How long could slavery have lasted in the south?

[Bosh]

Contrary to beliefs by some, Confederate's weren't FOR slavery.

Well they prized it highly enough to give up British support to attempt to keep slavery going. If it wasn't for Southern slavery the UK would almost certainly have intervened on its behald, or at least broken the northern blockade that cripped the Southern economy and did more to break Southern resistance than anything else...

[SlowwHand]

You're also misinformed, Boshco.
The Confederacy had ship-building yards in England.
Officially, they were unauthorized.
That doesn't mean they weren't there.

[Bosh]

Right, and I'm sure there was plenty of gun running from the UK into the South without the British doing anything to stop it, but that doesn't mean there was anything the kind of responce they would have gotten if the south had told the brits "we'll get rid of slavery and have nice low tariffs for UK manufactured goods if you get the yankees off our backs."

Did a quite google search and this seems to back up what I'm saying:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A912386

plenty of blockade running but:

"The Confederates expected the British to break the blockade or escort ships through it, but this never happened. Unusually, Britain did not even object to the seizure of British ships running the blockade."

Also IIRC, the CSA sent diplomats to the UK on an English ship which a US ship attempted to grab. This caused a major furore (sp?) in the UK and many peole called for a declaration of war on the US, one of the main factors in preventing this from happening is the power of the UK anti-slavery lobby. If it wasn't for that you'd have gotten a good bit more pro-South UK, especially after the Cotton Famine hit...

[Arrian]

Yes, the Confeds got several commerce raiders from the Brits. It served their (the Brits) interests to make life a little bit more difficult for the USA. However, when push came to shove over whom to support (or stay out of it), the issue of slavery hurt the CSA's chances. Trade with the USA was also a major issue (wheat, IIRC).

So the CSA had its commerce raiders, but then the USA got a bunch of soldiers from Ireland. Neither was officially sanctioned by the UK - in fact both practices were highly illegal.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Very good, Boshko.

Now, as an Independant, post here the percentage of farms that used slaves.
And when you do, bear in mind that when it says 1/3 in like the Big 3, that means 2/3 had none.

[Arrian]

That's one statistic one could use, Sloww. Another is what percentage of the South's GDP was generated by slave owning planatations. The rich southerners - the ones who ran the place - had slaves. Lots of 'em.

The common confed soldier who joined up to defend his home, as against his right to own other people? I feel bad for the poor sods, but they were misguided.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

I already know the percentage answer.

[SpencerH]

Slavery on a large scale might have lasted till the early 20th century but I doubt it. Slaves were expensive and with the development of the industrial age maintaining large slave workforces on the big plantations for farm work would have been economically untenable. Slavery would probably exist outside of farming though (as it does today anyway).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Very good, Boshko.

Now, as an Independant, post here the percentage of farms that used slaves.
And when you do, bear in mind that when it says 1/3 in like the Big 3, that means 2/3 had none.

If your grocery store sells 5 Colas, two of which are Coke and Pepsi, does that mean that Coke and Pepsi only account for 40% of the stores Cola sales? Of course not.

The number you ask for is meaningless. It's not the percentage of farms that had slaves, but the portion of the Southern agricultural economy that those farms represented. If one plantation has slaves, and two small farms do not, but the plantation produces 10 times as much cotton as the two small farms combined, then 1/3 vs. 2/3 is not the relavent comparison.

[Bosh]

Right, but those 1/3 tended to be bigger than the 2/3.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Slavery on a large scale might have lasted till the early 20th century but I doubt it. Slaves were expensive and with the development of the industrial age maintaining large slave workforces on the big plantations for farm work would have been economically untenable. Slavery would probably exist outside of farming though (as it does today anyway).

True, but that assumes that the South would have developed an industrial economy. Why assume that?

[SlowwHand]

Figure it out then, Bosko. Don't twist what I said.
Look at agriculture, as a whole.

[Bosh]

Oh and the answer the question, once Africa was thoroughly colonized exportation of slaves would've become a lot harder (that was one of the Brits' favorite excuses for colonizing, stamping out slave-exportation) which would have increased the price to slaves (supply and demand) until they became economically unviable.

IIRC the last American country with slavery was either Brazil or Cuba which I think abolished it in 1881, don't see how the south could have lasted that much later, but then again cotton-farming slaves tended to live a lot longer than sugar-farming places, (suger farming is a lot harder work) so the US south would have been less hard hit by a complete cessation of slave imports.

[Japher]

Cotton and Tobacco, and Tobacco was a lot harder to harvest. If the US still went into the industrial age at the same time, despite a Civil War, slavery wouldn't of lasted much longer due to better tools requiring less people to do the work. Yet, civil rights might not have been instilled for a lot longer after...

While the Civil War wasn't fought to abolish slavery it encouraged the Emancipation Proclomation, gave an outlet for slaves to become "papered" freeman, and earned them a great deal of respect amongst the states... Without the war, civil rights and freedom would of really been a lot further off than just the abolition of slavery...

[SlowwHand]

Thank you, Japher.


Let me say this again.
Contrary to what Northerners thought/think/fought for, it wasn't about slavery to the South.

Of course to some of the North, they'll always disagree, and continue to tell Southerners why the South fought.
And THAT'S the reason the South fought, even then.