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.
Slavery was dying as an institution by the 1860s, because it wasn't cost effective any more (or was heading that way). Slaves were very expensive ($1000-2000 in the dollars of the time), and had to be fed and sheltered. And if they were injured or killed, the owner (as well as the slave of course) was SOL. The railroads and other hazardous construction projects (Erie Canal for example) were not done with slaves, because of the risk to the "investment". As we ended up with more and more imigrant labor, they were actualy cheaper to employe than slaves were to own.
Actually, that's one reason why slavery was not on it's way out. The slaves were the single largest chunk of wealth in the US, apart from the land itself - and since they did tend to have children, this made them a very good investment for wealthy southerners. And in truth, many slaves were used in relatively skilled trades - though of course, many were essentially in the fields. And furthermore, the slavers were quite convinced that slavery was actually the key to their own wealth and morality, all at once.
Quote:
Slavery could have been ended without a shot being fired. All it would have taken was the simple action of the federal government buying the slaves from their owners and then turning them loose. Instead, due to Lincoln's intransigance, he drove the country to a civil war that ended up costing 625,000 lives. Worse, he extended the war and cost more lives as leverage to pass the 13th amendment among NORTHERN states and representatives.
Remember that thing you just said about the slaves being very expensive? There was little chance that the US could afford to purchase every slave in the first place. And in any event the mere election of Lincoln was enough to enrage the Deep South into rebellion. And finally, in order to claim that the south would have been okay with free black people, you'd have to ignore their habit of enslaving free black people on the occasions where their army entered Union territory, the Black Codes which attempted to force black citizens into subordination immediately after the war ended, and the ferocious reaction to black people...well, doing anything, that persisted for more than a century after.
Yup. I hate war, but I have no sympathy for the Confederacy. They brought that war and the century of economic and social backwardness on themselves.
I think it is sad that you so utterly fail to understand the cost of the war. You have no sympathy for the south? you do realize that part and parcel to the cause of the war were laws that forced the south to sell their cotton to northern states instead of sending it to Europe for better prices? You see the North benifited from slavery as well and as much as some opposed the spread of slavery (another major issue that led to the war) the real drive to end slavery was not going to happen because both north and south derived too much benefit.
(Please don’t consider this an argument that slavery was not the central issue. It certainly was.)
The war brought more death to the north than to the south. Vastly more. The ravage of the Reconstruction period was where the south was destroyed and that was a pure act of vengeance by northern radicals that cut off their own collective noses to spite their own faces. I suspect that too was part of what had to happen. Sadly we live with the failure of reconstruction to this day.
People really should read a book about the REAL lincoln and his policies and how he didn't want slavery to end and voted against ending it more than once...the man was nothing more than a tyrant and a bully. Read the politically incorrect guide to the south,The Real Lincoln. Both wonderful books that explain with great detail and sources to back them up how much of a racist Lincoln was.
Lincoln's aggressive war against the Confederates caused 625,000 deaths. After 2 years of battle, he issued the Emancipatin Proclamation correcting the terrible wrong of slavery. Is aggressive action causing so many deaths negated by the EP?
If yes, compare freeing the Iraqis from slavery of Saddam and Bush causing 3500 deaths.
My opinion, both Lincoln and Bush were wrong to attack and cause the damage they caused.
There is no comparison.
[with that said, the South should accept the loss and move on]
Lincoln's aggressive war against the Confederates caused 625,000 deaths. After 2 years of battle, he issued the Emancipatin Proclamation correcting the terrible wrong of slavery. Is aggressive action causing so many deaths negated by the EP?
If yes, compare freeing the Iraqis from slavery of Saddam and Bush causing 3500 deaths.
My opinion, both Lincoln and Bush were wrong to attack and cause the damage they caused.
So? Another person who hasn't a clue.
Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation? No. He freed the slaves in the confederate states. Slavery was alive and well in both the north, (Think General Ulysses Grant's wife), and in the midwest territories.
It's sad that there are so many people without a proper knowledge of history.
Lincoln's aggressive war against the Confederates caused 625,000 deaths. After 2 years of battle, he issued the Emancipatin Proclamation correcting the terrible wrong of slavery. Is aggressive action causing so many deaths negated by the EP?
If yes, compare freeing the Iraqis from slavery of Saddam and Bush causing 3500 deaths.
My opinion, both Lincoln and Bush were wrong to attack and cause the damage they caused.
Seriously? Lincoln is wrong?
The election of Lincoln caused the south to withdraw from the union, and taking federal property (i.e. Fort Sumter). The "aggressive" response was successful in reuniting the union.
The two events are very different, and most people (including historians) award Lincoln as the best president in US history for the steps he took. . to preserve the union.
Of course, looking back, if we yankees knew that the south would be nothing but a drain on the federal coffers . . .maybe it would of been okay to shed them
I think it is sad that you so utterly fail to understand the cost of the war. You have no sympathy for the south? you do realize that part and parcel to the cause of the war were laws that forced the south to sell their cotton to northern states instead of sending it to Europe for better prices? You see the North benifited from slavery as well and as much as some opposed the spread of slavery (another major issue that led to the war) the real drive to end slavery was not going to happen because both north and south derived too much benefit.
(Please don’t consider this an argument that slavery was not the central issue. It certainly was.)
The war brought more death to the north than to the south. Vastly more. The ravage of the Reconstruction period was where the south was destroyed and that was a pure act of vengeance by northern radicals that cut off their own collective noses to spite their own faces. I suspect that too was part of what had to happen. Sadly we live with the failure of reconstruction to this day.
Meh. Considering the horrors that the wealthy white people (and even toue poor ones, though to a lesser extent) in the south visited on millions of people, over the centuries, over something as dumb as skin color, they got off lightly. I'm not upset by Jerry Sandusky's imprisonment, I'm upset for the boys he raped.
People really should read a book about the REAL lincoln and his policies and how he didn't want slavery to end and voted against ending it more than once...the man was nothing more than a tyrant and a bully. Read the politically incorrect guide to the south,The Real Lincoln. Both wonderful books that explain with great detail and sources to back them up how much of a racist Lincoln was.
Lincoln ignore such basic rights as due process and habeus corpus. He overstepped the authority of the presidential office. Personally, I think that if you have to throw out the constitution in order to preserve the union it created then that union is worthless. It can either stand on the merits or it cannot.
As to secession. Remember it was less than 100 years since the Revolution and to the South the issues were basically the same. George Washington was their hero. Many Southerners had family members who fought in the Revolution - they saw the freedoms they fought for under attack by the North. And the North/South difficulties actually go way back - it didn't start with slavery. There were basic differences and priorities between the agrarian South and the Industrial North. The nation's capital was actually located in DC (then considered the South) instead of Philly as an olive branch to the Southern states because there was already trouble.
Here is an excellent book detailing how the North profited from slavery (all those textile mills) and were complicit in keeping it in place because it kept their profits up:
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.
