Zone1 When do you think slavery would have ended in the United States if we had no Civil War.

[DudleySmith]

If we look at Brazil finally succumbing to LEGAL slavery in 1888, I'll use that as my answer......1888

Was it worth it to split this country and lose 600k of its citizens when slavery would have ended by law 20 yrs later??

And to create such an abysmal political welfare state (give them just enough crumbs to live by) and continuing legal slavery to this day even

Was it worth it folks looking at the horror if we waited 20 short yrs

Most people aren't educated to know the North Atlantic Slave Trade ended around 1810 and legal capture ended. So it wasn't like it was still going on our shores

Historical Context: Abolishing the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade · Voyage of the Echo: The Trials of an Illegal Trans-Atlantic Slave Ship · Lowcountry Digital History Initiative

Don't leave out the hundreds of thousands of blacks who died in Lincoln's death camps, and the blacks forced to keep working on the govt. run plantations in the 'liberated' western parts of the South.

In case, slavery had already reached its economically viable geographical limits with the admission of Texas in 1845. Most educated people knew this by then as well, even Jefferson Davis knew, and Daniel Webster certainly knew.

The Great Plains : Walter Prescott Webb : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book Source: Digital Library of India Item 2015.227820dc.contributor.author: Walter Prescott Webbdc.date.accessioned: 2015-07-10T15:42:03Zdc.date.available:...

archive.org

The above is a 1st edition of the excellent book; the 2nd edition has an entire chapter on "The Cotton Kingdom" that adds a lot more details. One can also find the two U.S. Censuses from 1850 and 1860, which shows that after the Kansas-Nebraska Act there exactly 8 slaves found in Nebraska, and even fewer in Kansas in 1860, and those were all owned by one gut running a ferry or something, so no great migration of slaves ever happened, except for a narrow strip of east Texas, and that actually caused cotton prices to plummet.

No great migration of blacks out of the South was allowed, either, and 90% of blacks remained in the South after the war, unto the the 1910's and all the labor strikes in the North caused a lot of rich sociopaths a lot of money and they needed scabs.

For the reasons behind the war, the Economist Fogel nails a lot of it; it was essentially a war over money and northern money interests wanting to tax the South to pay for govt. welfare programs for northern financial interests.

Toward a New Synthesis on the Role of Economic Issues in the Political Realignment of the 1850s

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

Toward a New Synthesis on the Role of Economic Issues in the Political Realignment of the 1850s​

Historical Working Paper 0034

DOI 10.3386/h0034

Issue Date January 1992

After sketching various ways in which economic issues influenced the political realignment of the 1850s, the paper concentrates on five questions: (1) the timing of the economic issues and the disjunctions in economic developments across regions and classes; (2) the size of the nonagricultural male labor force of the North toward the end of the 1850s and the ethnic and residential distributions of these workers; (3) changes in the ethnic composition of the northern electorate and the sharp shift in the partisan affiliations of "Old Americans," especially between 1852 and 1860; (4) problems in measuring the ups and downs in the standard of living of northern nonagricultural workers between 1840 and 1860 and provisional estimates of the decline in their real wages between 1848 and 1855; (5) a provisional estimate of the excess supply of labor during 1854-1855 created by the unfortunate phasing of three cycles (the collapse of a long cycle in construction, the coincident trough of a relatively mild trade cycle, and the continued upswing of a long cycle in immigration).

It's longer than two or three sentences, and no pithy slogans and ideological delusions, so it's worthless to most posters here but a few lurkers may find it informative, regardless. There are already threads on this that list numerous newspapers of the day pointing out a lot of this, so need to re-post those.

 

[DudleySmith]

We really need to reclaim the narrative and emphasise the positive aspects of the slave experience.

Since you beleive we're all guilty of stuff that happened centuries ago, isn't it way past time you hung yourself in atoning for your ancestors' British tribes' practice of slavery and mistreatment of faggots and women?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Since you beleive we're all guilty of stuff that happened centuries ago, isn't it way past time you hung yourself in atoning for your ancestors' British tribes' practice of slavery and mistreatment of faggots and women?

Im not the one pining for its return.. Dickhead,

 

[badger2]

Long before 1800s, Timucua practiced both slavery and cannibalism in s. Georgia and n. Florida. It was always already in place, for this Indigene Day.

 

[DudleySmith]

Im not the one pining for its return.. Dickhead,

Sure you are. We know you love being whipped, and pay a big chunk of your pension to prostitutes who cater to that stuff.

 

[2aguy]

It might still be legal in Alabama.

Yes...the democrats likely would have never given up slavery.......there is still slavery around the world to this day, in particular, in Africa.

