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

Post Reply New Topic

I guess having gone to law school, I'm a stickler for historical accuracy. I also obviously read a lot more than you do. But then again, I have always maintained that TV dulls the mind. I take it you watch more TV than read?

Longshanks

The problem with emancipation is that the former slaves were left as landless peasants who had to resort to share cropping in order to eek out a living. The Jubilee laws not only address slave emancipation but incorporate land reform which if practiced in them U.S would have meant that every former slave can get 40 acres of land. Of course no slave ever got his 40 acres because the religious right teaches that this is communism.

Both sides used Biblically-formed arguments, either to support or to oppose emancipation.

Only recently have Southern Baptists sought to apologize for their roles in both slavery and discrimination:

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amresolution.asp?id=899

True, but better late than never.

I always find it funny when people talk about slavery in America. Slavery in America lasted 300 years now the Irish where inslaved for 800 years now do the math. Who suffered more?

The enslavement of a people is considered far worse than the inslavement of one

For the sake of this theoretical discussion, let's say the South won the Civil War, and the CSA was able to retain sovereignty from the United States. Barring any other unforeseen sudden political obstacles to slavery as an institution, it would seem most logical to me that the CSA would only revise its policies when technology had progressed far enough to render them obsolete. The Southern economy was ruled by cotton, and it was because of cotton that slavery was so inexorably ingrained into the culture. Mechanical cotton pickers were implemented practically in 1943. Assuming it might take several years for the cost of the machinery to be offset by the abilities of the machinery to harvest cotton faster than slave labour, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the bulk of harvesting work would be entrusted to machinery by the late 1950s or 1960s. Of course, that doesn't take into account domestic slavery-- but many of the mechanical conveniences we enjoy today began to surface between the 1930s and 1950s.

Let's assume now, also, just for the sake of argument, that the CSA's existence as a political entity didn't totally alter the outcome of the two World Wars. Specifically, let's assume that, despite the history of animus with its northern neighbor, the CSA would still be an Allied Power in WWII, along with the US, United Kingdom, and Soviet Union. The standard of living all across North America during the post-war period was at a high point, and the concept of the suburb exploded as soldiers returned home from the front and desired to live lives of luxury with their families. There was, even in the South, quite a shift away from an agrarian-dominated society. WWII also forced some important progressive changes of some longstanding social norms as regards to gender and race. White and black men alike were called up to join the war effort, and with the men off fighting, women were given industrial jobs. I realize (from a lifetime of personal experience) that the South is a very conservative region, and not exactly a paragon of progressivism, but all of this historical evidence about technological and cultural progress suggests to me that, by the 1950s, the institution of slavery would have eroded so much that it would no longer have a future as a widespread practice outside of a few isolated cases. There likely still would have been a Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and early 1960s, as African Americans returned home from Europe and the Pacific and realized they were being unfairly denied their equal rights to the post-war American dream-- though it may have either taken longer, or been several degrees more intense, if they had had to overcome a status quo of slavery at that time as well. But I believe the outcome would be much the same.

But of course, the caveat is that changing something as big as the outcome of the Civil War would very likely have much more drastic unforeseen consequences on subsequent history, so it's difficult to say with any certainty how exactly things would have progressed into the 20th Century.

Well, they probably should have been on the side that was righteous from the beginning.

1995 makes them a bunch of Johnny-come-Latelies. This was long past the beginning of the time when segregationists and pro-slavery folks no longer had a leg to stand on.

If anyone at the Southern Baptist Convention had argued that the SBC should still stand for segregation or slavery in 1995, then he probably wasn't going to be invited to anyone's house for a fried chicken dinner.

Maybe in 2095 they will be apologizing to homosexuals.

Not likely. lol It's gonna depend on what they're apologizing for. The thing about slavery is that it's not condoned by the Bible, but neither is it entirely expressly condemned. As I've said before, there are conditions under which involuntary servitude is preferable. Homosexuality has no redeemable qualities expressed by the Bible.

The whole country was enslaved not one person.

Well, at first we WERE.

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