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.
Slaves were good for agriculture which required manual labor, not good for semi-automated factories that could make use of economies of scale, which is one reason that slaves were not abundant in Europe and most likely can be seen as a cynical reason why Europe and the northern states outlawed slavery much earlier than the southern states of the U.S. - simply, slaves were not economically feasable in the urban environment of Europe (or, the northern states).
Some years ago I read articles and opinions that another reason was that many people in the cooler climates i.e. the Northern States and Europe in that time period were genuinely concerned about diseases that were widespread in the tropical climates and importing inhabitants from those regions could spread disease. European visitors, explorers, slave traders even coined a phrase,( I believe it was "white mans death") when referring to Africa. A good case can be made that in those days of no-antibiotic, primitive medicine perhaps the distaste for slavery wasn't so much a taking of high moral ground as it was a fear of exposure to malaria, yellow fever, etc.
Again I am not excusing the South for it's actions, they were wrong. I personally think the slave holders were stupid for not paying the slaves and just passing the costs onto the customer. Which begs the question, Why didn't they just do that? Because that still didn't address the problem of unfair Tariffs and trade injustices imposed by Washington on the South. The short of it is that the Civil War wasn't just eclusively fought over slavery.
Of course I can judge them--and I do. I don't care what their ancestors did, or where they came from, nor should anyone. In 1861, they were slave moguls who were ready to sacrifice poor people's lives so they could keep their slaves. They deserved to lose the slaves, and did. All the other stuff you're bringing up is irrelevant. Thank the gods so many Southerners realized slavery wasn't worth fighting for, or the Confederacy might have secured independence. Too bad so many Union generals were such inept cretins, or the war might have been over sooner.
I respect your right to this opinion. I also honor my own right to defend my own ancestors who were Confederates who were NOT SLAVE DRIVERS and who had opposed slavery much prior to leaving Scotland and Ireland. I have every right to state that I want to know more about who the underground railroad of southern people were, who risked their lives to get the slaves out of the hands of any and all slave moguls. I feel the need to point out to people who have the misconception that the Northerners were innocent of slavery, that maybe there is a much larger truth that can be found and proven through genetic research, so if you're the type that shuts down any possible notion of truth by not investigating the ancestry and the "Articles of Confederation" that made you free to speak your opinion today, then you may have missed an important detail that could turn the hearts of those who harbor ill feelings against the Southern poeple in general as a whole. I am here to state my opinion that the Confederate flag did not represent slavery, it is abused as other flags have been abused by the enemy of it. That seems to be a handy political tool keeping the people of the US at odds creating other handy mechanisms to pit us apart. Divided we fall. I mentioned the terms of surrender of General Lee, and correct me if I am wrong, but didnt it stipulate that noone can further persecute the Confederates? What is happening about that now?
My statements;
Not all white people were pro slavery in the South.
Not all white people were English planters with a colonisation scheme.
Not all Scots or Irish or Northerners of the Union were innocent of slavery.
Not everyone knows the entire truth of the civil war of America.
Not everything we have available to read about history is the truth.
We are going to have this discussion for eternity unfortunatley.
I believe I rest my case.
As a number of others have brought up, the expense of keeping slaves and technological development in the South likely would have resulted in the end of slavery at some point. However, I also think segregation would never have ended. Southern society is rather classist at best and was virulently racist at worst.
My mom's side of the family is from Arkansas. My now late grandmother on that side (who arguably made Jesse Helms look like a liberal) once told me that she thought blacks "liked" being segregated. I was absolutely mortified. And I think that kind of mentality would have continued to pervade southern society to the present day. The xenophobic nature of the South would have insured that foreign pressure wouldn't have meant anything to them.
The price of Slaves was steadily declining from about the 1840's with the influx of European immigrants. By the 1850s Slave Barons were making as much or more money selling slaves than they were on agricultural products. The slave became a type of currency and people paid their debts with slaves . The south was becoming cash poor a slave wealthy. There were already plantations in Louisiana that were more profitable by using free Labor, the Slave Baron had to provide; housing, food, medical care and ,clothing for every slave he owned whether they were productive or not , what he didn't provide them with they would pilfer from his stock piles.
