Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    My wife's house in Nebraska
    Posts
    4,568

    Default

    I believe that an offer was presented to Washington to accept money for the slaves in compensation for the landowners "property losses". But the powers that be in Washington actually rejected the idea of monetary compensation reasoning that it would cost too much. Few in the North I think actually believed that the Southern states would resist force and invasion and occupation very long.
    Yea, right. That worked out well.
    The cost to retain the Southern states within the Union cost much much more than anyone thought.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leftyo View Post
    why didnt they buy them. fairly complex, but in short the south had vast farms, and the blacks were in effect their tractors. now would you sell your tractor if you were a farmer, and had no way to replace it? no you wouldnt.
    Slave owners couldn't be forced to sell legally owned property, but driving up slave values by competitive bidding at public auctions would make it economically untenable to buy new ones. If your tractors become more valuable than the yield of your crops, any reasonable farmer would sell them, too.

    Slaves were an expensive commodity even without competitive bidding from Abolitionists--wouldn't have taken much economic pressure to make them unaffordable except by the very rich.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    My wife's house in Nebraska
    Posts
    4,568

    Default

    I don't think Jeff Sessions knows anything more about the causes of the War Of Northern Agression (Lincoln's War) than he knows about why cannibus was listed as a Schedule One Drug long ago.

  4. Default

    The Second American revolution is the first war lost by Americans.

  5. #15

    Default

    Was the cause of ending slavery just or not? Not everyone in the North took up this cause, but many did, and so the question is far from irrelevant. And at that there were shades of grey. For example, opposition to the expansion of slavery to newly-admitted states was very strong in the North, even as they accepted that the Constitution permitted slavery in states already in the union.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    My wife's house in Nebraska
    Posts
    4,568

    Default

    I don't personally think the institution of slavery would've lasted past 1875 if even that long had the whole issue of Succession not come up. It should've never been allowed to get a foothold in New Amsterdam in the 1600's.
    The entire Civil War didn't have to happen. 600,000 to 1,000,000 American lives is a poor and needless trade for anything.
    Last edited by Fred; 02-13-2018 at 03:51.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by togor View Post
    Was the cause of ending slavery just or not?
    By a devastating civil war, no. Certainly not until other serious solutions had been tried, such as making the cost of slave-owning too high to be profitable, or pressuring cotton mills in the North & Britain to stop buying slave-grown cotton.

    But it can't be denied, unfortunately, that mindless crazys in S. Carolina started a fight any rational Southerner should have seen would be difficult, if not impossible, to finish. Sadly, by being first to open fire, they deprived themselves of the moral high ground.

  8. #18

    Default

    CH your premise is dead wrong. Had the south stayed in the union, they would have kept their institution, albeit under exactly the circumstances that you prescribe, that slavery as an institution face an increasing economic disadvantage, and eventual extinction by constitutional amendment, when enough non-slave states have entered the union. The South had what you would give them, but threw that away through secession, with big dreams of southward expansion after victory.

    They chose the remedy of Sherman's famous quote, and lost it all. The cause is just. Moreover, a 19th century industrial Capitalism based on slavery would not have survived into the 20th.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by togor View Post
    CH your premise is dead wrong. Had the south stayed in the union, they would have kept their institution, albeit under exactly the circumstances that you prescribe, that slavery as an institution face an increasing economic disadvantage, and eventual extinction by constitutional amendment, when enough non-slave states have entered the union.
    What is my premise? Didn't I say explicitly that it was a BIG MISTAKE to strike the first blow? Nothing, before that insane blow, had yet happened to threaten slave-holder's rights, except the election of Lincoln, who could have done nothing without a huge battle in Congress.

    You show great skill in knocking down straw-men.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Southern Ohio
    Posts
    2,461

    Default

    From my Dad I inherited a series of Time-Life books on the Civil War [War of Northern Aggression] which are reprints of books written in the years after the war. They are fascinating reading, one strikes interest in our discussion. It was written by an Englishman engineer who was living in New Orleans and the conditions there prior to the start of the rebellion. He was of the opinion that slavery in a matter of years due to the coming of the machine was a dying institution. Why own slaves who are expensive to keep, do not live to the full potential of work? Purchase a machine and hire a man to operate the machine which will be more productive. Economic costs drive any business, I.E. CODB the Cost Of Doing Business. Slaves make some economic sense without machinery, no sense with machinery. Same goes today with the chant of $15.00 for a burger flipper, a machine has already been invented to replace a score of these workers and will. Look @ reloading, we have on one end the Lee hand loader which takes about 20 minutes to turn out a loader round to the Dillon which can turn out 1,000 rds per hour. If you were going to sale ammo which one would you want, same for slavery. By the way, slavery is a step up in intertribal warfare of just killing your enemy. We still have slavery in the U.S. today, it is called by two names...Welfare and our Drug Culture.
    Sam

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •