save the white soldiers: ending slavery without war

[ljkeane]

The fact that England did not support the South was, as best I can tell, basically because of Prince Albert who had rather unfashionable romantic ideals (we'll get to the fashionable romantic ideals in a second).

Well that and the fact that slavery was so deeply unpopular in the UK that even though the cotton trade was important to the UK supporting the South would have been pretty difficult politically.

I think how strong the anti slavery movement was in pretty much every major economic power at the time combined with the fact that the American Civil War demonstrated that while it was useful for the European economies to trade with the Southern States for cotton they didn't actually depend on it, they could have developed alternative sources from the likes of Egypt and India if they'd wanted to, meant slavery would have died out eventually without a war. There would simply have been too much economic pressure to abolish slavery but I think you're probably talking about decades of millions of people living as slaves which personally I don't think would have been worth it.

[Galactus]

Politically it wasn't really possible. As someone pointed out, in the 1860's the value of slaves in the US were greater than ALL the other property in the US combined. These were (and pardon the dehumanizing terms) really high-value capital goods, that just kept producing more and more money.

Now, most of the places where paid emancipation was a Thing just got around this by having the government set the price. Generally slave-owners felt cheated by this, but unlike in the US they often didn't have their own armies.

It should be pointed out that slavery was tied into more complicated economic issues too, it's doubtful the US would have been able to run it's protective tariffs against british goods without the Civil War, and without it, well... US industrialization is going to be very different.

[lupis42]

The basic moral questions seems pretty simple to me:

Is it justifiable to use force, even lethal force if necessary, to free yourself from the bonds of slavery? Yes.

Is it justifiable to use force, even lethal force if necessary, to free third parties from the bonds of slavery? Yes.

That doesn't get you an answer to the question of "was this use of force necessary," which is what I understand Ser Scot's question to be.

[Galactus]

There's also the fact that a peaceful abolition is probably in the short term going to mean even more legal restrictions on black people than historically. (no reconstruction, no Civil War amendments to be used as a legal plank in the 1950's and 1960's...)

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

That doesn't get you an answer to the question of "was this use of force necessary," which is what I understand Ser Scot's question to be.

Since you are authorized to use force immediately to free someone from slavery - which is to say, you are not obligated to ask them first "Sir, would you please consider freeing your slaves?" and you are certainly not obligated to financially compensate them for not holding another human being in bondage - then yes, the use of force was necessary.

[WinterKing]

Well, Brazil was the last one to forbid slavery, and we had an strong, centralized government, but we did it without war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Brazil

But it was one of the reasons why the emperor lost its throne.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Politically it wasn't really possible. As someone pointed out, in the 1860's the value of slaves in the US were greater than ALL the other property in the US combined. These were (and pardon the dehumanizing terms) really high-value capital goods, that just kept producing more and more money.

I think this is overstated. Prior to emancipation, there was no ready source of alternative labor, so slaves were economically very important and valuable. But slaves still had costs -- they had to be fed, housed, etc.. But once emancipation happened, slaves were essentially replaced by very low cost labor. In other words, the cost to replace this supposedly incredibly valuable asset was remarkably low.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I would condense that to "they didn't like being told what they could and couldn't do by a bunch of damn yankees."

And I'm serious.

I don't think we disagree. I believe that the reasons for the "bunch of damn yankees" sentiment had to do with (1) economics (agricultural pastoral v. industrial), (2) views on the nature of the union (driven, I would argue, by (1), (3) a certain parochialism (coming out of (1) and (2)) in the personal definitions of the relevant protectable communities and (4) ok, I'll admit it, basic Scots Irish cussedness (which probably drove a lot of (1)-(3), and to which I am heir in plenty).

[Biglose]

Well, one of those things where the question only scratches the issue. The major issue here is, what would have become of the USA if there would have never been a civil war? Slavery would have been abolished at one point, sure.

But the whole affair would have left the central government weakend and lead to a more federal form.

Which begs the next question, how would have the involvement in world politics looked like? And what would have been the results.

There is everything possible form the utopia the founding fathers dreamed of to a world in chaos.

[lupis42]

Since you are authorized to use force immediately to free someone from slavery - which is to say, you are not obligated to ask them first "Sir, would you please consider freeing your slaves?" and you are certainly not obligated to financially compensate them for not holding another human being in bondage - then yes, the use of force was necessary.

The second part is irrelevant - either freeing slaves immediately trumps any other cost (i.e. the harm of allowing at least one person to be enslaved for at least one additional moment is infinite), or it does not.

If it does, than any action taken which frees slaves is explicitly justifiable, and anything up to and including the deliberate extinction of humanity is reasonable.

If it does not, than some comparison of levels of harm is necessary to determine which is less harmful (non-violent solution or violent solution), based on what is known or can be inferred in the time available.

Even if you assume that the violent solution can be employed more quickly, and with no harm caused to incidental persons, it is still at least reasonable to consider whether, say, it would be better to conscript two million soldiers (with the expectation that half a million of them will die) or to confiscate a years salary from them, purchase the slaves, and free them. It is also worth considering how long the violent solution will take, and how likely it is to succeed.

[Galactus]

rior to emancipation, there was no ready source of alternative labor, so slaves were economically very important and valuable. But slaves still had costs -- they had to be fed, housed, etc..

