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

Page 1 of 18 [ 276 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 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

10 Jun 2012, 9:36 am

....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.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

10 Jun 2012, 9:59 am

It would have taken a long time, as the CSA had designs of annexing Caribbean islands and much of Central and South America with the intention of having a tropical plantation empire. I think slavery would have proliferated even more, ultimately leading to uprisings and revolution in the CSA until its inevitable collapse and dissolution.


_________________
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


snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

10 Jun 2012, 10:46 am

When a threat came over the US that was so dangerous, that it the decision to take the moral high road of freeing the slaves would have to be made to garner the support from countries that looked down on such practices.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

10 Jun 2012, 11:41 am

For those of you who think that "economics" would have caused slavery to end by 1900: what is your basis for thinking so?



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

10 Jun 2012, 11:44 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
For those of you who think that "economics" would have caused slavery to end by 1900: what is your basis for thinking so?


I do not think that it is a very good argument, since after the civil war various laws were passed that somewhat restored slavery in all but name. Given legal basis for continuing it, they may have industrialized the "peculiar institution", which is a capitalist dream come true (free labor). I think even the US (separate, obviously) would benefit, as on the surface they would likely denounce slavery and such, but many of the political problems associated with slavery will have disappeared from their nation and internal squabbles. So there would likely be massive investment from US Americans into CS American businesses using slave labor.


_________________
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


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

10 Jun 2012, 12:41 pm

Vigilans wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
For those of you who think that "economics" would have caused slavery to end by 1900: what is your basis for thinking so?


I do not think that it is a very good argument, since after the civil war various laws were passed that somewhat restored slavery in all but name. Given legal basis for continuing it, they may have industrialized the "peculiar institution", which is a capitalist dream come true (free labor). I think even the US (separate, obviously) would benefit, as on the surface they would likely denounce slavery and such, but many of the political problems associated with slavery will have disappeared from their nation and internal squabbles. So there would likely be massive investment from US Americans into CS American businesses using slave labor.


As there was American investment in Nazi slave labour, and presently in various countries where the labourers are little more than slaves.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

10 Jun 2012, 12:53 pm

Slavery has never ended in the United States. Jubilee laws require emancipation of slaves and the return of foreclosed property but banks take the property away forever.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Jun 2012, 1:18 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Slavery has never ended in the United States. Jubilee laws require emancipation of slaves and the return of foreclosed property but banks take the property away forever.


Nonsense. Human being are no longer bought and sold like cattle. Humans cannot be owned legally. In addition involuntary servitude is illegal under the 13th amendment.

The U.S. is NOT governed by Biblical Law (for which I am appropriately grateful). Jubilee Laws have no legal standing in the U.S. None whatsoever.

ruveyn



Aelfwine
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 184

10 Jun 2012, 1:46 pm

A system which is based on slavery is doomed to fail.
Slavery prevents new technologies which could save a lot of work.
Is there an example of a successful society based on slavery?



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

10 Jun 2012, 1:51 pm

Aelfwine wrote:
Is there an example of a successful society based on slavery?


The Roman Empire had a pretty good run.



SpiritBlooms
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,024

10 Jun 2012, 1:52 pm

I think it would have ended soon, whether Lincoln had intervened or not. It was by and large unpopular, and had been in heated dispute even before the revolution and the writing of the constitution.

However it was supported by big money, by financial interests, at the time of the revolution, and IMO was partly the reason for the revolution, namely on the part of some wealthy Americans. The timing of the revolution and the end of slavery in England leads me to believe this. 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.



Chevand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Jun 2012, 2:00 pm

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.


_________________
Mediocrity is a petty vice; aspiring to it is a grievous sin.


Last edited by Chevand on 10 Jun 2012, 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

10 Jun 2012, 2:06 pm

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.



SpiritBlooms
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,024

10 Jun 2012, 2:17 pm

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.

That's the same argument used to keep minimum wage so low, and I disagree with it. I think it's the mindset that there have to be those with great wealth that is the issue. CEOs making obscene amounts of money while their lowest paid workers can barely get by creates an economy of imbalance. We do have near slavery in minimum wage jobs and the seeking of illegal labor in the form of undocumented immigrants by businesses, as well as outsourcing. All to make some people very wealthy. The Waltons don't use child labor to produce goods so they can provide cheap goods to poor Americans. They do it so they can be super-wealthy. The cheap, affordable goods are only a bi-product of that greed.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

10 Jun 2012, 3:46 pm

I think probably within 20-40 years with mechanization and the realization that slavery is less cost effective than paying your workers a wage and having them support themselves rather than buying them as property that they had to feed, house, stop from escaping, and force to work. I would have to imagine that the morality of the average southerner would evolve to see slavery as wrong eventually as well as it did everywhere else in the world. I think a lot of the prevailing racial problems in the south were influenced in large part by the devastation the south was left in after the Civil War. It's hard to say the death 600,000+ Americans were unavoidable when no other country in the world had to have a war to end slavery.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

10 Jun 2012, 4:29 pm

Despite the obvious immorality of slavery, I have read estimates that there are as many as 30 million slaves in the world at this time. This may be the highest the number has ever been


_________________
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