How long would slavery have lasted in the South if it didn't secede.

How long would slavery have lasted.

  • 1880

    Votes: 64 30.0%
  • 1890

    Votes: 59 27.7%
  • 1900

    Votes: 47 22.1%
  • 1920

    Votes: 22 10.3%
  • 1940

    Votes: 21 9.9%

  • Total voters
    213
Which is what i think. Slavery was hugely important issue (it's just that it wasn't the trigger of secession)

Yeah, the election of someone not willing to give in to any and all Southerner demands on the subject was.

You mean the fact that north-west was anti-tariff? Yep, and up until the Republican coalition they were not going to support it. But then things changed.
Yeah, the pro-slavery slave states decided that the North was one monolithic abolitionist body from Hell.

It was uniting issue of the south. Not only all whites could feel special by having black slaves to compare to, but they sort of benefited by that indirectly (even if not nearly to the extent the rich did). Anyway, plenty of people here say that slavery wasn't Lincoln nor republicans agenda in 1860.
It was, however, what the South saw as their agenda.

Homesteading. That's how the north-west mentioned before was bought, the north got tariff out of it, benefit in itself, and the south was supposed to pay for the plan.
Where is the South paying a nickel for land out west being granted to those dumb enough to believe the "the Great American Desert" is a hoax? (exaggerated statement is exaggerated, but...)

And for that matter, why is the only mention of the GAD in regards to how the South isn't allowed to use force and fraud to turn it all into slavery states?
 
Yeah, the election of someone not willing to give in to any and all Southerner demands on the subject was.

Yeah, the pro-slavery slave states decided that the North was one monolithic abolitionist body from Hell.

It was, however, what the South saw as their agenda.

Where is the South paying a nickel for land out west being granted to those dumb enough to believe the "the Great American Desert" is a hoax? (exaggerated statement is exaggerated, but...)

And for that matter, why is the only mention of the GAD in regards to how the South isn't allowed to use force and fraud to turn it all into slavery states?

Also homesteading was available to ANY American, South as well as North. There was no law stopping a Southerner to move west if he wanted to. So you can't argue it was entirely a Pro-Northern thing. They couldn't move their slaves there but if it truly wasn't about slavery it wouldn't matter.
 
Here we go again. Slavery was rallying issue that concerned even the lowliest of whites, tariffs were pretty much class issue. Is that this unbelievable that the southern political oligarchs of planter class indulged in a little bit of political propaganda?

(the 90% is relevant to southern planters not being that happy about financing US budget increase that was not going to be spent to their benefit at all)

Were slavery irrelevant to the Confederacy it would have scrapped it at the first available military-diplomatic opportunity. Instead it kept the system going even as the Confederacy shrank from 11 states to Kirby Smithdom and whatever territory Forrest's, Joe Johnston's, and Lee's armies held.
 

Maur

Banned
Yeah, the election of someone not willing to give in to any and all Southerner demands on the subject was.
Well, that is actually reasonable alternative. I mean, the whole politics was about struggle for supremacy of north vs. south, and the south had the problem that the expansion diminished their influence. Republican congress/president probably means the struggle is lost for good.

Yeah, the pro-slavery slave states decided that the North was one monolithic abolitionist body from Hell.
Well, it actually was, short-term (which matters for tariff, and doesn't for slavery)

It was, however, what the South saw as their agenda.
I assume southern politicians knew that the coalition didn't have enough power to do anything to slavery, so even if they thought it was their agenda, they should know they are powerless to do much about it, short-term at least.

Where is the South paying a nickel for land out west being granted to those dumb enough to believe the "the Great American Desert" is a hoax? (exaggerated statement is exaggerated, but...)

And for that matter, why is the only mention of the GAD in regards to how the South isn't allowed to use force and fraud to turn it all into slavery states?
I'm honestly don't know what do you mean. Rephrase, perhaps? :confused:
 

Maur

Banned
Were slavery irrelevant to the Confederacy it would have scrapped it at the first available military-diplomatic opportunity. Instead it kept the system going even as the Confederacy shrank from 11 states to Kirby Smithdom and whatever territory Forrest's, Joe Johnston's, and Lee's armies held.
Do you think i think slavery was irrelevant? Nah, it was of utmost importance, much more important than, for example, tariffs. It's just that it wasn't threatened and as such secession over it doesn't make much sense (yeah, let's assume a shred of rationality on behalf of the southern politicians)
 

Maur

Banned
Also homesteading was available to ANY American, South as well as North. There was no law stopping a Southerner to move west if he wanted to. So you can't argue it was entirely a Pro-Northern thing. They couldn't move their slaves there but if it truly wasn't about slavery it wouldn't matter.
Compared to the north-west, it was negligible issue for the south, and certainly not one that concerned southern political class.

