When would slavery in the Southern States have ended...

Page 5 of 18 [ 276 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 18  Next


When would Slavery have ended, had Lincoln not intervened?
By 1875 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
By 1900 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
By 1925 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
By 1950 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
By 1975 12%  12%  [ 6 ]
By 2000 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
By 2025 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Never 26%  26%  [ 13 ]
Just show the results 16%  16%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 50

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

12 Jun 2012, 7:59 am

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Don't know if this point has been brought up yet, but one reason why slavery was not about to die due to its costly, backward nature was the fact that it provided slave holders social status. The more slaves you owned, the higher up the south's social totem pole you would get. And this social status in the south back in those days shouldn't by any means be underestimated.
When William Tecumseh Sherman had asked a newly freed, elderly slave why so many poor southerners had fought for the Confederacy when they didn't even own slaves, the old man had answered that the white southern poor were told that with victory, they could own slaves, too.
Kinda reminds me of the modern conservative "promise" to poorer Americans that if they just vote Republican, and give "job creators" another tax break, then they (under class Americans) too can be rich.
Wasn't going to happen with a Confederate victory, and it isn't going to happen now.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


:roll:
NOTHING makes me more eager to vote straight Republican ticket this November than YOU.


Why would this make you eager to vote straight Republican?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

12 Jun 2012, 8:11 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Don't know if this point has been brought up yet, but one reason why slavery was not about to die due to its costly, backward nature was the fact that it provided slave holders social status. The more slaves you owned, the higher up the south's social totem pole you would get. And this social status in the south back in those days shouldn't by any means be underestimated.
When William Tecumseh Sherman had asked a newly freed, elderly slave why so many poor southerners had fought for the Confederacy when they didn't even own slaves, the old man had answered that the white southern poor were told that with victory, they could own slaves, too.
Kinda reminds me of the modern conservative "promise" to poorer Americans that if they just vote Republican, and give "job creators" another tax break, then they (under class Americans) too can be rich.
Wasn't going to happen with a Confederate victory, and it isn't going to happen now.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


:roll:
NOTHING makes me more eager to vote straight Republican ticket this November than YOU.


Why would this make you eager to vote straight Republican?


Wut? All u did was quote me.
Duh.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

12 Jun 2012, 9:34 am

Raptor wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Don't know if this point has been brought up yet, but one reason why slavery was not about to die due to its costly, backward nature was the fact that it provided slave holders social status. The more slaves you owned, the higher up the south's social totem pole you would get. And this social status in the south back in those days shouldn't by any means be underestimated.
When William Tecumseh Sherman had asked a newly freed, elderly slave why so many poor southerners had fought for the Confederacy when they didn't even own slaves, the old man had answered that the white southern poor were told that with victory, they could own slaves, too.
Kinda reminds me of the modern conservative "promise" to poorer Americans that if they just vote Republican, and give "job creators" another tax break, then they (under class Americans) too can be rich.
Wasn't going to happen with a Confederate victory, and it isn't going to happen now.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


:roll:
NOTHING makes me more eager to vote straight Republican ticket this November than YOU.


Why would this make you eager to vote straight Republican?


Wut? All u did was quote me.
Duh.


Quoting you makes you eager to vote straight Republican?

Some Republican voters sure are strange creatures. :scratch:



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

12 Jun 2012, 10:08 am

I voted never, assuming that a similar civil war did not occur later in time.
Also assuming that never="up to the present".
People can justify/excuse/accept a lot of things that seem unthinkable to those who do not accept them. I don't think Southerners would have just woken up one day in between then and now and decided their way of life and entire economy was wrong.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,750
Location: the island of defective toy santas

12 Jun 2012, 10:09 am

Rakshasa72 wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
But slavery didn't help the average American, only those wealthy enough to use slaves as a labor force. So it's not that I think the revolution was fought to keep slavery going, only that there was that interest on the part of some wealthy slave owners, and you have to wonder if their support of revolution had a lot to do with keeping their slaves.


Slavery, and slave-like wages, do benefit average American consumers by keeping prices low. If American labour were used to manufacture computers, then none of us would be able to afford one.


