

It's my understanding that Lee only freed slaves if they agreed to fight for the Confederacy. I can see it now... "Sure, we've enslaved you for hundreds of years, but you can BE FREE IF YOU FIGHT THE PEOPLE TRYING TO FREE YOU... REALLY TRUST US!!!"

[SlowwHand]

Just another thing you misunderstand, Sava.
Personally, I'm used to it.

[Arrian]

"A Southern person may have said," We had a right to pull out. Political parties were out of control in Washington. The North imposed unfair tariff laws on our crops. Northern fanatics were inspiring slave uprisings in our midst. The North was jealous of our prosperous South and of the number of leaders we had sent to the presidency. We never meant war - we just didn't want anything more to do with the Yankees."

A Southern person might well have said that. Sure. The average Southern soldier probably felt that way (Yankess meddling too much). But the leadership was all about defending slavery.

Lee was a general, not a political leader, and wasn't even supreme military commander until 1865 (because prior to that the CSA had no such position). Even if he was against slavery, his position was easily outweighed by the political leadership of the CSA.

But economically speaking, the North had reached the point where slavery was no longer economically attractive, and therefore it was easy to give it up. That part is true.

-Arrian

[Japher]

Didn't Lee reside in the north before the war?

Not really sure if that holds any bearing...

[Arrian]

And by the way, a Northern person might have said

"So the South is pissed off because they used to have a near monopoly on the political system, and now we've been actually electing Northerners to *gasp* the Presidency? How DARE WE!!! We all know that it is the South's exclusive right to run the country!"



-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian


A Southern person might well have said that. Sure. The average Southern soldier probably felt that way (Yankess meddling too much). But the leadership was all about defending slavery.

As I've already shown, this statement on the Leadership is wrong.

Lee was a general, not a political leader, and wasn't even supreme military commander until 1865 (because prior to that the CSA had no such position). Even if he was against slavery, his position was easily outweighed by the political leadership of the CSA.

Again, wrong. Lee took over in 1862.

But economically speaking, the North had reached the point where slavery was no longer economically attractive, and therefore it was easy to give it up. That part is true.

-Arrian

Thank you.