So do tractors, they need fuel, repairs, etc. And the South by and large *didn't* recover (other parts of the US did, largely thanks to the protectionist measures I mentioned previously along with a couple of other things like that) Mississippi used to be the per-capita richest state in the US (even including slaves)

Now, slavery in the 19th century wasn't as important as it was earlier (a more advanced hypotethical, say, "no transatlantic slave trade at all", likely means there is no US at all)

[Weeping Sore]

Newsflash, Vlad P. We do not hold the patent on conservative assholes. They are everywhere. And please be mindful of the fact that not everyone in the south is a conservative asshole.

Some of us are liberal assholes, thank you very much.

I never meant to imply that all of the people in the South are conservative assholes, only a majority of voters. As more Yankees move in and more old whites die, the South will gradually stop being as much of a regressive political force.

[Elder Sister]

I never meant to imply that all of the people in the South are conservative assholes, only a majority of voters. As more Yankees move in and more old whites die, the South will gradually stop being as much of a regressive political force.

I'm fairly certain you're not meaning to be offensive, but the South is not the only 'red state' area in the country. There are plenty of states in the mid-west that are as red as can be.

But yeah, it's certainly generational. And the old attitudes are dying with that older generation.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So do tractors, they need fuel, repairs, etc.

Yes, but there really isn't a suitable replacement for tractors, whereas very low-cost labor is a pretty good replacement for slavery. There's been quite a bit written about how emancipation really didn't change the lives of a great many slaves. They went from being slaves permitted to work a small plot of their own to being sharecroppers who owed their landlords/former masters the majority of their crop.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not minimizing the importance of ending slavery. I'm simply saying that the claim that slaves were more valuable than every other piece of property in the country is a common overstatement, because it's always in the context of why they couldn't be given up. When in fact, giving up slaves had the corollary of creating a massive low-wage labor force that, economically speaking, wasn't all that different from slavery.

[Weeping Sore]

I'm fairly certain you're not meaning to be offensive, but the South is not the only 'red state' area in the country. There are plenty of states in the mid-west that are as red as can be.

But yeah, it's certainly generational. And the old attitudes are dying with that older generation.

I'm only meaning to be a little bit offensive. But I have often thought about how much more liberal a country we could be at this point if the Confederate States were a separate country (just by subtracting that many red states)

Of course and an embargo/blockade would have strangled the Confederate economy without freeing the slaves. So there would have been serious hardship and loss of life from that alone. Eventually the USA & CSA would have gone to war, anyway, and all my scenario would do is protract the inevitable.

[thecryptile]

You know we did this already- and the North is no stranger to institutionalized racism. From the segregation of the original Cotton Club to today's Stop & Frisk, NYC is a hotbed of institutionalized racism. California has a long history of discrimination against both Asians and Native Americans. During the 20th century, the state with the largest number of KKK members wasn't in the South- it was Illinois. Illinois was also the home of the American Nazi Party. Today, the Pacific Northwest is a hotbed of racial separatism.

In the 19th century, slave ships were built in Boston- remember the Triangle Trade? The corners were West Africa, the West Indies and New England. So, yeah keep blaming the South-and confirming my faith in Liberal Hypocrisy.

In regards to the OP, the only way to avoid war over the issue of slavery would've been if the Founders had abolished it after the Revolution- instead of kicking the can down the road.

[TerraPrime]

Re: General

I find the historical sequence of event rather satisfying, all told. It's like that drunken lout at the bar who's behaving like an asshole, and you really want to punch him out, and then before you can swing your fist, he spills beer on you. Now all of a suddent, you ahve the excuse you need to punch his light out. And after you do that, you then take his wallet, key his car, and piss on his dog.

Re: FLoW

I would condense that to "they didn't like being told what they could and couldn't do by a bunch of damn yankees."

And I'm serious.

I know. And you're right.

This is one aspect of the American psyche that I'd find endearing, were it also not so terribly infuriating.

[DanteGabriel]

Re: General

I find the historical sequence of event rather satisfying, all told. It's like that drunken lout at the bar who's behaving like an asshole, and you really want to punch him out, and then before you can swing your fist, he spills beer on you. Now all of a suddent, you ahve the excuse you need to punch his light out. And after you do that, you then take his wallet, key his car, and piss on his dog.

Problem is, that asshole's actually your roommate, due to some archaic rules he has an outsized say in house affairs, and he'll be resentful about getting punched for the rest of his damn life and do things to spite you because of it.

[TerraPrime]

Problem is, that asshole's actually your roommate, due to some archaic rules he has an outsized say in house affairs, and he'll be resentful about getting punched for the rest of his damn life and do things to spite you because of it.

I know. Life has a sick sense of karmic comedy. And we also have to listen to him yammer on about how the fight wasn't about his assholish behavior, but about the freedom of expression.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I'm only meaning to be a little bit offensive. But I have often thought about how much more liberal a country we could be at this point if the Confederate States were a separate country (just by subtracting that many red states)

Of course and an embargo/blockade would have strangled the Confederate economy without freeing the slaves. So there would have been serious hardship and loss of life from that alone. Eventually the USA & CSA would have gone to war, anyway, and all my scenario would do is protract the inevitable.

I'm with thecryptile here (!). Racism is not merely a Southern phenomenon (my Southern mother's description of the first time going up to meet my father's family in Connecticut is a classic - let's put it this way, she was shocked by the views expressed). I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that without the states of the CSA this country would be more liberal. Remember that the "solid South" voted Democrat until the 1960s. That means that those states were responsible for a lot of the New Deal. That's not to say that Democrats (and those that left - e.g., the Dixiecrats) were liberal in the particular sense being discussed here (they weren't really, though remember that LBJ was a Texan), but under a lot of other definitions of "liberal" the Southern States weren't exactly a bastion of "old money" conservatism.