(i haven't said it's pro northern. Northern states didn't care about it either. North-west did)

I don't understand the last sentence. Move where? To the west? How does what being about slavery matter what? :confused:
 
Well, that is actually reasonable alternative. I mean, the whole politics was about struggle for supremacy of north vs. south, and the south had the problem that the expansion diminished their influence. Republican congress/president probably means the struggle is lost for good.

The problem is that the supremacy issue is based on a division of the country into the free states aka the North and the slave states aka the South. Its not the agrarian states vs. the industrial ones, or the wealthy states vs. the poor ones, or anything on lines related to tariffs and commerce.

Well, it actually was, short-term (which matters for tariff, and doesn't for slavery)
It actually wasn't. Not unless you have some explanation for the Democrats. Especially the division into northern and southern democrats happening where it did and as it did.

I assume southern politicians knew that the coalition didn't have enough power to do anything to slavery, so even if they thought it was their agenda, they should know they are powerless to do much about it, short-term at least.
They should know, but what they should know and should think as reasonable minded people and what they actually thought as obsessive, ideoloical douchebags are two different things.

I'm honestly don't know what do you mean. Rephrase, perhaps? :confused:
"Where is the South paying a nickel for homesteading?"

The Great American Desert is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Desert

The only mention of "the common territories" is in regards to slavery.


Do you think i think slavery was irrelevant? Nah, it was of utmost importance, much more important than, for example, tariffs. It's just that it wasn't threatened and as such secession over it doesn't make much sense (yeah, let's assume a shred of rationality on behalf of the southern politicians)

Let's look purely at how they acted in regards to getting their act together in a situation (the four years of the ACW) that should have, in rational people, inspired a spirit of cooperation and compromise.

No, I'll take that as a sign that being rational wasn't on their list of priorities.
 
Do you think i think slavery was irrelevant? Nah, it was of utmost importance, much more important than, for example, tariffs. It's just that it wasn't threatened and as such secession over it doesn't make much sense (yeah, let's assume a shred of rationality on behalf of the southern politicians)

It wasn't threatened, sure, but to the Southerners a man had been elected on free-soil votes without getting a single vote in the South. For some Southerners the Union mattered no matter who won the Presidency, for the secessionists this was the beginning of the end of slavery and it could only be preserved in a southern Union.
 
They were incredibly stupid and their wartime record shows this.

The record also shows that Abe Lincoln was no immediate threat to slavery in the South. He stated many times in the election that he wouldn't go after slavery where it existed. The only thing that the South could be worried about is that it would be banned in the future when the North was so much stronger than the South that secession is not even a remote possibility.
 
Compared to the north-west, it was negligible issue for the south, and certainly not one that concerned southern political class.

(i haven't said it's pro northern. Northern states didn't care about it either. North-west did)

I don't understand the last sentence. Move where? To the west? How does what being about slavery matter what? :confused:

You implied (or at least that is how I read it) that the Homestead Act was entirely favorable to the North and gave no benefits to the South. This was not true as anyone could homestead in the west. It screwed of the Native Americans to be sure but almost no one cared about them, either North or South.
 

Maur

Banned
The problem is that the supremacy issue is based on a division of the country into the free states aka the North and the slave states aka the South. Its not the agrarian states vs. the industrial ones, or the wealthy states vs. the poor ones, or anything on lines related to tariffs and commerce.
Agreed. Although i think the agrarian vs. industrial fault line was also important.


It actually wasn't. Not unless you have some explanation for the Democrats. Especially the division into northern and southern democrats happening where it did and as it did.
Oh, sorry, i read "north" as "republicans" and replied as such :eek:


They should know, but what they should know and should think as reasonable minded people and what they actually thought as obsessive, ideoloical douchebags are two different things.
Well, how rational was their decision-making i don't know. Perhaps i should say that the circumstances point to impending tariff being the trigger and not threat to slavery.



"Where is the South paying a nickel for homesteading?"

The Great American Desert is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Desert

The only mention of "the common territories" is in regards to slavery.
Damn. I'm not native speaker... so it's something about south paying money for homesteading and the western part of plains... still no idea, sorry.

Let's look purely at how they acted in regards to getting their act together in a situation (the four years of the ACW) that should have, in rational people, inspired a spirit of cooperation and compromise.

No, I'll take that as a sign that being rational wasn't on their list of priorities.
I don't know. Usually there's a reason that makes sense from subjective perspective, but i'm not knowledgeable enough to say anything about it. But i think mass madness is never an explanation, even for, idk, things like Salem witchhunts.
 

Maur

Banned
You implied (or at least that is how I read it) that the Homestead Act was entirely favorable to the North and gave no benefits to the South. This was not true as anyone could homestead in the west. It screwed of the Native Americans to be sure but almost no one cared about them, either North or South.
Hmm. I said:

"Homesteading. That's how the north-west mentioned before was bought, the north got tariff out of it, benefit in itself, and the south was supposed to pay for the plan."

i mean that n-w (not north) got homesteading out of the republican coalition, the north got tariff, the south wasn't part of it.
 
