How long could slavery have lasted in the south?

[Arrian]

Boshko - regarding the slave exportation issue, I recall seeing figures that indicated most of the slave supply in the US by the time of the Civil War was generated locally (children of slaves), not imported. So I don't think the inability to buy new ones from Africa would have been enough to doom slavery.

-Arrian

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Arrian
Boshko - regarding the slave exportation issue, I recall seeing figures that indicated most of the slave supply in the US by the time of the Civil War was generated locally (children of slaves), not imported. So I don't think the inability to buy new ones from Africa would have been enough to doom slavery.

-Arrian

In fact, IIRC, the sale of slaves was itself the single biggest part of the Virginia economy by the time of the Civil War.

[Kropotkin]

As there where 4,5 million slaves at the outbreak of the civil war it would seem a bit to quick for it to disappear within ten years as sloww argues.

The major problems with slaves are that they are not very flexible as compared to a labour fource of free. On the other hand, they where a lot cheaper and this speaks for slavery as long as there's a shortage of labour (as it was in many parts of the US at the time). However, this shortage seems to have affected the price of slaves. So that advantage might not have been that great as long as you didn't have a large enough group of them that could reproduce. Another factor that shows that the system wasn't very flexible.

If the system was effective from an economic point of view even in 1860 is hard to say. Robert Fogel claimed that it was in "Time of the cross". I know to little about the field to say much more about this.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Boshko

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...

Ending slavery was being discussed by President Davis and many members of the Confederate Congress in order to induce the UK to support it's cause. The war began because many people did want to preserve slavery but it became a war for independence. Slavery was only big where Cotton was king. If the south would have somehow won the war, it would have been torn apart by further divides. During the war the enemy was the Yankee, remove that and there was no southern unity to speak of.

There would not have been a Southern nation, it would have torn itself apart later on.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

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

You dont have to have an industrial economy to buy a tractor or to realize that it is more efficient than masses of slaves. The cotton gin and other farming improvements had already reduced the souths reliance on manpower to some extent. Cotton production in Georgia for example in 1865 was only 50% of prewar levels but it rose again quite rapidly without slaves so that by 1870 (or so) cotton production was back to prewar levels and continued to rise until it peaked in 1913.

http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubs/PDF/RB428.pdf

[Japher]

On Jan. 1, 1863, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln declared free
all slaves residing in territory in rebellion against the federal
government. This Emancipation Proclamation actually freed few
people. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on
the Union side; nor did it affect slaves in southern areas already
under Union control. Naturally, the states in rebellion did not
act on Lincoln's order. But the proclamation did show Americans--
and the world--that the civil war was now being fought to end slavery.

Lincoln had been reluctant to come to this position. A believer
in white supremacy, he initially viewed the war only in terms of
preserving the Union. As pressure for abolition mounted in
Congress and the country, however, Lincoln became more sympathetic
to the idea. On Sept. 22, 1862, he issued a preliminary proclamation
announcing that emancipation would become effective on Jan. 1, 1863,
in those states still in rebellion. Although the Emancipation
Proclamation did not end slavery in America--this was achieved
by the passage of the 13TH Amendment to the Constitution on Dec.
18, 1865--it did make that accomplishment a basic war goal and
a virtual certainty.

DOUGLAS T. MILLER

Hehe, clever Lincoln...

Most Northerners had slaves during the Civil War, so why would they fight to end it? The war was the The War of Succession, not The War of Slavery... The war was mainly fought because Lincoln was elected and the south didn't like a Northerner in office at a time when southern interest was being thwarted for industries sake. Also, that the US (and Lincoln) was pushing to make slavery a state issue and not a country issue... When Lincoln one the south began fighting this issue and instead of arguing or putting up with the debates they would walk out of every talk on it... So, the adopted their own constitution and elected Davis to the post of president... Oh, and who did Lincoln beat to become President of the US? John C. Brekenridge, Confederate Secretary of War...

