peterbound Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 this a million times. slavery was gone from the western hemisphere by the 1880s, including places like brazil and jamaica, where the economy's reliance on slave labor was far greater than in the american south.Tell you one thing, if the north stopped enforcing the fugitive slave laws, slavery would have ended just like in brazil, state by state, as freedom crept closer and closerAccording to his own link, Slavery in Brazil was alive and well well into this century, hell, even this decade.I'm with the war. It allowed for a conclusive and concise end to a fucked up practice. I get the whole 'Northern Aggression' thing and states rights, but I think we can all agree that the practice needed to be ended.http://en.wikipedia....#Modern_slavery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I'm with the war. It allowed for a conclusive and concise end to a fucked up practice.If nothing else, one would have to factor in the continued oppression of humans in the gradual ending of the practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 this a million times. slavery was gone from the western hemisphere by the 1880s, including places like brazil and jamaica, where the economy's reliance on slave labor was far greater than in the american south.Slavery in Jamaica was ended by the Parliament in London so the impact on the economy of Jamaica was far from their primary concern and slavery was ended by royal decree in Brazil at a point when the importance of slavery to the economy was declining and it still lead to a coup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 BB,The South fought long and hard against a States retained power to say it was illegal to own another person inside its territory. Further, after Dred Scott with the Court's support it would have been next to impossible for the North to enforce laws against slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Peterbound,Legalized slavery ended without bloodshed in most of the world. I don't beleive warfare was necessary to end it in the US. Um, History would like a word. The only peaceful solution would've been to allow secession and that wasn't going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 If nothing else, one would have to factor in the continued oppression of humans in the gradual ending of the practice.Indeed. You're correct. However i could only image where the civil rights movement would be today if we had 'waited' for the practice to end through the care, sensitivity, compassion, and understanding we as Americans have for our fellow man.Oh wait..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixodes Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Ixodes,The importation of slaves was done in far larger numbers in brazil than it it was in the US. It took them twenty years longer to end slavery that it took us, yet, they did it without anywhere near the degree of bloodshed our war created.Ultimatly, I think secession was more about the Southern planter class perserving its own place of privilege than anything else. I think they used the possible emancipation of slaves to rill up the lower classes in the South to get the cannon fodder they needed to fight the war against the invasion they new was coming. The South's reasons for secession and for resisting forced reintigration to the Union were poor any way you slice it.Agreed. The cultural and political divide in the US was more radical and the bloodshed is a reflection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 ME,I believe States had the power to leave the Union for any or no reason because the power was not denied to the State in Art. I and Art. IV.Ixodes,I respectfully disagree. I think it could have been resolved without bloodshed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixodes Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Ixodes,I respectfully disagree. I think it could have been resolved without bloodshed.You disagree with me agreeing with you?? How does that work?Yes Scot, if got into your time machine and changed the right hearts and minds, you could have prevented the civil war. But doesn't this hold true with any war in history?History went down in a way you don't agree with. I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 ME,I believe States had the power to leave the Union for any or no reason because the power was not denied to the State in Art. I and Art. IV. I'm sure the southern states that attempted to secede believed that as well. The Feds had something else to say about it, however. Not sure how belief enters into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 ME,I'd guess the New Englanders who advocated secession during the War of 1812 probably agreed with my position too. That said the argument to force is a lousy way of rejecting my position unless you are generally going to start advocating for the right of conquest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 ME, That said the argument to force is a lousy way of rejecting my position unless you are generally going to start advocating for the right of conquest. Yet that essentially won the argument. It's not about rights at this point. Reality trumps rights. There was no way in hell the Fed was going to allow its' breadbasket to say "Yo Holmes, smell you later" without a fight. Right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 ME,Which I find profoundly sad. Further, the new midwestern states could have fed the smaller US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reposado Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Ultimatly, I think secession was more about the Southern planter class perserving its own place of privilege than anything else. I think they used the possible emancipation of slaves to rill up the lower classes in the South to get the cannon fodder they needed to fight the war against the invasion they new was coming. Why would the lower classes be concerned with maintaining slavery? They didn't own slaves. they had no hope of ever owning them. Slaveowners were the wealthiest 2-5% of the population. Ending slavery was directly to the benefit of poor whites in the labor market.Abraham Lincoln tried peaceful methods, but as I said, it was unfortunate the Union fired their fort at the southron cannons to precipitate the conflict. Else we could have had a peaceful transition from slavery like Haiti and other such nations.Kinda funny example, since Haiti is the one other western hemisphere country where slavery ended violently. (in a slave revolt)And I'm curioys to know the peaceful methods Lincoln tried to end slavery with. Because from the historical record, he never tried to end slavery before the war, never claimed it was a goal. Ending slavery was a side effect of the war, not the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reposado Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 doubled, whoops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Indeed. You're correct. However i could only image where the civil rights movement would be today if we had 'waited' for the practice to end through the care, sensitivity, compassion, and understanding we as Americans have for our fellow man.Oh wait.....I'm a little confused by your response, as I'm agreeing with you.I don't want to reject the "less bloodshed" argument out of hand, but it seems to leave out the key variable that the heinous practice of slavery would be extended by any position of gradual reduction.I see the Civil War as one of those occasions where, however regretfully, war was justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 And I'm curioys to know the peaceful methods Lincoln tried to end slavery with. Because from the historical record, he never tried to end slavery before the war, never claimed it was a goal. Ending slavery was a side effect of the war, not the goal. Agreed. It was a fortunate side effect to an otherwise unfortunate conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I'm a little confused by your response, as I'm agreeing with you.I don't want to reject the "less bloodshed" argument out of hand, but it seems to leave out the key variable that the heinous practice of slavery would be extended by any position of gradual reduction.I see the Civil War as one of those occasions where, however regretfully, war was justified.I was being sarcastic and agreeing with you at the same time. Sorry if that didn't come across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 BB,Why would White Southerners object to Blacks being allowed to vote in the 1950's and 1960's? Why would they want seperate facilities for Whites and Blacks in public spaces? There was racial tension in the South before the war. That's what the Planters played on. They knew that poor Whites thought themselves "better" than Blacks. As such they fought to defend the same caste system that held the Planters at the top, simply because they were not at the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 ME,Which I find profoundly sad. Further, the new midwestern states could have fed the smaller US. As sad as an end to the United States of America as we know it? I don't know. It's a bit of a coin flip, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.