Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes,but it might have happened in the same way it did in Haiti...unfortunately for the southern whites.
It would have been a violent,bloody overthrow.....................
I think you're right. There had been slave rebellions, and they were not pretty. I was aware of a few, but I looked it up and found this:
Quote:
Slave resistance in the antebellum South did not gain the attention of academic historians until the 1940s when historian Herbert Aptheker started publishing the first serious scholarly work on the subject. Aptheker stressed how rebellions were rooted in the exploitative conditions of the southern slave system. He traversed libraries and archives throughout the South, managing to uncover roughly 250 similar instances.
The 1811 German Coast Uprising, which took place outside of New Orleans in 1811, involved up to 500 slaves. It was suppressed by volunteer militias and a detachment of the United States Army. They killed 66 black men in the battle, executed 16, and 17 escaped and/or were killed along the way to freedom.
I think it would have been a matter of time before things got bloody and a whole bunch of people died. But the Federal Government, you will notice, felt compelled to send in troops and quell the uprising, so it's all conjecture.
There were laws in place that prevented slave owners from arbitrarily freeing slaves; laws designed to prevent slaves from becoming literate; laws preventing them from learning how to operate firearms. So the road to freedom was never going to be easy.
Yes. Slavery would have been voted out in a peaceful manner if it had not been pushed down the throats of those who owned slaves. Totally an unnecessary war of Northern Aggression.
And more black people would be working today if people had not been forced to hire them. Only hiring the number of blacks you have to is a backlash.
Yes. Slavery would have been voted out in a peaceful manner if it had not been pushed down the throats of those who owned slaves. Totally an unnecessary war of Northern Aggression.
And more black people would be working today if people had not been forced to hire them. Only hiring the number of blacks you have to is a backlash.
Good points and a good thought. A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.
Slavery. Obamacare. Whatever. You shove it down people's throats and they will find a way to push back.
It is still exists according to the 13th Amendment, if read it carefully. It has just taken a different form.
I doubt that it (slavery in the form people think of it in), wouldn't have ended peacefully and you could say that immigration has also had an effect on Black employment/wealth, historically.
You may not have been around here long enough to see many of these discussions, so I'll give you a quick tip: the Confederate apologists always get around to talking about racism in the North. What they, like you, don't seem to understand is that talking about the character of the people in the North has no bearing on the fact that the motivation of the Confederates in starting the war was to preserve their ability to own human beings. You may have noticed that my point said nothing about the degree to which someone today would consider the American forces the "good guys". Your point is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
the civil war was fought more than over slavery. Lincoln didn't sent troops to the south to end slavery but to protect federal property and not let the south secede from the Union.
Other reasons for the civil war was economic and expansion of the federal government.
The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the U.S. CONSTITUTION. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
Another reason was TAXES or what the south view "unfair" taxation that favored the North. Lincoln imposed the first federal income tax by signing the Revenue Act.
utterly irrelevant?....LMAO! I guess your points are relevant and others that you don't agree irrelevant.
I say that's pretty relevant in discussing ALL the reasons why thousands of Americans killed each other and continue a war when Lincoln was never an abolitionist and his intentions were never to end slavery by military force in the states in the south. As of matter of fact, Lincoln believed Blacks shouldn't have the same rights as Whites.........if you think im being a confederate apologist then you are clueless since I was born and raised in the North and I have NO ties to the south.
The Civil war didn't end slavery but ending slavery ended the Civil War.
The war was ended by the Army of the Cumberland and the Army of the Tennessee ripping the heart out of the rebellion in the Western Theater. Midwestern men.
Let him think what he wants as long as his wicked actions are stopped.
Yeah. That was the thought about slavery.
But, was it all necessary? Maybe not. Maybe it was possible to go slower, and find a way for southern farmers to operate profitably without having to use slaves. When you look at it, it seems to me that the southern plantation owner was held hostage by the system he helped create. Many men, including Thomas Jefferson, didn't want to own slaves. They had to, to be competitive.
So the southerner was beaten into submission. And as a result he persecuted black people for another 100 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