 

[Hector12]

If the Civil War had been fought and if the Confederacy had won, slavery might still exit. It would be a matter of national pride. Southern whites would think, "We did not win the War of Northern Aggression to let the [derogatory n word] go free."

 

[2aguy]

If the Civil War had been fought and if the Confederacy had won, slavery might still exit. It would be a matter of national pride. Southern whites would think, "We did not win the War of Northern Aggression to let the [derogatory n word] go free."

Let's fix your post a little...

Southern whites

Democrats....

There....fixed that.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Let's fix "Southern democrats" to "conservatives" then and "Southern republicans" now.

 

[2aguy]

Let's fix "Southern democrats" to "conservatives" then and "Southern republicans" now.

Nope....doesn't work.

Conservative Republicans led the abolition of slavery movement and fought the democrat party slave owners.....and the democrats now didn't stop being racists, they simply accepted racists of all colors into the party, like barak obama, a racist and anti=semite.

 

[DudleySmith]

If the Civil War had been fought and if the Confederacy had won, slavery might still exit. It would be a matter of national pride. Southern whites would think, "We did not win the War of Northern Aggression to let the [derogatory n word] go free."

Most southern whites didn't own slaves, and didn't care either way, and neither did Lincoln and most northerners. The vast majority of blacks stayed in the South after the war.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The anti-slavery GOP of the CW were the liberals of the day. The conservative Democrats were split on the issue of slavery. The northern conservative Democrats allied with the liberal GOP to end slavery.

 

[2aguy]

The anti-slavery GOP of the CW were the liberals of the day. The conservative Democrats were split on the issue of slavery. The northern conservative Democrats allied with the liberal GOP to end slavery.

No, they were not the "liberals," of the day, they were hard core, bible thumping, religious conservatives.....they were the abolitionists who fought slavery, like Harriet Tubman.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Now 2aguy is outright revising the history and definitions of the day: he has failed.

 

[2aguy]

Now 2aguy is outright revising the history and definitions of the day: he has failed.

You really are stupid....Genocide...

a crime committed with the intent

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide%20Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

2aguy's arguments have failed.

 

[DudleySmith]

No, they were not the "liberals," of the day, they were hard core, bible thumping, religious conservatives.....they were the abolitionists who fought slavery, like Harriet Tubman.

Already posted links on the economic issues; slavery was never a cause for the war. It was a side issue that only became influential because of the divides over financial issues and as a red herring to get immigrant votes.

 

[DudleySmith]

2aguy's arguments have failed.

lol because you said so.

 

[2aguy]

Already posted links on the economic issues; slavery was never a cause for the war. It was a side issue that only became influential because of the divides over financial issues and as a red herring to get immigrant votes.

Nope....slavery was listed in

Already posted links on the economic issues; slavery was never a cause for the war. It was a side issue that only became influential because of the divides over financial issues and as a red herring to get immigrant votes.

And you are wrong...

Was the Civil War about Slavery? | PragerU

What caused the Civil War? Did the North care about abolishing slavery? Did the South secede because of slavery? Or was it about something else…

www.prageru.com

 

[DudleySmith]

Nope....slavery was listed in


And you are wrong...

Was the Civil War about Slavery? | PragerU

What caused the Civil War? Did the North care about abolishing slavery? Did the South secede because of slavery? Or was it about something else…

www.prageru.com

Total rubbish. 'Slavery' is just promoted because Yankees know it looks bad that they started a Civil War over their own greed and financial interests. The Lincoln Myth is all rubbish; the only abolitionist in his entire Cabinet was Seward, and he opposed going to war against the South. He just needed a few votes in Congress to push his corporate welfare agenda through, so the handful of 'radicals' suddenly had their importance inflated, much like the 8 Republicans who joined Democrats in ousting McCarthy. As it was, if Lincoln hadn't raised a private army and used them to control the ballot boxes in the border states, his agenda would have been toast in the 1862 mid-terms.

The North made sure all those 'freed' slaves stayed in the South, and Lincoln had many forced to work on the govt. run plantations, not allowed to leave without permission and forced to work for $2 a month. Those they had no work for were herded into 'Contraband camps' and left to starve and die of disease epidemics, meanwhile the North was exporting food to Europe in record amounts. After the war, the survivors stayed, becoming sharecroppers, in many cases worse off than they were as slaves.

Like I said, I already posted the real issues over why Lincoln wanted a war. And, nearly every newspaper, north and south, knew the reasons as well. Many cites of their articles have already been cited numerous times, and completely ignored by most deniers already in the History forums, met with crickets chirping and people running away.

lol 'Prager U.'