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.
James Madison was one of the more influential framers. He died without freeing a single one of his 100+ slaves.
please reread what i wrote and use a little reading comprehension this time. i said that the founding fathers WANTED to abolish slavery, not did abolish slavery. at the time the best they could so was make it illegal to import slaves to this country. the founders did lay the opportunity to amend the constitution so that later generations could abolish slavery when they were ready.
If slavery had never existed, would there have been a Civil War?
Yes because the North was devaluing cotton Prices and interfered with commerce to Europe. The Flip side is the Southern did to them selves and over proceed their product.
The slavery issue was not a issue until the War Turned in favor of the North.
If slavery had never existed, would there have been a Civil War?
There is a "chicken or the egg" component to this question, because while the North industrialized early-on and quickly, the South remained predominately agrarian, and an agrarian economy requires more raw, unskilled labor. The disparity was also accentuated by the invention of the cotton gin, and the fact that plantation agriculture could move westward, but only so long as new cotton lands were available. By the 1840's, slave-breeding (slaves could no longer be imported, but they could be bred), rather than slave labor alone, was a major economic contributor in Virginia and other regions of the "old", worked-out Atlantic Coastal South.
And North Carolina was home to the Wachovia Tract, settled by Moravians -- east German agrarians who saw no need for slavery, but opposed the tariffs which kept the price of the few=manufactured goods they required artificially high. Point being again, that the rots of the Civil War were multiple in nature, and occasionally even contradictory.
Slavery wasn't an issue, Lincoln even said in his inauguration speech in 1861......then the North and Lincoln to compromise so the South returns to the Union, they passed the Corwin Amendment which basically guarantees slavery as a constitutional right for the states and the feds could NEVER interfere. It passed by a majority in the Northern states and Lincoln supported it but the South didn't want to return and vote on it so the Amendment went nowhere. If the South return the Corwin Amwendment would have been in the constitution and avoided the war but that didn't happen.
Lincoln prohibit slavery during the war to crush the South's economy.....its a tactic used by every King in history, to crush the rebellion and to make sure they won't do it again you crush their economy so bad that they won't rise again...Lincoln could care less about slaves, he wanted to send them all back to Africa because he said they were not compatible with American Culture (his words, I guess we have to take down his statue too)
If slavery had never existed, would there have been a Civil War?
One way to perform an analysis of a particular event is to apply a 'sine qua non' approach:
Quote:
Sine qua non (/ˌsaɪni kweɪ ˈnɒn/; Latin: [ˈsine kwaː ˈnoːn])[1] or conditio sine qua non (plural: conditiones sine quibus non) is an indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient. It was originally a Latin legal term for "[a condition] without which it could not be", or "but for..." or "without which [there is] nothing". "Sine qua non" causation is the formal terminology for "but-for" causation.
If one were to base analysis on the historical record, the testamentary documents evidenced by the Seceding Slave States' reasons for secession, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, US Congressional records, newspaper accounts from the time, et cetera, one would be likely to conclude that Slavery was the sine qua non reason or essential condition ~ without which the American Civil War does not happen.
One could apply this approach to the various US military adventures in the Middle East. One would likely conclude the threat of weapons of mass destruction & along with the existence of oil in the region, were/are both essential conditions.
Yes, 30 years before our Civil War, South Carolina seceded from the Union. Democrat President Andrew Jackson put troops loyal to the Union in garrisons before the South Carolina legislature started it's insurrection. It was quickly stopped. This was over export tariffs.
After John Brown, there was no way to avoid a Civil War with slavery at it's center, other reasons for it existed, but at the center was a states right to have slavery.
That's what I have always understood. No matter what other issues are dragged in, like states' rights, slavery is always the central argument.
If slavery had never existed, would there have been a Civil War?
I mean, if slavery had never existed, the world would be a different place so it's impossible to know what would and wouldn't happen. I assume you just mean no slavery in the Americas and not "no slavery ever" as there's a decent chance that America wouldn't even exist if slavery had simply never existed in any human civilization. It's an institution old enough that changing it would most likely change human history fairly dramatically.
So let's assume you just mean America, and assume also that history leading up to 1860 was largely the same. Would there have been a war? Maybe, but probably not.
There were major cultural divides between the South and the North. The North was much more industrial, urban, and Republican (at the time), while the South was still quite agrarian, rural, and Democratic. While it really cannot be denied that slavery was the deciding issue of the Civil War, there still may have been a conflict. A war? Perhaps not. But there'd almost certainly still be a lot of tension.
I mean, if slavery had never existed, the world would be a different place so it's impossible to know what would and wouldn't happen. I assume you just mean no slavery in the Americas and not "no slavery ever" as there's a decent chance that America wouldn't even exist if slavery had simply never existed in any human civilization. It's an institution old enough that changing it would most likely change human history fairly dramatically.
So let's assume you just mean America, and assume also that history leading up to 1860 was largely the same. Would there have been a war? Maybe, but probably not.
There were major cultural divides between the South and the North. The North was much more industrial, urban, and Republican (at the time), while the South was still quite agrarian, rural, and Democratic. While it really cannot be denied that slavery was the deciding issue of the Civil War, there still may have been a conflict. A war? Perhaps not. But there'd almost certainly still be a lot of tension.
I think war was inevitable because it was inevitable that the cultural divides would have been reinforced by political reality. The political reality was that the federal government was going to be dominated by Northern urban interests. That political reality was made very clear by Lincoln's election. Lincoln wasn't a candidate in the South. His name wasn't on a single ballot. No votes for him were cast by the South. What does that tell the South about their voice in the federal government?
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.