Aren't petty much all of the Intel chipsets manufactured in the US? Last time I checked they cost about 5 times what the AMD chips manufactured in China do but, for some weird reason they have something north of an 80% marketshare.

but as the earlier poster implied, the intel chips aren't as affordable to most of us. locally there is a $200 premium on intel-CPU'd puters compared to their AMD counterparts, which may not sound like much to you but that is very real money to some folk.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

12 Jun 2012, 10:23 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Don't know if this point has been brought up yet, but one reason why slavery was not about to die due to its costly, backward nature was the fact that it provided slave holders social status. The more slaves you owned, the higher up the south's social totem pole you would get. And this social status in the south back in those days shouldn't by any means be underestimated.
When William Tecumseh Sherman had asked a newly freed, elderly slave why so many poor southerners had fought for the Confederacy when they didn't even own slaves, the old man had answered that the white southern poor were told that with victory, they could own slaves, too.
Kinda reminds me of the modern conservative "promise" to poorer Americans that if they just vote Republican, and give "job creators" another tax break, then they (under class Americans) too can be rich.
Wasn't going to happen with a Confederate victory, and it isn't going to happen now.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


:roll:
NOTHING makes me more eager to vote straight Republican ticket this November than YOU.


Why would this make you eager to vote straight Republican?


Wut? All u did was quote me.
Duh.


Quoting you makes you eager to vote straight Republican?

Some Republican voters sure are strange creatures. :scratch:


The leftist douchebaggery that goes on here does it......



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

12 Jun 2012, 10:48 am

irony, n.
Pronunciation: /ˈaɪərənɪ/
Etymology: <Latin īrōnīa(Cicero), < Greek εἰρωνεία‘ dissimulation, ignorance purposely affected’. Compare French ironie(yronie, Oresme, 14th cent.).

1. This.

Raptor wrote:
The leftist douchebaggery that goes on here does it......


_________________
--James


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

12 Jun 2012, 11:11 am

visagrunt wrote:
irony, n.
Pronunciation: /ˈaɪərənɪ/
Etymology: <Latin īrōnīa(Cicero), < Greek εἰρωνεία‘ dissimulation, ignorance purposely affected’. Compare French ironie(yronie, Oresme, 14th cent.).

1. This.
Raptor wrote:
The leftist douchebaggery that goes on here does it......


Whatever.
I would say that "ignorance purposely affected" is SOP for the left but it's all too apparent that they really can't help it.......



Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 181
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

12 Jun 2012, 11:15 am

Raptor wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
irony, n.
Pronunciation: /ˈaɪərənɪ/
Etymology: <Latin īrōnīa(Cicero), < Greek εἰρωνεία‘ dissimulation, ignorance purposely affected’. Compare French ironie(yronie, Oresme, 14th cent.).

1. This.
Raptor wrote:
The leftist douchebaggery that goes on here does it......


Whatever.
I would say that "ignorance purposely affected" is SOP for the left but it's all too apparent that they really can't help it.......
I think it is hilarious when the left or right thinks the other side are idiots


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

12 Jun 2012, 11:35 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
....had either Lincoln not freed the slaves, or the South had won the war, or the Civil War not have been fought....

Some people seem to think that slavery would have ended of natural causes, within a generation of the Civil War (1890-1900, or thereabouts I guess).

At the time of the war, the Southerners didn't seem keen to free their slaves any time soon.

Interesting debate! Let's say the Confederacy won. What might have happened is this. The rest of the world boycotts the Confederacy's goods and will not trade with them unless they abandon slavery. This would have put pressure on them, causing them to free their slaves and abolish slavery, or give the slaves more rights. Another scenario might have been the North invading the South later on and there be another civil war. If the North won the second time, the slaves might have been freed then. So, you have Great Britain who already abolished slavery. They might support the North making it stronger in order to end slavery in the South. This would have increased the chance of a Northern victory.
If nobody did anything, the South might have slaves to this day.
Hard to say for sure which might have happened.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

12 Jun 2012, 12:36 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Don't know if this point has been brought up yet, but one reason why slavery was not about to die due to its costly, backward nature was the fact that it provided slave holders social status. The more slaves you owned, the higher up the south's social totem pole you would get. And this social status in the south back in those days shouldn't by any means be underestimated.
When William Tecumseh Sherman had asked a newly freed, elderly slave why so many poor southerners had fought for the Confederacy when they didn't even own slaves, the old man had answered that the white southern poor were told that with victory, they could own slaves, too.
Kinda reminds me of the modern conservative "promise" to poorer Americans that if they just vote Republican, and give "job creators" another tax break, then they (under class Americans) too can be rich.
Wasn't going to happen with a Confederate victory, and it isn't going to happen now.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


:roll:
NOTHING makes me more eager to vote straight Republican ticket this November than YOU.