While succession occured over the issue of slavery the war was not fought to free slaves, and during the course of the war very few slaves were actually freed. Instead, they had to fight for it.

[SlowwHand]

The South hated Northerners, not damned Blacks.

How much more honest can I be?

[Japher]

Sometimes it seems like they still do

[SpencerH]

If you want to gauge the importance of cotton to the USA pre-war and why it was worth fighting over (just my cynical viewpoint of course).

"By 1849 cotton had the greatest export value of any agricultural commodity in the United States; cotton also paid for nearly two-thirds ofall the imports coming into the country. Domestic cotton prices at that time averaged between six and seven cents per pound (Anonymous 1850b; Philips 1850; figure 2), while export prices were about 60% higher (Anonymous 1851). By 1850 the United States hadbecame the world’s largest producer (85% of the world’s crop), exporter, consumer, and manufacturer of cotton products, exceeding even Great Britain’s industry, which had long been the dominant force in the international cotton market."

from that same link

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The South hated Northerners, not damned Blacks.

How much more honest can I be?

Right -- and according to you, the Ku Klux Klan was a charitable organization for blacks, right?

[SlowwHand]

And once again, the Blue Bellies ignore the Injuns we snatched.
Worked their little asses plumb off, I'll tell ya what.
Stinking savages.

[monolith94]

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

Then why in god's name did they declare independence the second an abilitionist became president???

[Arrian]

Most Northerners had slaves during the Civil War

I'm not going to claim that the North was some sort of enlightened Utopia, but that's just utter bullshit.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MrFun


Right -- and according to you, the Ku Klux Klan was a charitable organization for blacks, right?

I'd appreciate it if you would kindly stop bastardizing what I say.

What you allude to, is where I once again pointed out as the need to deal with Carpetbaggers.

You keep illustrating the points I make though, so keep it up.


Let me repeat, it wasn't hate of Blacks, it was hate of Northerners.

See MrFun for examples.

[Japher]

that's just utter bullshit

Care to back that up? Of course I didn't back up my claim, but if they weren't free, weren't emancipated, and were instead enlisting in the army to fight for their freedom, then what were they?

[Sava]

Let me repeat, it wasn't hate of Blacks, it was hate of Northerners.

That's right... the KKK doesn't hate blacks...

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Japher


Care to back that up? Of course I didn't back up my claim, but if they weren't free, weren't emancipated, and were instead enlisting in the army to fight for their freedom, then what were they?

The institution of slavery was outlawed in the Northern states. If you want to argue about what, exactly, constitutes slavery, I'm sure you could argue that it existed until the 1960s - or, if you are of the commie persuasion, that it exists today. Fact is, though, that blacks in the North were not other people's property. That doesn't change the fact that the North was just as racist as the South, but it does mean that your claim is bullshit.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Sava, shut the **** up.
No, don't. You're a good illustration also.



We have slaves now.
We work them as roofers, concrete layers, and yard maintenance.
They sleep 10 to a 1 bedroom apartment.

Wait a second.
Never mind. Those are illegal Mexicans.
My mistake.

[Arrian]

COMMIE! Just kidding. But surely you can see the difference between 1860s slavery in the CSA and illegal aliens working for sub-minimum wage? The Mexicans came here, of their own choice, to work. The slaves didn't have a choice in the matter. To me, that makes a world of difference.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Illegal immigrants come here voluntarily... and they try really hard to do it... sometimes risking their lives. And conditions in Mexico are worse for them. So what's your solution? Deport them all at enormous expense to taxpayers. And such an effort would be like trying to empty water from the Titanic with a Dixie Cup (no pun intended).

[Arrian]

Empty the water from the Titanic with a Dixie cup. Not bad, Sava, not bad.

-Arrian

[Japher]

The institution of slavery was outlawed in the Northern states. If you want to argue about what, exactly, constitutes slavery, I'm sure you could argue that it existed until the 1960s - or, if you are of the commie persuasion, that it exists today. Fact is, though, that blacks in the North were not other people's property. That doesn't change the fact that the North was just as racist as the South, but it does mean that your claim is bullshit.

