Actually, the North only had to buy all the female slaves to effectively end slavery.
Actually, the North only had to buy all the female slaves to effectively end slavery.
Soldier of the Great War wrote:
Actually, the North only had to buy all the female slaves to effectively end slavery.
The problem was the labor. It is very likely if not inevitable in a relatively short amount of time slavery would have become economically unsound and the morality of owning human beings would have naturally closed this terrible institution without the extreme loss of life destruction.
But politics, ah, politics. Killing millions time and time again.
Why in the world would I want taxpayer dollars to go to buying human beings?
And why in the world would Southern slave ow era agree to sell?
It would have been cheaper to purchase just one apache attack helicopter and a ton of ammunition for it. Given the technology of the day, just one apache helicopter could have crushed the southern army. Robert E Lee never becomes general in charge of the army and Manassas is a resounding victory, allowing a quick path to Richmond, where the helicopter could quickly overcome southern fortifications, allowing the city to be taken. If Jefferson Davis tried to flee, it would be easy to locate and disable any means of transportation he used with the helicopter. Within a month, Davis would be in irons, paraded through the streets of DC, or perhaps dragged through by the Apache Attack Helicopter.
You should not be under the impression the the North gave one fvck about the slaves, or that the Union Army was fighting and dying to free those wretched souls. Racism was just as vicious north of the Mason-Dixon.
They were fighting to keep the South from seceding. Nothing more.
What was stopping them from shipping more over from Africa?
Devil Dog wrote:
You should not be under the impression the the North gave one fvck about the slaves, or that the Union Army was fighting and dying to free those wretched souls. Racism was just as vicious north of the Mason-Dixon.
They were fighting to keep the South from seceding. Nothing more.
The South was without a doubt fighting FOR slavery.
I believe a few of the Union soldiers gave one fvck, and maybe even as many as two fvcks about slavery, but they were few and far between. And almost no foot soldier gave three fvcks. Scale of 1-10 fvks.
derp wrote:
The South was without a doubt fighting FOR slavery.
I believe a few of the Union soldiers gave one fvck, and maybe even as many as two fvcks about slavery, but they were few and far between. And almost no foot soldier gave three fvcks. Scale of 1-10 fvks.
A huge majority of Southern soldiers did not give one flying eff about slavery.
Politics. And yet no one learns. Look how the hatred is being stoked today for fellow Americans.
Devil Dog wrote:
You should not be under the impression the the North gave one fvck about the slaves, or that the Union Army was fighting and dying to free those wretched souls. Racism was just as vicious north of the Mason-Dixon.
They were fighting to keep the South from seceding. Nothing more.
You do understand why the South wanted to secede, right?
I've thought about this too. As someone else said, ending slavery was not the North's motive for fighting the war. It was a later development and essentially a by product so there'd have been no thought to doing so in say, 1860-61, and by the time emancipation became a consideration, maybe by 1862-63, it's doubtful anyone in the South would have sold. By then Southerners were committed to secession and hostilities had gone too far.
But if it could have happened, I think it would have been cheaper to buy slaves than to fight a war and a whole lot less bloody. I doubt it would have been possible to buy just female slaves. Slave owners were always terrified of a slave insurrection and the idea that their wives and mothers would be taken away may well have incited one. But you probably could have ended slavery just by buying slaves from the biggest plantations. Those were the only ones that were really profitable and the owners were the ones whose political influence maintained the system. Lots of smaller slave owners were perpetually in debt and actually wanted to get out of the slave owning business but couldn't afford to. Their farms were not nealry profitable enough to maintain the system if the large plantations had no slaves.
Lorio wrote:
Devil Dog wrote:
You should not be under the impression the the North gave one fvck about the slaves, or that the Union Army was fighting and dying to free those wretched souls. Racism was just as vicious north of the Mason-Dixon.
They were fighting to keep the South from seceding. Nothing more.
You do understand why the South wanted to secede, right?
