User Panel
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. |
|
The viability of slavery ended with the advent of labor saving devices.
Simply put, as soon as tractors, etc, came along, slavery would have been obsolete, and would have eventually just faded out. |
|
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. |
|
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[>]:)] |
|
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. |
|
Quoted: 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. |
|
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 |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote Some of them were: Black people, by virtue of skin color and native climate, were more suited to manual labor in hot, humid, very sunny conditions. Ok, so that was one reason. It is late and I haven't had enough coffee, but my study of the Civil War and the Declarations have convinced me that slavery was already on the way out, even if there had not been a Civil War. Slavery was just begging to get replaced by machinery that could do the same job. As soon as that happened, slavery would most likely be quickly phased out, and at worst, slowly fade out. |
|
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[>]:)] |
|
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. |
|
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.
|
|
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?" |
|
"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? |
|
Quoted: 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. |
|
Quoted: "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. |
|
didn't the confederate constitution prohibit the importation of slaves?
|
|
Quoted: "IF" The South Had Won The War......... View Quote To hear them tell it ,they did ,[}:D] |
|
Quoted: Quoted: "IF" The South Had Won The War......... View Quote To hear them tell it ,they did ,[}:D] View Quote What? The South lost? [rolleyes] |
|
Quoted: 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. |
|
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.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: "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. |
|
Quoted: 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. |
|
BTT ? "If south would have won the war we would still be able to own Assault Weapons!!!
|
|
Quoted: 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. Quoted: 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. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: 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. Quoted: 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. |
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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 |
|
Quoted: 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. |
|
History was and is written by the victorious. The Civil war was not fought over slavery as our books now tell us. It was a good recruiting tool for the war though and the differences in opion on the topic was a lead factor leading up to the war. A check of history will show you that most of the sourthern states had already agreed to abolish slavery if not already in law then in principle. Most of the southern men killed in thw war were poor whites who had no need nor could afford slaves. It would be kind of like us fighting so that our bosses can keep their Mercedes, not me boy. The south saw the war as a war of northern aggression and for the most part still does. The north saw it as the war to perserve the union that our forefathers established. Hate to call who was right on that one, both have a point.
Like most wars, the spark that pushed that one was economics. The ferderal government passed a tariff on all agricultural exports thus forcing the south to only sale to the north. English automation allowed higher payments for raw material possible. This was the straw that broke the camels back. That is why England supported the south. They had abolished slavery long before 1860. As for the Mexicans taking back their land, I don't recall US troops at the Alamo. Fact is that even the defeated and demoralized Confederate Army was better equiped and better trained than any army in the world at the time. Tom Predicts: If the south had have won.......Slavery would have died before the end of the next century anyway. Whoops happened anyway. (Dr. King) Most of the black population would be in the north trading slave cabins for slum housing working in northern factories for not even enough to feed them. Whoops, happened anyway. The two countries would unite in the early next century behind a more states rights leaning Federal Government. Guns would be illegal in the North and on everones hip in the South. (Happening anyway) Now that I think about, maybe things wouldn't be much different. |
|
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. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.