Reply With QuoteSorry but by the 1890's machines would have replaced almost all the "negros".
Your right secession was about slavery... the right of states and people to own slaves as was pertected by the constitution of the USA.
Commemorating the 150th Anniversary of South Carolina's Secession - the Secession Ball
And please don't waste time trying to argue that Secession was not about slavery - the Secession documents leave no doubt that it was all about slavery.
You can argue that the North didn't fight the civil war to free the slaves, but there is no argument about the fact that the secession of most of the southern states was to preserve slavery. They said so repeatedly in their secession documents.
But what if instead of fighting secession the United States had said "O.K. - go form your own country" and thus was born the Confederate States of America, co-existing with the United States of America, much like the USA co-exists with Canada.
Would the Negro still be enslaved in the Confederate States of America in the second decade of the 21st century?
Or do you think that at sometime over the last 150 years since 1860 the Confederate States of America would have recognized that all humans are entitled to the same rights as humans?
Certainly it doesn't seem like they would have become enlightened from the way they treated the Negro for at least first the 120 years following Secession.
Sorry but by the 1890's machines would have replaced almost all the "negros".
Your right secession was about slavery... the right of states and people to own slaves as was pertected by the constitution of the USA.
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
Weren't those machines run by people that had to be paid if not slaves?Originally Posted by Dougles
Oh how much more profitable ford Motor Co would be if it didn't have to pay any of its workers.
First, at the beggining of the 19th Cen. their were only 3 ways to "get a slave".
1. Since it was illegal to bring any more into the country, you had to smuggle them in. However, if you were caught you were punished to death.
2. You could trade/buy one from a person who had one, however since their was a limited supply, prices were crazy, as much as $1000 to $2000 for a young male. In today's money that's almost $1,000,000.
3. If you had slaves you could force 2 to mate and have a child. This was also risky since you had about a 30 to 35% of getting a healthy male that would survive to work age. Not to mention you would have to care for this child slave for 12+ years before he could really do any work for you.
IMO, Slavery was the dumbest thing that happened to the US economy. As we know now, caring, housing and feeding people isn't cheap! In fact you could get away with paying people min wage and it would be much much cheaper.
The only reason that slavery was so prevelant and successful in the south was due to the fact that their weren't enough people in the south to do all the work! And Ironically this left leaning north wanted only to buy Europeon made goods and not American made goods.
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
The Confederate States of America would not be subject to any slave prohibitions. Eliminating those restrictions was a main focus of the Secession.
This is about the biggest non-issue thread we've had since NorthBuffaloResident's thread pondering which country he'd like to relocate to.....
"I won't live by rules that make no sense to me." - Evan Tanner 1971-2008
Transfixus sed non Mortuus
The Brits would have forced the CSA to free the slaves in the 1870s or 1880s because the CSA would have become a defacto if not actual British colony.
In fact, both Britain and France would have recognized Confederate independence (and pretty much guaranteed the "success" of secession) because they both had designs on controlling the south (and the production of cotton) except that too many people in the governments and among the public in both countries strongly opposed chattel slavery.
The problem with this idea is that there wasn't much industry in the South. Southern independence would have resulted in Britain dominating the Confederacy's economy for the benefit of Britain, meaning the economy would have remained a colonial one producing one or two staple crops for export far longer than it did.
As it was, wide-spread modernization of the Southern economy really didn't even start until the 1930s when federal programs like the TVA started providing significant alternatives to working on farms or in coal mines for many workers.
Natchez Mississippi had the highest per capita of millionaires in the antebellum US, if memory serves.
Somebody was making some major money.
Having lived in the South I can assure that there is much more of a strong feeling of heritage than up here ....as it applies to the Great War of Northern Aggression as they still like to say.
In some areas they are still fighting it.
I didn't say some people weren't rich. I said their economy wasn't very modern. A lot of that had to do with their economy being wrecked by the Civil War, but even after the war, too many southerners tried to cling to the old ways rather than embracing modern technology. When most American farmers had switched to tractors, many southerners were still using mules.
Slave labor would have been economically beneficial regardless of the focus of the economy. And given the South's general reaction to the freed slaves, I don't think slavery was solely an economic phenomena.
The general reaction of the South to the civil rights movement doesn't indicate that the Confederate States of America would have voluntarily ended slavery by 1970.
Liberals love whining about racism. Which is why I find it funny that some of them think the civil war had anything to do with racism or slavery. LOLZ
"We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." --Barack Obama
Apparently you have never read the secession documents.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.
2d Inaugural Address, Pres Abraham Lincoln, 3/4/1865
President Lincoln...what a pansy-ass liberal!
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