For the sake of simplistic and elementary internet conversation, I'll temporarily grant you that the south seceded due to to their desire to maintain ownership rights over slaves.
The doesn't mean that the north fought to free slaves. It was 1861. African Americans (free or enslaved) were not even recognized as full human beings. Northern soldiers and politicians were in no way interested in the plight of the black people. This was of no concern.
For example; you and your wife get a divorce. You go through a vicious battle. You want your wife back, and she wants to leave. Your wife owns a a bunch of coffee cups, and now you have none. Are you fighting to get your wife back, or are you fighting for those coffee cups?
That's all it was to northerners. They wanted the south back. No one gave any thought to the slaves.
You can not look at a 150 year old historic event through a modern lens. You need context. The reality is that black people did not matter to white people in 1861. Not to southerners OR northerners. The reality is, it is very easy to teach middle schoolers about the Civil War in terms of for and against slaves; its literally black and white. But life and history are not black and white.
Don't paint me as a southern sympathizer. Not at all. Born and raised in Indiana, proud descendant of multiple northern soldiers. Reality is what it is however, and not one single Northern soldier died with any sense of fighting for slaves. Not one. They dies with visions of reunifying the states.
ok you are treading dangerously close to the idiot zone here.
"For the sake of simplistic and elementary internet conversation, I'll temporarily grant you that the south seceded due to to their desire to maintain ownership rights over slaves."
are you trying to imply that the southern secession DIDN'T have to do with slavery? Any one that even tries to posit that is either misinformed or being disingenuous.
"Northern soldiers and politicians were in no way interested in the plight of the black people. This was of no concern.
I could overlook this as an overstatement but then you later reiterate that:
b]No one gave any thought to the slaves.
No one? There wasn't an Abolitionist movement in the North?
Where did you learn your history from, a Cracker-Jacks box?
Devil Dog wrote:
Reality is what it is however, and not one single Northern soldier died with any sense of fighting for slaves. Not one.
good lord, almost overlooked this one, lol
derp wrote:
Devil Dog wrote:
Reality is what it is however, and not one single Northern soldier died with any sense of fighting for slaves. Not one.
good lord, almost overlooked this one, lol
Devil Dog, you are aware that 200,000 black soldiers and sailors fought for the Union, right?
or did they conveniently, (and tellingly) slip your mind?
Yes, it would have been cheaper ultimately, but ahead of time this was not obvious. Lincoln (and most everyone else) figured the War (rebellion in his terms) would be short. But he had lousy generals and found a good one by attrition, while Lee and Jackson made maybe one error, but that was enough to lose.
Haiti is the only other American country that used war to end slavery.
As others mentioned, the economics were against its continuance too much longer, though the South in the USA seemed to have a particular fondness for using slaves instead of mechanization (thresher for instance).
"cheaper" ?!
Well, I guess economics/money means EVERYTHING to some.....
Why would the Northerns want a bunch of freed blacks running around their inner cities and flashmobbing the shopping malls? They only got that after causing the Great Depression that sent so many blacks migrating North.
Abraham Lincoln:
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
Sand Dunes wrote:
Abraham Lincoln:
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
yes, anyone with a passing interest in the Civil War is familiar with that quote
it's hilarious when morons try to use that quote to insist that the war had nothing to do with slavery.
facts!?
who needs 'em!
Obviously there's a lack of concept of supply/demand here.
Obviously you could buy the first however millions black slaves cheap, like $2/per or something.
But once there's only like 10000 or so left, you have to pay more and more per slave. You can't just claim "eminent domain" and give "fair value" for them, the SCOTUS had invented Kelo yet.
By the time it's down to like 100, you're probably paying like collector's item amounts. Look at the ethereum-cats that sold for hundreds of thousands, or art work in the $$millions.
So you really can't with a counterfactual, only that the first few slaves (on the margin) would have been sold for the typical market prices. But after that, who knows?