At a time when the cotton price should of been high, a planter had to keep most of their acreage planted with corn. the land was becoming depleted of nutrients anyway. many slave Barons were hiring out their slaves to the factories and private homes. some slaves were considered virtually free slaves. I guess many factors were coming together in the south to transform the Institution from an economic system to a social system.
I know of people in my parents life time who were born into slavery and sold for around $200.00 (George Washington Carver) during the breakout out of the civil war. A far cry from the $1200.00 to as much as $2700.00 ( Prior to the influx of the Irish). The question is could the south have force the continuation of Slavery as a Social System . Some will argue that is what indeed happened up until the 1940's with the integration of armed forces and the passage of anti lynching laws. We have to remember that after the war the Slave Barons were compensated for their financial loss. Poor whites and small farmers lost the civil war.
The price of a slave around 1860 adjusted for inflation would be roughly in today's dollars about $30,000 -$40,000, that's hardly cheap and does not include food and healthcare. .
Well IF slavery was economically irrational then we must ask they question WHY the slaveowners rebelled against The United States and were willing to fight a 4 year war to keep their slaves. Perhaps they simply loved injustice and racism.
Well IF slavery was economically irrational then we must ask they question WHY the slaveowners rebelled against The United States and were willing to fight a 4 year war to keep their slaves. Perhaps they simply loved injustice and racism.
The is an interesting book on the subject writen by a disgruntled slave owner in around 1857? Canibals All, they believe that the system should stay in place because "man having property in man " was a good thing and free societies around the world have failed
Full text of CANNIBALS ALL! OR, SLAVES WITHOUT MASTERS., by George Fitzhugh (1857) (http://reactor-core.org/cannibals-all.html#fitz106There - broken link)
Because that still didn't address the problem of unfair Tariffs and trade injustices imposed by Washington on the South. The short of it is that the Civil War wasn't just eclusively fought over slavery.
At the time of the outbreak of the rebellion tariffs were low and in the last three congresses between the panic of 1857 the rebellion efforts to raise the tariffs had been defeated by southern interests. Indeed the 1857 tariff, passed by the southern controlled Democratic Party, had lowered tariffs and enlarged the free list. The previous tariff of 1846, also passed by Democrats, had already lowered tariffs.
So the South was WINNING it's battles over tariffs. In any event even losing a political fight over an issue doesn't justify rebellion. A representative form of government only works when people accept their defeats and work for victory in the future through the democratic process. NOT by rebellion. In that lies anarchy.
Besides, tariffs weren't on the minds of the rebels but slavery was. This tariff thing is an invention of modern day apologists for the rebellion who are loathe to swallow the plain truth that the purpose of the rebellion was to protect slavery. Something the real rebels had no problem being forthright about.
At the time of the outbreak of the rebellion tariffs were low and in the last three congresses between the panic of 1857 the rebellion efforts to raise the tariffs had been defeated by southern interests. Indeed the 1857 tariff, passed by the southern controlled Democratic Party, had lowered tariffs and enlarged the free list. The previous tariff of 1846, also passed by Democrats, had already lowered tariffs.
So the South was WINNING it's battles over tariffs. In any event even losing a political fight over an issue doesn't justify rebellion. A representative form of government only works when people accept their defeats and work for victory in the future through the democratic process. NOT by rebellion. In that lies anarchy.
Besides, tariffs weren't on the minds of the rebels but slavery was. This tariff thing is an invention of modern day apologists for the rebellion who are loathe to swallow the plain truth that the purpose of the rebellion was to protect slavery. Something the real rebels had no problem being forthright about.
Your post doesn't address the Morrill tariff passed in 1861.
Your post doesn't address the Morrill tariff passed in 1861.
The rebellion began before the tariff was passed, therefore it couldn't have been a cause of the rebellion. Had the seven states that rebelled before the tariff was passed been dedicated to the democratic process they might have defeated it. But they'd already "taken their ball and gone home", like recalcitrant, sulky children.
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.