The institution of slavery was not outlawed in all the Northern States until 1965. Slave trade was illegal however... And, still, the Union Army and government returned any captured slaves to their southern and northern owners as they were considered property until 1863 with the Negro Regime Law, which still saw them as spoils of war until they served their term in the war.

[Sava]

Arrian: thank you thank you, I'm here all week...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand



I'd appreciate it if you would kindly stop bastardizing what I say.

What you allude to, is where I once again pointed out as the need to deal with Carpetbaggers.

You keep illustrating the points I make though, so keep it up.


Let me repeat, it wasn't hate of Blacks, it was hate of Northerners.

See MrFun for examples.

So then, logically, the Klan would have lynched carpetbaggers, not blacks. Hmm...

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Japher


The institution of slavery was not outlawed in all the Northern States until 1965. Slave trade was illegal however... And, still, the Union Army and government returned any captured slaves to their southern and northern owners as they were considered property until 1863 with the Negro Regime Law, which still saw them as spoils of war until they served their term in the war.

The only reason escaped slaves were returned was because the Southern states forced through legislation to that effect (threatening, IIRC, to leave the Union if they didn't get their way. This became a recurring theme, you see).

As for the rest - technicality. You stated that most Northerners "had slaves" at the time of the Civil War. I called bullshit. You have done nothing to prove your original assertion.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Sava
Illegal immigrants come here voluntarily... and they try really hard to do it... sometimes risking their lives. And conditions in Mexico are worse for them. So what's your solution? Deport them all at enormous expense to taxpayers. And such an effort would be like trying to empty water from the Titanic with a Dixie Cup (no pun intended).

Sava, you jackass.
Hell no. I want them here.
Think I want to do my own yardwork any more than ALL my supposed ancestors wanted to pick their own cotton or work their own rice paddies ?
I doubt that seriously.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Sava, shut the **** up.

remember... attack the argument... NOT THE POSTER.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian


The institution of slavery was outlawed in the Northern states. If you want to argue about what, exactly, constitutes slavery, I'm sure you could argue that it existed until the 1960s - or, if you are of the commie persuasion, that it exists today. Fact is, though, that blacks in the North were not other people's property. That doesn't change the fact that the North was just as racist as the South, but it does mean that your claim is bullshit.

-Arrian

Delaware was a completely Union (unlike the neutral/disputed slave states of Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland) slave state until ratification of the 13th Amendment.

That was one of the reasons a number of abolitionists complained that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (masterful doublespeak that it was) freed the slaves not within the union, but failed to free those who were within the union.

[Japher]

You stated that most Northerners "had slaves" at the time of the Civil War

Alright, I submit, as most Southerners didn't have slaves either... All I was trying to say was that slavery existed in the north and that their were many slaves there, as there were in the south...

I did find this surprising

"Of the total southern white population of 8,099,760 in 1860, only 384,000 owned slaves. Of these, 10,780 owned fifty or more. It was calculated that about 88 per cent of America's slave-owners owned twenty slaves or less."

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Sava
Illegal immigrants come here voluntarily... and they try really hard to do it... sometimes risking their lives. And conditions in Mexico are worse for them. So what's your solution? Deport them all at enormous expense to taxpayers. And such an effort would be like trying to empty water from the Titanic with a Dixie Cup (no pun intended).

We need to enforce the border more, just on a national security issue alone. As far as Mexico is concern the best sollution is that the Mexican government ends its massive coruption and start actually helping its own people. They want their poor to come into the UNited States so they dont have to deal with them. If they stayed in Mexico, about 6 to 8 million mexicans were back in Mexico unemployed and just sitting there it would cause major chaos. But too the border states of, especially California cant take anymore. We already billions of dollars in debt, the freeways and housing is running out of room, many schools in LA are over crowded. So just letting illigeal immigration to countie will not be good for the US in terms of the cost to government and the prospect of terrorist using the Mexican border to sneak into the United States.