Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/6/2002 10:00:03 PM EDT
with or without the help of England, when would we have ended slavery? Or, would it be a booming buisness today? Whips and chains on sale at Wal Mart. Maybe morphed into an acceptable business with a "slaves union". Or maybe a higher power just wasn't going to allow that to happen. I can't imagine a modern day America with slavery. Go to church on sunday then come home and beat the slaves. Wouldn't work.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 10:10:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 10:18:58 PM EDT
Don't know if I buy that answer. Slavery was big business. Didn't need tractors invented. Just need more slaves. Cotton gin didn't end slavery. Besides slaves did more than just work the fields. Giving up "personal" slaves just wouldn't fade away. You got to do better than that.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 10:20:20 PM EDT
Economically, slavery was a dying institution from about 1840 on. The settlers in Texas and the West brought few slaves with them at all. New methods of mechanical farming, new crops, and cheap Western lands spelled the end of slavery in every venue except for labor intensive cotton farming. Even there, however, there became less and less need for the same numbers of workers as before. The South would have ended slavery probably in the 1880s or so. The costs of slavery and maintaining such a large group of folks for whom you were liable for their upkeep, were extraordinary. Unfortunately, slavery was replaced by tenant sharecropping, which relieved the landowner of any need to take care of the families of the tenant farmers on his lands. You win, you lose, and so it goes.... Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 10:36:44 PM EDT
I don't know, It seems like the care and feeding of a bunch a people would be pretty expensive. Plus people get sick and injured ya know. Being a slave owner sounds like a very expensive prospect. I'd think these landowners would be looking,begging for a technological solution.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 11:54:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By byron2112: I don't know, It seems like the care and feeding of a bunch a people would be pretty expensive. Plus people get sick and injured ya know. Being a slave owner sounds like a very expensive prospect. I'd think these landowners would be looking,begging for a technological solution.
View Quote
That's right. A good many of the plantation owners were up to their eyeballs in debt because of the costs associated with slave ownership. It would have faded into obscurity by the late 19th century. As Eric stated, it was on the out starting in the 1840s anyway. It might not have been outlawed, but it probably wouldn't have been outlawed in the North either. The abolitionist movement was far from popular anywhere, even in the North.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 12:06:17 AM EDT
The thought of owning another human being, is grossly repugnant to me. Our family had soldiers on both sides of the Civil War, however, the family never had a Slave owner. Bill
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 12:12:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 5:14:13 AM EDT
Post from rn45 -
If you could go back to that time, which side would you be on? Would you stop John Wilkes Booth, or just wait outside with your fingers in your ears?
View Quote
Regarding Booth, the timimg was all wrong. All he did was insure that the Radical Republicans in Congress were able to ram Reconstruction down the South's throat! So, in April, 1865, I would have popped Booth before he even got to Ford's Theatre! Now, if Booth had attempted it in April of 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, all I can say is: where's my earmuffs! [:D] Eric The(Sorry,ButLincolnWASTheNorth)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 5:21:32 AM EDT
rainman;run down to Barnes and Noble and pick up any of the books in Harry Turtledoves "Great War" series. Fantastic reads along the lines you are discussing. Worldf War I between North and South. No slavery changes nothing.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 6:06:12 AM EDT
I would definitely have stopped Booth. Lincoln would have pushed for reconciliation with the South, as opposed to the Radicals imposition of a punitive "Reconstruction". Another post-war plan of Lincoln was to repatriate the slave population of the South back to Africa. That went out the door also after his death, aside from the half hearted Liberian experiment.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 9:44:50 AM EDT
I must agree that slavery was becoming a dying practice. When the average cost being $1000, compare the work done by one man compared to several pieces of equipment bought for the same price. My other concern is if the south was allowed to become a separate nation, the British and the Mexicans would have attacked, regaining lost land. The central authority of a confederacy would have been too weak to enforce the assembly and mobilization of regional troops (lack of unified federal army) to leave their territories to fight other nations that had an interest in gaining territory. The north would have had it pretty tough as well without the agricultural support and additional manpower offered by the southern states. As for commerce, competitive trade would be a joke. Taxes and tariffs imposed by each state would restrict the interstate commerce necessary to build a strong economy. Can you say "Balkanization?"
