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.
Nothing comes to mind. They were mostly illiterate, had no money nor political power. Maybe if there has been some sort of deadly plague which only killed Caucasians, which wiped out most of the master race. Of course I don't know if that would count as freeing themselves.
We also don't know if a violent uprising could have worked. It is extremely difficult to organize a widespread rebellion when you are confined to a small area, aren't permitted to travel freely, and lack the ability to use written communications. Revolution worked in Haiti because it was confined to a relatively small area and the blacks outnumbered the whites 28 to 1. In the US South the slaves would have been outnumbered by about 5 to 3, and if things really got out of hand, the white controlled government of the nation would certainly have intervened on behalf of the southern whites rather than helping the slaves in rebellion.
Was there anyway that U.S slaves could have freed themselves without a huge violent uprising?
As mentioned, chances were slim to none.
The main catalyst to the end of slavery was the continent-wide early stages of transition from a predominantly agricultural society to a predominantly industrial society, from slave labor to wage labor: people need mobility and money in their pocket to make a geographically flexible market-based industrial system work.
Among other things, look at the history - in the few decades before and after the war - of the railroads, telegraph, banking, US big corporations, and immigration especially from southern and eastern Europe starting in the 1880s.
I was wondering because what if the civil war had never happened? How long would slavery had lasted? What would have been the slaves' options for gaining freedom?
I was wondering because what if the civil war had never happened? How long would slavery had lasted? What would have been the slaves' options for gaining freedom?
I think slavery would've gone on for well over a century longer. The institution was sanctioned by the Constitution. I'd hardly expect states that embraced Jim Crow up until being forced to scrap it by the Supreme Court to vote to amend the Constitution to ban slavery. Hell, South Africa has Apartheid until the 1990s, but even they had a system that was easier to change. Quite frankly, slavery still might exist if not for the Civil War or similar armed conflict.
I think slavery would've gone on for well over a century longer. The institution was sanctioned by the Constitution. I'd hardly expect states that embraced Jim Crow up until being forced to scrap it by the Supreme Court to vote to amend the Constitution to ban slavery. Hell, South Africa has Apartheid until the 1990s, but even they had a system that was easier to change. Quite frankly, slavery still might exist if not for the Civil War or similar armed conflict.
In terms of technology a the first successful cotton picking machine was invented in the 1930ies and it took until the 1950ies before most cotton was picked by machine and not by hand and some people were still picking cotton as late as the 1970ies(small areas). Slavery had the potential to last a really long time without the civil war.
I was wondering because what if the civil war had never happened? How long would slavery had lasted? What would have been the slaves' options for gaining freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
In terms of technology a the first successful cotton picking machine was invented in the 1930ies and it took until the 1950ies before most cotton was picked by machine and not by hand and some people were still picking cotton as late as the 1970ies(small areas). Slavery had the potential to last a really long time without the civil war.
The success of this country was built on the backs of the slaves: Cotton was King and made us a valuable partner to GB. They imported our cotton and made cloth for the rest of the world.
Raising cotton, particularly the harvesting & cleaning of the cotton ball, was very labor intensive. The cotton gin solved the one problem early on, but the other wasn't mechanized for quite awhile.
Did we have to actually fight the War of Rebellion? If Lincoln had simply withdrawn the garrison from Ft.Sumter it would have been delayed and maybe negotiations could have come to some compromise. Remember that telling The South they couldn't have slaves would be like telling IA today they can't grow corn or raise hogs-- it would destroy the economy....It may have been a moral issue for The North, but it was an economic issue for The South. (Reminds me a little of the judge in CT telling the people in the Northwoods of WI that they can't shoot wolves.)
In regards a slave-led freedom movement-- what would they do if they won? In 1863 Lincoln freed the slaves, and The Czar also freed the serfs the same year. The Czar was smart enough to provide each serf with 40 acres and a mule. Did Lincoln really do the slaves a favor?
In terms of technology a the first successful cotton picking machine was invented in the 1930ies and it took until the 1950ies before most cotton was picked by machine and not by hand and some people were still picking cotton as late as the 1970ies (small areas). Slavery had the potential to last a really long time without the civil war.
Valid points. Same with other aspects of the industrialization of agriculture.
Slavery, or similar, had been the default position for a large chunk of humanity since possibly as least 10,000 years ago (agricultural revolution), certainly 5,000 years ago, regardless of language, race, ideology, even distance of transport ... - the common element is conquest by arms - the Romans had highly educated Greek philosophers as slaves, just for example among hundreds across all ranges of relationships all over the world.
And, with the current set of technological change - accompanied by cultural and political change - don't think that slavery as the default position can't happen again, or that most of humanity will be replaced by robots.
Valid points. Same with other aspects of the industrialization of agriculture.
Slavery, or similar, had been the default position for a large chunk of humanity since possibly as least 10,000 years ago...
.
It was biologically necessary. It's programmed into our genes just like flying south for the winter among geese. We evolved with individuals living in small groups, a clan- 6-30 genetically similar people. To increase odds of survival thru genetic diversity, they routinely kidnapped individuals from near-by clans and incorporated them into their own genetic pool. Cf- Sacagawea, Lewis & Clark's invaluable guide, kidnapped as a child, and found her long lost brothers when the Corp of Discovery encountered the Shoshone.
These "victims" were allowed free range, but due to the dangers of the jungle if they were to escape alone, they just accepted the new clan as their own and stayed on.
Eventually, the practice became institutionalized as humans became civilized (ironic, eh?) for economic reasons. It's been observed that the Romans had all the knowledge and technology available to develop the steam engine, but didn't because slave labor was so cheap and made mechanization unnecessary.
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.
