If the Democrats won the Civil War how long do you think slavery would of lasted?
…several decades until farming equipment was invented that could accomplish much more and do it more efficiently IMO.
Already was, northern states were already out producing them.
It was a crime against humanity, the people would of never stopped fighting against it.
If the natives of the bahamas won against Columbus and killed him
When do you think the next voyage to that location would have happened?
Allan
Next day
And if they lost that war.
Allan
“would have”
2 Likes
“If the Confederates Won the Civil war how long do you think slavery would of lasted?”
I don’t know but there are people today who still fly the confederate flag as if they won.
Are those people Democrats or Republicans?
The confederacy had no political parties.
1 Like
Because they were on there way of industrializing. That gave em the advantage.
The south made slavery a constitutional right
The union needs to be broken up before something crazy happens a big shooting etc… Then we will be at a point where there is no turning back and there will be a war and I don’t think many of us want that unfortunately were allowing a small percentage of radicals control the dialogue and nobody is reeling them in. This is bigger than the current occupant of the White House just vote him out not destroy everything.
This is very serious what is happening in my city of Seattle you have people setting up barricades at gunpoint not letting people travel through regardless of whatever political side you’re on the mob cannot be allowed to run the city this is a very dangerous dangerous game, this is how wars break out.
Modifying the scenario of the OP to the following:
How long would slavery have lasted under any of the following scenarios:
- The Democratic vote was not split in 1860 and a Democrat won, no secession.
- Lincoln won, but cooler heads prevailed and no secession.
or
- Secession occurred, the North acquiesced.
- Secession occurred, the North lost the war.
Under all four scenarios, slavery ends, the time frame being the only difference.
Under scenarios 1 & 2, slavery lasts another 25 years at the outside.
Under scenarios 3 & 4, slavery is done in 10 to 15 years at the outside.
We have to understand WHY slavery ended so quickly in the North. It was certainly NOT because the population as a whole of the North was more high minded than the population of the South as a whole. All northern States had black codes, some more stringent than others and the activities and movement of blacks were limited as where their rights. They were clearly legally inferior to whites and whites had little better view of blacks in the north than did those in the south.
What killed slavery in the North was none other than that brilliant economic system called capitalism. The north was industrialized and farming in the north was less labor intensive than planting in the south. Slaves are expensive and as they compete with free labor, they are resented by free whites. There was every economic reason to end slavery in the north and capitalism put an early and effective end to slavery in the north.
The south, on the other hand, was organized almost on a feudalistic basis. Poor whites were excluded from the franchise and labor intensive farming made slavery economically viable in the south’s non-capitalistic system. Essentially, it was a feudal system of serfdom, with the serfs being replaced by slaves.
Had the south not seceded, as in scenarios 1 & 2, it still would have had to industrialize, to stay economically viable in the industrial revolution that was occurring. That would have led to the rise of a free white working class who would have taken offense at competing with slaves. At the same time, rapidly increasing trade with far east and southeast Asia would have undercut southern plantations, rendering slavery nonviable and eventually forcing a shift to other crops that would not have required slavery. Additionally, the inventions of the industrial revolution would have quickly rendered slavery nonviable.
The same situation would existed under scenarios 3 & 4, but additionally, an independent south would no longer have had the benefit of the fugitive slave law and would have lost slaves to the north at a vastly increased rate. Additionally, an independent south would have had to industrialize at a vastly increased rate, thus accelerating the end of slavery.
Slavery was dead in all circumstances. Capitalism was the force that would have ended it in all circumstances. Only the time frame would change.
4 Likes
the mob doesn’t run the city, its one block and its 60 people without guns.
How did Waco turn out? What is different here other than Trump being the president? Where’s Janet Reno when you need her?
Most farmers in the south had no slaves back then anyway. Mostly a big plantation thing.
1/3rd of all families in the South had slaves.
1 Like
They used to teach in our history books that it was 10 percent.
Even if we go with your numbers that still means 2/3rds of all families in the South didn’t have slaves right?
None of my family in any of my family branches ever owned a slave for example.
They were not unique.
1 Like
I live right down the road from it we can see what is going on yesterday driving there thank you, I have seen the barricades myself that say “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone“ it is at least five blocks if not more I know the area. We spotted at least two people with guns standing by the barricades, it’s a lot worse than what you just described. I haven’t watched the news but if they are saying it’s just 60 people no guns and one block they are smoking crack.
1 Like