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 9:56:04 AM EDT
"If the South had won we'd a-had it made, I'd probably run for president of the Southern States" Slavery never ended! When you think of it, we all work approximatly 30% of our time to pay taxes, which mostly pay for interest on the National debt. So, in effect, 30% of American workers are enslaved to the folks who own treasury bonds, at any given time. (think I'll go buy some bonds) Do you guys think I'm stretching the reasoning a bit far on this one?
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 10:40:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rainman: Cotton gin didn't end slavery.
View Quote
You are right about that; in fact it probably kept slavery going an additional 60 years. Variable and fixed costs related to slavery would have ended that practice on its own. However the huge jump in output per dollar justified keeping slavery going for the small minority of rich slave owners. It wasn’t till after the civil war did people realize they could lower costs even more by freeing them. People that were emancipated by the 13th amendment in many cases were treated even more poorly than when they were slaves.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 10:48:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BillofRights: "If the South had won we'd a-had it made, I'd probably run for president of the Southern States" Slavery never ended! When you think of it, we all work approximatly 30% of our time to pay taxes, which mostly pay for interest on the National debt. So, in effect, 30% of American workers are enslaved to the folks who own treasury bonds, at any given time. (think I'll go buy some bonds) Do you guys think I'm stretching the reasoning a bit far on this one?
View Quote
You are stretching it to the breaking point. First of all nobody is giving you a beatin if you choose not to work. No one is selling off your family. In exchange for our tax dollars we get services. Services such as paved roads and interstate highways, Water and sewer treatment facilities, public schools, Police and fire services, armed forces, criminal justice systems and prisons, the list goes on. Even aid for people who can't or don't want to work. I'm not going to get into how tax money is managed but we are hardly slaves.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 11:03:35 AM EDT
didn't the confederate constitution prohibit the importation of slaves?
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 11:14:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rainman: "IF" The South Had Won The War.........
View Quote
To hear them tell it ,they did ,[}:D]
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 2:30:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jrzy:
Originally Posted By rainman: "IF" The South Had Won The War.........
View Quote
To hear them tell it ,they did ,[}:D]
View Quote
What? The South lost? [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 2:44:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2002 2:55:42 PM EDT by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from rn45 -
If you could go back to that time, which side would you be on? Would you stop John Wilkes Booth, or just wait outside with your fingers in your ears?
View Quote
Regarding Booth, the timimg was all wrong. All he did was insure that the Radical Republicans in Congress were able to ram Reconstruction down the South's throat! So, in April, 1865, I would have popped Booth before he even got to Ford's Theatre! Now, if Booth had attempted it in April of 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, all I can say is: where's my earmuffs! [:D] Eric The(Sorry,ButLincolnWASTheNorth)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Ah, Eric. I read several different sources that stated that Lincoln's plan was to repatriate the slaves to Africa had he lived. It has been awhile since I read this and I cannot recall the source, but what if he had lived and followed through on this plan. Edited to add that I posted this before I saw Slufstuf's post. He is correct.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 2:53:41 PM EDT
Slavery probably would have continued to grow even with the invention of the tractor or the combine. To tell the truth, the farmers were in extreme debt and slavery WAS dying out until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Then, the demand for slaves and land out west increased because the farmers were ready to get out of their debt and into extreme wealth, which they did do...until the Civil War. What if you could have one man on a gin, producing about 10 times as much cotton as normal? You would be thiking $$$ (or i would anyway);-). Another piece of historical information... Eli Whitney could not receive a patent on the cotton gin because the design was too simple.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 3:19:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sukebe:
Originally Posted By BillofRights: "If the South had won we'd a-had it made, I'd probably run for president of the Southern States" Slavery never ended! When you think of it, we all work approximatly 30% of our time to pay taxes, which mostly pay for interest on the National debt. So, in effect, 30% of American workers are enslaved to the folks who own treasury bonds, at any given time. (think I'll go buy some bonds) Do you guys think I'm stretching the reasoning a bit far on this one?
View Quote
You are stretching it to the breaking point. First of all nobody is giving you a beatin if you choose not to work. No one is selling off your family. In exchange for our tax dollars we get services. Services such as paved roads and interstate highways, Water and sewer treatment facilities, public schools, Police and fire services, armed forces, criminal justice systems and prisons, the list goes on. Even aid for people who can't or don't want to work. I'm not going to get into how tax money is managed but we are hardly slaves.
