Realistically, how long could slavery have lasted had the south won the civil war?

[Dr Strangelove]

Slavery was already more than an economic matter, it was already holy writ to it's southern supporters, who included not only the plantation owners, but also those who made money indirectly off of the plantations. Even small farmers had some interest in slavery. Not all slaves were owned by plantation owners. In fact a sizeable portion of southern slaves were owned by people had no more then one or two slaves. Small farmers often defrayed expenses by selling their slaves' services. By the time of the Civil War the morality of slavery had already been argeued for generations. In the South a number of academic institutions had made their reputations concocting a wide variety of pseudo-scientific explanations as to why the African was best suited to slavery. Likewise religious institutions in the South fouind ways to make slavery seem down right charitiable. Surely much of the energy dedicated to rationalizing and apologizing for slavery must have been unconciously motivated by the knowledge that their entire culture was based upon a monstrous crime. These folks weren't going to give up their slaves until someone forced them, because to have done so would have required stripping the veneer of civility off of their allegedly Christian and cultured lives, exposing the sinful weakness of their souls.

Referring back to my post above, the completion of the SUez Canal inevitably changed the relationship between monied interests in Great Britain and the American South. They became competitors where they had been partners before. A lot of British money went into building that canal. It was going to require the profits made from a large number of ships to satisfy the investmentors. Tea, silk and spice weren't enough. Cotton on the other hand was a bulky commodity in great demand. The right kind of government subsidies insured that Indian cotton would replace American cotton in British cotton mills.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Slavery was already more than an economic matter, it was already holy writ to it's southern supporters, who included not only the plantation owners, but also those who made money indirectly off of the plantations. Even small farmers had some interest in slavery. Not all slaves were owned by plantation owners. In fact a sizeable portion of southern slaves were owned by people had no more then one or two slaves. Small farmers often defrayed expenses by selling their slaves' services.

This seems to support the contention that slavery was primarily an economic issue.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


This seems to support the contention that slavery was primarily an economic issue.

A common argument, mainly because thats how econimoc teachers lecture the events in the USA, History and economics lectres in the Uk teach the event.

for instance the nobel prize was one in 70s by Fogel and Engerman for their scientific data anayasis of negro slavery.

It showed that the salves owner recieved a higher return on his slaves than any other form of capital investment, it further showed that the southern slave plantations were more cost effiecent and returned higher profits than any other form of farm, what was the optimum size of plantation for profit and geographical location and so on.

Bottom line, Sothern slave farms were more cost effective and effiecent and profitable than free ones, t5hose skilled free negros who were hired out also make a significant impact, most of them were skilled because the Northern states trained them and then made them free, butr denied them the lawfull means to work and live in Northern states, so they went South, sold themselves back into slavery, S Jackson for instance, to christain Southerners, who took 10% of their hired out wage and used that to educate negros and run sunday schools and do the same as the northern states had done, it was not usual that the hired out now enslaved negro ever bothered to meet or conerse untill one year later when the negro could petition for his freedom, seek another master, who would give him legal protection in law to earn his living, of course their was also southewrn skiled free and slave negros to hire out.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Referring back to my post above, the completion of the SUez Canal inevitably changed the relationship between monied interests in Great Britain and the American South. They became competitors where they had been partners before. A lot of British money went into building that canal. It was going to require the profits made from a large number of ships to satisfy the investmentors. Tea, silk and spice weren't enough. Cotton on the other hand was a bulky commodity in great demand. The right kind of government subsidies insured that Indian cotton would replace American cotton in British cotton mills.

Complety against the historical record, the volume of UK imports of Cotton and orgin of that cotton clearly show that your post is without foundation in historical fact.

Uk cotton from India/Egypt decline post WBTS and USA cotton returns as not only the principle supply point but returns to almost a monopoly as Egypt/Indian yields fall to almost nothing with the decades long drought that effect them regions while not the USA, and ivestment shifted to the US not India btw.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Slavery was already more than an economic matter, it was already holy writ to it's southern supporters, who included not only the plantation owners, but also those who made money indirectly off of the plantations. Even small farmers had some interest in slavery. Not all slaves were owned by plantation owners. In fact a sizeable portion of southern slaves were owned by people had no more then one or two slaves. Small farmers often defrayed expenses by selling their slaves' services. By the time of the Civil War the morality of slavery had already been argeued for generations. In the South a number of academic institutions had made their reputations concocting a wide variety of pseudo-scientific explanations as to why the African was best suited to slavery. Likewise religious institutions in the South fouind ways to make slavery seem down right charitiable. Surely much of the energy dedicated to rationalizing and apologizing for slavery must have been unconciously motivated by the knowledge that their entire culture was based upon a monstrous crime. These folks weren't going to give up their slaves until someone forced them, because to have done so would have required stripping the veneer of civility off of their allegedly Christian and cultured lives, exposing the sinful weakness of their souls.
.

Er ok.

The reason the Noth and Soth argues themselves around to the morality of salvery was that the economic argument, per capita income/richest 20 men in the nation, top 5 all lived in natchezand were slave/cotton magnates,legal argument (congress had no legal authority to end slavery in a state) had been won by the South, the only argument left was moral, at the time the concept of slavery was allowed because God specifcly said to Mosses it was, he regulated in law to Mosses, he (God) rebukked patriaches sons who objected to them taking slaves as wives and rebuked their racism directly. Their is amply evidence that slavery was santioned, reglated and tolerted by God himself in his deallings with humans.

H B Stowe when she wrote Uncle Toms cabin did wonders for Northern perception of the South, but she wroite a novel made a fortune and spent the rest of her life travaling the world first class. She ahd nevere set foot in the South let alone lived there and took all her opinions from her imagination of what the South was like, unfourtuntly that imagination caused considerable confusion with 00s of 000s of others who also had only their imagination of what the South was like.

When Southerners defended the practice they often used that psudo scientic argument that life expetancy of a slave was higher than a free white in many Northern states, that he had cradle to grave food and housing and medical care gaurenteed in law.

Good job that your morality is less than mine argument was supported by the my factories are bigger and better than yours.