How long could slavery have lasted in the south?

[Jack_www]

You know in many parts of world Slavery still exists. So it is still around and alive today.

[SlowwHand]

Slavery is always going to be somewhere, unfortunately.
Personally, I'd like to take a whip to Iowans.
But hey, that's just me.

[Arrian]

Yeah, but I think it was pretty clear the thread was about slavery in the U.S. - officially sanctioned slavery, not the illicit sweatshops MtG mentioned.

-Arrian

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yeah, but I think it was pretty clear the thread was about slavery in the U.S. - officially sanctioned slavery, not the illicit sweatshops MtG mentioned.

-Arrian

Many countries, even though it is illigeal, allow slavery to go on. An example is how they enslave children in south east asia as sex slaves and have people from Europe and America come and do what they want to these children. Also parents sell their children into slavery in many parts of the world when they are in dire stituation.

[Napoleon I]

I guess the question then comes down to economic viability. IMO large scale slavery would have slowly faded away, but slave ownership would have shifted to relatively contained enterprises. Just imagine the sweatshops MtG was talking about, but officially sanctioned and given a tax break for ideological reasons.

[Ramo]

I'd give the institution of slavery as it existed in the Antebellum South another 50 years maximimum. It'd die away in most of the South by the 1880's, but it would stay economically viable in Texas for a bit longer due to its relative abundancy of land and lack of labor. As Southern industry develops (probably initially at a disadvantage relative to the current time line, due to the lack of protective tariffs vis a vis the UK) and the profitability of cotton dies away, the ruling class would turn from feudal lords, to mercantilist industrialists, who would push for greater liquidity in labor. Combine that with the need of maintaining the British alliance, and slavery likely would've been abolished in a few decades.

[Whaleboy]

Slavery sucks.

[Arrian]

Insightful of you, elijah.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

http://civilwarmini.com/list.htm

"Slavery No Longer Needed in the North"
The North no longer needed slavery in the mid 1800's as it saw the rise of factories and a great horde of immigrants arriving to provide the labor. (yep. Irish.)
The South in the meanwhile needed slavery to till its fields.

America was growing at a phenomenal rate. The rail system was spreading west and telegraph buzzed across the land. Expansion was a certainty on the Western frontier. The curtain was about to rise to show the world our maturity as a nation. Then, a disastrous event called the Civil War came along.

It was a dark era in our history and perhaps our greatest shame as a nation. The war ended in 1865, but culturally, it was just beginning. The meaning of it all became significant to modern America and is best described by William James.

Lee's belief about slavery:
"General Robert E. Lee, Confederate States of America, freed slaves under his control and declared slavery, " a moral and political evil." He was convinced a "mild and melting Christian influence" would resolve slavery rather than war. Lee's opposition to slavery was shared by many Southerners. "

"Why did the South fire the first shot?

Because South Carolina seceded and demanded removal of the Federal garrison at Charleston. The secretary of state promised to remove it. Many believe South Carolina provided last minute provisions as a goodwill gesture to the previously starved fort and waited, only to learn President Lincoln had ordered a fleet of war vessels with guns and ammunition. This was done under the pretense of provisioning Fort Sumter. Some historians believe Lincoln only sent provisions. If this is true, Lincoln may have chosen the wrong delivery vessel, which in turn, sent the wrong message to the edgy Southern states!"

"A Southern person may have said," We had a right to pull out. Political parties were out of control in Washington. The North imposed unfair tariff laws on our crops. Northern fanatics were inspiring slave uprisings in our midst. The North was jealous of our prosperous South and of the number of leaders we had sent to the presidency. We never meant war - we just didn't want anything more to do with the Yankees." (Like I said )

[Sava]

It's my understanding that Lee only freed slaves if they agreed to fight for the Confederacy. I can see it now... "Sure, we've enslaved you for hundreds of years, but you can BE FREE IF YOU FIGHT THE PEOPLE TRYING TO FREE YOU... REALLY TRUST US!!!"

[SlowwHand]

Just another thing you misunderstand, Sava.
Personally, I'm used to it.

[Arrian]

"A Southern person may have said," We had a right to pull out. Political parties were out of control in Washington. The North imposed unfair tariff laws on our crops. Northern fanatics were inspiring slave uprisings in our midst. The North was jealous of our prosperous South and of the number of leaders we had sent to the presidency. We never meant war - we just didn't want anything more to do with the Yankees."

A Southern person might well have said that. Sure. The average Southern soldier probably felt that way (Yankess meddling too much). But the leadership was all about defending slavery.

Lee was a general, not a political leader, and wasn't even supreme military commander until 1865 (because prior to that the CSA had no such position). Even if he was against slavery, his position was easily outweighed by the political leadership of the CSA.

But economically speaking, the North had reached the point where slavery was no longer economically attractive, and therefore it was easy to give it up. That part is true.

-Arrian

[Japher]

Didn't Lee reside in the north before the war?

Not really sure if that holds any bearing...

[Arrian]

And by the way, a Northern person might have said

"So the South is pissed off because they used to have a near monopoly on the political system, and now we've been actually electing Northerners to *gasp* the Presidency? How DARE WE!!! We all know that it is the South's exclusive right to run the country!"



-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian


A Southern person might well have said that. Sure. The average Southern soldier probably felt that way (Yankess meddling too much). But the leadership was all about defending slavery.

As I've already shown, this statement on the Leadership is wrong.

Lee was a general, not a political leader, and wasn't even supreme military commander until 1865 (because prior to that the CSA had no such position). Even if he was against slavery, his position was easily outweighed by the political leadership of the CSA.

Again, wrong. Lee took over in 1862.

But economically speaking, the North had reached the point where slavery was no longer economically attractive, and therefore it was easy to give it up. That part is true.

-Arrian

Thank you.