View Quote
Sukebe, my fellow Hard Corps Warrior who I would die for, refuse to pay your income and property taxes and then tell me that we are not slaves. Your "Massah" would not blink an eye before you were locked in a cage, your children sent to foster care, and all of your earthly possessions sold at auction. We ARE owned by the Federal Government as long as we are forced to pay income and property tax.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 4:26:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Slufstuff: I would definitely have stopped Booth. Lincoln would have pushed for reconciliation with the South, as opposed to the Radicals imposition of a punitive "Reconstruction". Another post-war plan of Lincoln was to repatriate the slave population of the South back to Africa. That went out the door also after his death, aside from the half hearted Liberian experiment.
View Quote
Lincoln did not plan on repatriating the slaves back to Africa, he thought this would be too expensive. He was planning on shipping all of the freed slaves to South America.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 4:34:34 PM EDT
BTT ? "If south would have won the war we would still be able to own Assault Weapons!!!
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 5:40:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By IAM_NAKID: BTT ? "If south would have won the war we would still be able to own Assault Weapons!!!
View Quote
You still can ,they're called pre bans and they cost more money.
Originally Posted By IAM_NAKID: BTT ? "If south would have won the war we would still be able to own Assault Weapons!!!
View Quote
Yeah but we would have to eat grits ,and I'm not sure thats a good trade off.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 6:11:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2002 6:17:30 PM EDT by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By jrzy:
Originally Posted By IAM_NAKID: BTT ? "If south would have won the war we would still be able to own Assault Weapons!!!
View Quote
You still can ,they're called pre bans and they cost more money.
Originally Posted By IAM_NAKID: BTT ? "If south would have won the war we would still be able to own Assault Weapons!!!
View Quote
Yeah but we would have to eat grits ,and I'm not sure thats a good trade off.
View Quote
Unless you own a rifle that is select fire, you don't own an assault rifle and a baseball bat can be an 'assault weapon'. Sorry to be so anal, but it's bad enough when the uninformed masses use that made-up term. Around here, we try not to use it. They are Sport Utility Rifles if they are semi-automatic. 'Assault Weapon' is a term made up by the Clintons, the Boxters, the Feinsteins, and the Shumers of the world. There ain't a damn thing wrong with grits. Up north, you eat cream of wheat and that is nowhere near as good as grits.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 6:24:46 PM EDT
The south didnt lose,we gave up,think about it,we kicked ass for the longest then we gave up,we thought the yanks were coming after our women.When we found out all they wanted was the ni***rs we gave up.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 6:25:17 PM EDT
The south didnt lose,we gave up,think about it,we kicked ass for the longest then we gave up,we thought the yanks were coming after our women.When we found out all they wanted was the ni***rs we gave up.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 6:47:35 PM EDT
If I was a mod on this forum I would LOCK YOUR ASS then buy you a beer. That's funny. Offensive but funny. Arock
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 7:22:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By IAM_NAKID: BTT ? "If south would have won the war we would still be able to own Assault Weapons!!!
View Quote
Hmmmm..... Is Indiana a Class III state? I know most of the Confederacy allow people to own whatever they want.
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 9:40:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 1:00:36 PM EDT
If the South had won (or the North simply gave up and the two existed a separate countries)... Slavery would have eventually diminished for economic reasons, but would have still existed, perhaps in new forms (industrial slaves). The "genteel" a**holes who comprised the Southern aristocracy wouldn't have given up their servants. The South would have tougher gun control laws because the Aristocracy feared the lower class (who died in droves for the South) and would have eventually had to deal with internal rebellions over economic conditions. The CSA and USA would be hemmed in by Spanish and English colonies and the Monroe doctrine would have never been developed. The British Empire would not have faded so fast and Canada may have even gotten much of the Pacific Northwest. The USA would be an industrial power but a far weaker one and would have never managed the "Great White Fleet." The CSA would Balkanize develop into a series of "Cotton or Tobacco Republics" with weak, corrupt central governments and a large class divide. There would be no emergence of an American superpower to counter European Nationalism, state Communism and facism in Europe during the 20th century. A new Dark Age would have ensued.
Top Top