Ohhh! You showed him!


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

12 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm

Delphiki wrote:
I think it is hilarious when the left or right thinks the other side are idiots


I try never to make the mistake of thinking that my opponents are idiots. To underestimate your opponent is to fail properly to repond to your opponent.

However, I will call them on their (ahem) douchebaggery where that is warranted.


_________________
--James


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

12 Jun 2012, 1:55 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
I think it is hilarious when the left or right thinks the other side are idiots


I try never to make the mistake of thinking that my opponents are idiots. To underestimate your opponent is to fail properly to repond to your opponent.

However, I will call them on their (ahem) douchebaggery where that is warranted.


Never underestimate your enemy but on the other hand never pass up an opportunity to kick them in the nads. :x



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

12 Jun 2012, 2:36 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Don't know if this point has been brought up yet, but one reason why slavery was not about to die due to its costly, backward nature was the fact that it provided slave holders social status. The more slaves you owned, the higher up the south's social totem pole you would get. And this social status in the south back in those days shouldn't by any means be underestimated.
When William Tecumseh Sherman had asked a newly freed, elderly slave why so many poor southerners had fought for the Confederacy when they didn't even own slaves, the old man had answered that the white southern poor were told that with victory, they could own slaves, too.
Kinda reminds me of the modern conservative "promise" to poorer Americans that if they just vote Republican, and give "job creators" another tax break, then they (under class Americans) too can be rich.
Wasn't going to happen with a Confederate victory, and it isn't going to happen now.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


:roll:
NOTHING makes me more eager to vote straight Republican ticket this November than YOU.


Ohhh! You showed him!


Oh, I am so vanquished! :P

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

12 Jun 2012, 2:38 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
....had either Lincoln not freed the slaves, or the South had won the war, or the Civil War not have been fought....

Some people seem to think that slavery would have ended of natural causes, within a generation of the Civil War (1890-1900, or thereabouts I guess).

At the time of the war, the Southerners didn't seem keen to free their slaves any time soon.

Interesting debate! Let's say the Confederacy won. What might have happened is this. The rest of the world boycotts the Confederacy's goods and will not trade with them unless they abandon slavery. This would have put pressure on them, causing them to free their slaves and abolish slavery, or give the slaves more rights. Another scenario might have been the North invading the South later on and there be another civil war. If the North won the second time, the slaves might have been freed then. So, you have Great Britain who already abolished slavery. They might support the North making it stronger in order to end slavery in the South. This would have increased the chance of a Northern victory.
If nobody did anything, the South might have slaves to this day.
Hard to say for sure which might have happened.


Remember that "civil rights" weren't as in vogue then as they are now. England had somewhat of a loose friendship with the confederacy because they needed the cotton and tobacco. There was some arms trade, too.....



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

12 Jun 2012, 2:40 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
....had either Lincoln not freed the slaves, or the South had won the war, or the Civil War not have been fought....

Some people seem to think that slavery would have ended of natural causes, within a generation of the Civil War (1890-1900, or thereabouts I guess).

At the time of the war, the Southerners didn't seem keen to free their slaves any time soon.

Interesting debate! Let's say the Confederacy won. What might have happened is this. The rest of the world boycotts the Confederacy's goods and will not trade with them unless they abandon slavery. This would have put pressure on them, causing them to free their slaves and abolish slavery, or give the slaves more rights. Another scenario might have been the North invading the South later on and there be another civil war. If the North won the second time, the slaves might have been freed then. So, you have Great Britain who already abolished slavery. They might support the North making it stronger in order to end slavery in the South. This would have increased the chance of a Northern victory.
If nobody did anything, the South might have slaves to this day.
Hard to say for sure which might have happened.


Actually, even though they had liberated their own slaves already, Great Britain along with France had sided with the Confederacy in order to keep the cotton exports coming.
On the other hand, Prussia and Russia - both to a greater of lesser degrees illiberal states - had sided with the Union - I suppose because of their fear of internal rebellion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer