I don't know what they say, but I say it was on the way out eventually. Not only was the social pressure building, but so were the circumstances that would create mechanical replacements. I think it would have continued for probably another generation, but after that I think it would wane rapidly.
Was that worth the lives of 750,000 people? Wouldn't matter anyway, the real goal of the North was economic dominance, their invasion had pretty much nothing to do with slavery, and everything to do with collecting money and smashing challenges to their economic ascendency.
for your beloved plantation masters
Here you go again, making accusations which ought to be beneath your dignity and intellect.
Later wars for independence in South America brought freedom for the slaves. In retrospect it's surprising that North America, so much more devoted to individual liberty and self-government didn't pave the way in regard to slavery as well.
Abolition was set into motion by Jefferson's cleverly worded Declaration. Had he not put the words "All men are created equal" (A specifically Christian teaching) into it, Slavery would have persisted at least a generation longer in all of the states.
Massachusetts would have been deprived of the verbiage which the Liberal activists courts used to overturn existing law at the time, and the entire movement would have been set back decades if not longer.
In 1776, no one was intending to make a social statement about slavery. That it was seen in that light was a double entendre consequence of what they wanted said about themselves.
In 1776, the founders would have all agreed that all Englishmen were created equal, but they would have probably come to blows had anyone suggested that this meant the Slaves were equal to them. Whether Jefferson was just incredibly clever or just lucky is still not readily apparent, but there can be no denying that his choice of words was the spark that began the Abolition movement in the USA. (And which is also what screwed up "Natural Born Citizen.")
But focusing on Slavery in the context of the Civil War is a red herring. The willingness of the North to adopt the Corwin amendment, and statements by Lincoln himself indicate that they would have completely tolerated slavery so long as they could maintain that economic control of the Money stream emanating from the South.
Money was the meat of the war. "Slavery" was a side dish.
...
Money was the meat of the war. "Slavery" was a side dish.
...
Does Diogenes know anything at all about the arguments of the 1850s?
Did he sleep through all that when he was in school?
The only thing our pro-Confederates hate worse than having Fort Sumter equated to Pearl Harbor is having 1860s Confederates compared to 1940s Nazis, and yet, when it comes to slavery, the equation is rather good.
The reason is, 1940s era Nazis, like 1860s Confederates were also unapologetic slavers.
You see, when Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941, his purpose was to make slaves of Slavs.
Slavs were "untermenschen" suited only for slavery or death, and Hitler didn't care how many died so long as the remnant became serfs on Nazi plantations.
What's the point?
It's that after nearly a century of global abolitionism, by 1940 slavery still excited the imaginations of little Hitlers around the world.
Japanese also practiced slavery on subjugated populations, notably Koreans, and today slavery fires the passions of Nazi-offshoots like al Qaeda and ISIS.
Point is: slavery did not die a "natural death" as a worn-out obsolete idea whose time had passed.
Instead, it was a snake with many heads, all of which have not, even to this day, been chopped off.
So there's no reason to suppose that the Southern Slave Power would ever wish to free and make citizens of millions of their slaves -- especially in regions where slaves were the majority population.
It just wasn't going to happen, not in 1880, not in 1980.
And our pro-Confederates are just deluding themselves to think otherwise.
Just more pro-Confederate bovine excrement.
DiogenesLamp: "In 1776, the founders would have all agreed that all Englishmen were created equal, but they would have probably come to blows had anyone suggested that this meant the Slaves were equal to them."
Among our Founders in 1776 some were already beginning to think that slaves should be freed and treated equally in their own states.
Even Southern leaders like Jefferson understood that slaves with white fathers (i.e., Sally Hemmings) were considerably more than domesticated beasts.
DiogenesLamp: "But focusing on Slavery in the context of the Civil War is a red herring."
Slavery was extraordinarily important to 1860 Fire Eater secessionists, it was the reason they gave for disunion.
As such it deserves our attention.
Slavery also became increasingly important to the Union during the war, as a source for both Union manpower and disorder amongst Confederates.
Slavery was also the prime concern of those Northern abolitionists who elected Radical Republicans to Congress.
So slavery is never a "red herring" in the Civil War.
DiogenesLamp: "The willingness of the North to adopt the Corwin amendment, and statements by Lincoln himself indicate that they would have completely tolerated slavery so long as they could maintain that economic control of the Money stream emanating from the South.
Money was the meat of the war. "Slavery" was a side dish."
Still bovine excrement, regardless of how often, or how loudly you repeat it.
Slavery was at the core of Confederate motivations in 1860 and abolition became central to Union goals by 1865.
As for that money you claim to have been sooooo important, you may be certain that 99% of Unionists would not understand your argument, much less subscribe to it.
They were first and foremost motivated to defeat the military power which had provoked, started, declared and waged war against the United States.