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.
it is still a state right to decide for themselves, and abe did not like that a state could choose for themselves. also, the winner of a war always writes what is written in the history books, and very rarely do the losers write anything at all.
Rubbish. Freedom of speech was the law of the land, after the war just as it is now. Southern apologists have always been free to write whatever they want, and they freely exercised that right. Name someone who was arrested after the war for presenting a pro southern point of view.
On the other hand it was a crime before the war to use the mails to disseminate abolitionist literature, and many Southern states did everything they could to restrict free speech where that topic was concerned.
I don't want this to spin into a debate over the morality (immorality) of slavery, it is abhorrent. I am in no way justifying it. But, in 1860 America it was also the law of the land. Slaves were legally property of their owners. They were also very expensive property-on the order of $1000-$2000 in 1860 dollars, or about $30,000 in today's dollars according to a one site (I welcome corrections if someone has more accurate values). Efforts to "free" slaves not only threatened the economy of half the country, but amounted to the seizure of a massive amount of property without compensation. That alone is sufficient to create violent resistance.
Slavery was a "dying" institution by that time. It was declining in most states, both with more states going "free" and fewer people owning slaves. The massive infusion of legal immigrants around this time meant that more labor was available, and ultimately at less cost. Cheap hired help didn't have to be provided food, shelter or other care. And if they were hurt or died, the employer wasn't out the investment in a slave.
My question-had the Federal government agreed to compensate the owners the fair market value of the slaves and purchased them from their owners, would the majority of slave owners agree to sell them? Could this have happened without widespread violence? Would by far the bloodiest, costliest event in American history been avoided?
Would it have been a bit expensive? Sure. But far less so than the cost of a civil war, both in terms of dollars, to say nothing about lives. Did more than 600,000 people die because our government chose to "steal" property without properly compensating the owners?
You bring up a good point with the idea of cheap immigrant labor. Not only that but the south then turned to sharecropping which I believe it found even more profitable than slavery. I think another important issue is that the disagreements between the north and the south were also being played out in the courts but it was taking too long, this is normally a very slow process but if they could have sped it up an reached a legal conclusion that everyone could accept I think it would have been helpful. I agree that even if slavery had been allowed to remain it would have died out due to the unpopularity of it in the rest of the world putting pressure on the south, and also being replaced by sharecropping and other cheap labor.
In answer to your question I think it could have helped a lot but I do not think slavery was the only issue the south was angry about.
Could it? Sure. Was it politically possible? No. The south had no interest in ending slavery with or without compensation. If slaves were purchased at "market value", the cost would have been enormous. Its cost would have been about the same as the Civil War itself, but it's easier politically to pay for a war than non-war costs. It would also mean a large transfer of tax dollars from the north to the southern slaveholders. Can't imagine that being popular.
Nobody goes to war for slavery, just an excuse...a propaganda campaign with Uncle Tom included, just as Hearst papers.
It was a MANIFEST DESTINY of Industrial North against agricultural south, the real reason was PLUNDER.
Nobody goes to war for slavery, just an excuse...a propaganda campaign with Uncle Tom included, just as Hearst papers.
It was a MANIFEST DESTINY of Industrial North against agricultural south, the real reason was PLUNDER.
You couldn't be more wrong. Every single state that made of the CSA included Slavery in their secession document. Being that the legality of secession was in question and that question was well known at the time, it is obvious on the face of it that the seceding states did so with the understanding that they were probably starting a war (and, by the secession documents, they all considered Slavery an issue worth of a war).
Your post sounds like you are trying to twist the Civil War into the War Of Northern Aggression (which it was not).
The point is moot: agrarianism, whether via plantations or small family farms. still dominated all economic activity at the time, and a society still dependent mostly upon unpaid labor could never have raised the capital to emancipate the most vulnerable among its laboring classes
Southern states should have just done like northern states did and gradually abolished slavery over the course of 30-40 years. That way, a war would have been averted.
Southern States should have been given the right for a "soft transition" as in the case of Cuba, a Spanish colony that ended slavery in 1884. Cuba was not a Spanish province because slavery, there could be no slaves in a Spanish province.
Why they were not given the chance....easy, the industrial north was overpopulated and needed a war and assimilate and plunder the south.
At that time, slavery was in decadence as slaves were very expensive and had to be fed, and English sank all slave vessels. Slavery became just like drug smuggling. As mechanization arrived from England in the case of sugar production, slaves became more and more obsolete and paid labour became cheaper. In the case of Cuba, it was cheaper to import blacks from Jamaica, pay them minimum wage and lodge them in former slave barracks.
Last edited by karstic; 09-21-2016 at 10:41 AM..
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.