Agreed. Although i think the agrarian vs. industrial fault line was also important.

Important, but not how the "North" vs. "South" thing is set up.

Oh, sorry, i read "north" as "republicans" and replied as such :eek:
No worries. If I'm ever unclear, its my fault and not yours.

Well, how rational was their decision-making i don't know. Perhaps i should say that the circumstances point to impending tariff being the trigger and not threat to slavery.
The circumstances where the South is screaming about how the evil Republicans are an immediate, dire threat to Slavery and Civilization?

Damn. I'm not native speaker... so it's something about south paying money for homesteading and the western part of plains... still no idea, sorry.

It is. Your English is so good I forget about that (you not being a native speaker). What I mean is, when did the South have to pay for homesteading in the western plains?

I don't know. Usually there's a reason that makes sense from subjective perspective, but i'm not knowledgeable enough to say anything about it. But i think mass madness is no explanation.
Generally, you would be right, here I'm not convinced.
 
The record also shows that Abe Lincoln was no immediate threat to slavery in the South. He stated many times in the election that he wouldn't go after slavery where it existed. The only thing that the South could be worried about is that it would be banned in the future when the North was so much stronger than the South that secession is not even a remote possibility.

Indeed. To the point that he was still trying to push colonization into 1864.....
 
Indeed. To the point that he was still trying to push colonization into 1864.....

How much was serious and how much was for domestic political reasons is something to debate. Any colonization of any signifigant numbers of former slaves was clearly unworkable. It would simply have cost way too much to do on a grand scale. It was a to get votes in '64 by making freed slaves less of a threat to industrial workers who feared newly freed slaves would all go up North and take their jobs.
 
As I mentioned (less explicitly) upthread, I partially agree with Maur. I don't think tariffs and other sectional fiscal issues were the primary issue, but I think they were a significant secondary factor (perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 as important as slavery, which I think was a much higher-profile issue by the 1860s and one that hit on a much more visceral level).

For tariffs and related fiscal issues and why the agrarian Midwest and Northwest aligned with the Industrial Northeast, remember:

  1. Protective tariffs were only one prong of the Whig/Republican economic plan. The other prong was to use tariff revenue on Internal Improvements: road, rail, and canal projects to link the interior to the cities of the Northeast, which benefited the agrarian interior by letting them to more cheaply trade their crops for domestic manufactured goods. The South benefited little from internal improvements, both because there were relatively few Southern Whigs and almost no Southern Republicans (so their congressmen spent their political capital fighting the tariffs rather than bringing home the bacon), and because the big plantation crops (especially cotton) grow best in bottom land near major rivers, so Southern planters were already generally set up next to an excellent natural transportation network.
  2. Related to #1, the free-state West was linked by road, rail, and canal to the industrial North, so they would be buying mainly domestic manufactured goods anyway, so the cost of the tariff hits them only opaquely and indirectly (to the extent protection from foreign competition bids up prices for domestic manufacture, an issue not widely appreciated at the time), while the Southern interior's main transportation network was rivers linking them to Southern coastal cities, so they were not naturally linked to the Northeast much more closely than to London and other European manufacturing centers.
  3. The type of agriculture matters. The South was dominated economically by plantations growing cash crops, mainly for export, while Agrarian areas in the North and the free-state West were dominated by yeoman farms growing staple food crops, largely for local consumption and domestic trade.
  4. Since London was one of the biggest markets for cotton, the marginal cost of transportation for British manufactured goods to the South was near zero, since it doesn't cost much more for the ship that took the cotton to market to come back with a full hold rather than an empty hold. Combined with #2, this meant Southerners generally bore the full, direct cost of tariffs in a way that Indianans and Wisconsinites didn't.
 
Bore for reasons that boil down to their own decisions, though. If they don't want to pay tariffs, they can pick the American-made goods (when there's something which can be found either way). Similarly, their congressmen not wanting Internal Improvements is hardly grounds to complain about being gyped. Other places did, and the income of the government was to be spent for the good of the country - if no one in the South wants it spent in their neighborhood, that's their loss.

As for the type of agriculture mattering: I don't know about pre-war, but I know that post-war there was considerable export of food crops overseas from the US.
 
Bore for reasons that boil down to their own decisions, though. If they don't want to pay tariffs, they can pick the American-made goods (when there's something which can be found either way). Similarly, their congressmen not wanting Internal Improvements is hardly grounds to complain about being gyped. Other places did, and the income of the government was to be spent for the good of the country - if no one in the South wants it spent in their neighborhood, that's their loss.

As for the type of agriculture mattering: I don't know about pre-war, but I know that post-war there was considerable export of food crops overseas from the US.

Also trains make for cheaper transportation and thus cheaper manufactured goods which then can be transported and sold at a cheaper price down South.
 
Top