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's been estamated that slavery was going to die on its own in time. The northern industries had found a goldmine in all the displaced emigrants from Britan and Ireland, who lived in the poor part of town they did not have to maintain, and hired only those who were able. Grandma didn't make dresses and the little ones might not have. But once the work day was over, the factory wasn't responsible for them. In a sense, it was similar to the origion of the the slave, as indentured europeans had first filled the role, but they were prone to run and hard to control, and eventually you had to let them go. Someone you owned you didn't have that problem.
The formerly indentured labor became a secondary source, kept poor but not owned. The primary labor became slaves until their economy also depended on it. Those moving on looking for opportunity for themselves did not wish it to become another south.
The problem the south was having was its land was growing tired and overused. They needed to be able to expand into the west. But while people did not necessarily disapprove of slavery, they had come for their own independence, and it wasn't going to happen in a slave economy.
So among the reasons the South had to resist the end of slavery was that it was the base of their economy, and their influence was going to shrink more as the west was settled by those who also did not want to compete with a slave economy and the upper class veneer that went with it.
Wanted to note on the bold that the first blacks brought to the US to work in the English Colonies were primarily also indentured servants and not slaves. I perform genealogical research and have a various lines in my tree who were free people of color - 4 of them I've traced back to formerly indentured servants in VA in the late 1600s or early 1700s. Due to not being a slave prior to the establishment of race based slavery that occurred after Bacon's Rebellion with the passage of various "black codes" and laws, they were never enslaved. However, many of them did have to prove over and over again that they were not slaves in the court system - which is why I am aware of their history. Unfortunately it is thought that many more of them actually were enslaved. Black indentured servants also ran away into swamps and lived in free communities deep in those territories like the Great Dismal Swamp of NC and VA.
Ohio never had slavery as a state (it did exist in the NW Territory prior to statehood).
From the inception of the Northwest Territory, and of the subsequent states and territories carved out of it, slavery was prohibited. Moderator cut: closing quote added here
<<The prohibition of slavery in the territory had the practical effect of establishing the Ohio River as the boundary between free and slave territory in the region between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. This division helped set the stage for national competition over admitting free and slave states, the basis of a critical question in American politics in the 19th century until the Civil War.>>
Given the great growth and natural wealth of the Northwest Territory, and the great resources that the states carved out of the Northwest Territory contributed to the Union war effort, it could be argued that the outcome of the Civil War was preordained by the prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Ordinance.
Last edited by mensaguy; 10-26-2017 at 05:27 AM..
Reason: Added a closing quote.
Ohio never had slavery as a state (it did exist in the NW Territory prior to statehood).
From the inception of the Northwest Territory, and of the subsequent states and territories carved out of it, slavery was prohibited.
<<The prohibition of slavery in the territory had the practical effect of establishing the Ohio River as the boundary between free and slave territory in the region between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. This division helped set the stage for national competition over admitting free and slave states, the basis of a critical question in American politics in the 19th century until the Civil War.>>
Given the great growth and natural wealth of the Northwest Territory, and the great resources that the states carved out of the Northwest Territory contributed to the Union war effort, it could be argued that the outcome of the Civil War was preordained by the prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Ordinance.
Interesting post. As I have said on other occasions I don't think any one factor, such as the Northwest Ordinance or the B & O Railroad, preordained Union victory. I do agree that the overall industrialization and prosperity of the Union, compared to the languid feudal nature of most of the South favored the Union.
Interesting post. As I have said on other occasions I don't think any one factor, such as the Northwest Ordinance or the B & O Railroad, preordained Union victory. I do agree that the overall industrialization and prosperity of the Union, compared to the languid feudal nature of most of the South favored the Union.
Without the states carved out of the Northwest Territory, it's hard to imagine the Union prevailing in the Civil War. If slavery had been allowed in the Northwest Territory, it's hard to imagine what might have emerged there.
So sad, so much crap on the internet. One video and people think it's gospel. We got this as well on that "American's killed hundreds of thousands of German's" thread with the well disguised neo-nazi videos. The title of this thread should add to it "and what I learned on the internet is nonsense".
To people just blatantly posting videos - please do your due diligence. Also, avoid anything that appears to have an agenda, or a work that starts with a premise, and builds a story around the premise. That's not what history is about.
At the beginning of the video, according to DiLorenzo, he grew up in Pennsylvania, went to Thaddeus Stevens Middle School, and sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic. He had been educated like many Americans; he thought that Lincoln was the man who had saved the Union and freed the slaves.
However, the standard account of Civil War history sounded funny to him even when he was a child. Later in life, he did his own research, and changed his opinions.
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.
Mr. Brian Lamb of C-SPAN Interviews Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo
