Posted on 05/04/2018 6:42:25 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Leading elements of Union Major General George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac cross the Rapidan River. With a few hours they would clash with General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness. Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign had begun.
The system would have stayed in place so long as cotton agriculture was profitable to the Southern planters. The only thing in the short term that would have ended chattel slavery, at least on the scale practiced in the South, would have been machines. The first practical cotton harvesting machine, built in the 20s, harvested the same amount of cotton as 60 field hands could pick in one day.
Had such a machine be available in the 1860s, slavery would have died out much faster.
The deaths of 600,000 - 800,000 Americans could have been avoided if Lincoln and the North had first used the peaceful constitutional amendment process to end slavery in the United States. Congressman Lincoln could have introduced the proposed amendment himself in the 1850s but, to my knowledge, he never even tried.
“A defeated country should expect to be ruled by those that defeated them.”
I respect your recognition that the United States of America defeated the Confederate States of America. Too often some want to style the conflict as a “civil war.”
There were 34 states in 1860. Two thirds of both houses of Congress and two thirds of the state legislatures
are required to approve an amendment to the Constitution.
Just how many of the 15 states, where slavery was legal in 1860,
would vote in both Congress and in the state legislatures to pass an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw slavery.
losing is losing. They lost, call it what you will, but The United States defeated the combination of secessionist states.
Or a refusal by the manufacturing powers that were said to be opposed to slavery on moral grounds to refuse to purchase slave-produced cotton - or slave-produced anything.
With no market for slave-produced commodities, the South would have stopped producing them. And their slaves would then have become even more of a liability.
But free-labor produced cotton may have cost northern consumers more. History shows that was a risk northern factory owners and politicians did not want to take.
another way would have been for Southern states not to secede from the Union. Also, once they seceded, the should not have fired on a United States military installation and issued letters of Marque to raid United States maritime commerce. Both are acts of war.
The North purchased about 20 percent of the South’s cotton, the balance went to Europe.
“There were 34 states in 1860. Two thirds of both houses of Congress and two thirds of the state legislatures
are required to approve an amendment to the Constitution.
Just how many of the 15 states, where slavery was legal in 1860,would vote in both Congress and in the state legislatures to pass an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw slavery.”
I leap to the conclusion Lincoln and the north didn’t have the votes to peacefully pass a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery.
Recognizing that, perhaps Lincoln and his economic backers really did look for a pretext to use the military to violently overthrow the pro-slavery US constitution and to destroy their economic and political rivals in the South.
I say that because that is exactly what happened.
Davis gave them ample excuse to use military force, he started a war with the United States.
“losing is losing. They lost, call it what you will, but The United States defeated the combination of secessionist states.”
That was already discussed in posts 2 and 6:
““...and here we are, 154 years later, Warshington D.C., corrupt as hell.”
Unavoidable after the disaster at Appomattox.”
The disaster at Appomattox, would not have happened if Davis had not started a war with the United States.
“The North purchased about 20 percent of the South’s cotton, the balance went to Europe.”
Let me try to make my point like this:
“Or a refusal by the manufacturing powers that were said to be opposed to slavery on moral grounds to refuse to purchase slave-produced cotton - or slave-produced anything.”
With no market for slave-produced commodities, the South would have stopped producing them. And their slaves would then have become even more of a liability.”
80% of Southern grown cotton went to Europe. They cared less who produced the cotton. Even if 100% of Northern manufacturers stopped buying slave grown cotton, the manufacturers England, France and other European countries would have bought it.
Why? The overwhelming majority of slaves never saw the inside of a cotton field. They were cooks, maids, butlers, grooms, coachmen, nurses, handymen, and the like. That would have continued after cotton harvesting had been mechanized.
Never claimed that machines would have replace all of the slaves. But when one machine would harvest as much cotton as 60 field hand, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the vast majority of slaves, held in the South, would not have been need to bring in the cotton crop.
Yes, many would have been needed for those occupation, but for every house slave, there were 15 to 20 who’s tasks were to plant and pick cotton.
If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
You say Davis equals the disaster at Appomattox, where the disaster at Appomattox equals “Warshington D.C., corrupt as hell.”
Are you actually arguing that Jefferson Davis is responsible for corruption in Washington D.C. today?
I'm not following your thinking.
Davis started a war with a country that he had absolutely no hope of defeating in battle. His hope was that the Europeans would intervene to save the situation for him.
Richmond was no less corrupt than Washington DC. To blame the current events in DC on events that happened 150 years ago is ludicrous.
I'm just a school boy in these matters . . . but my main-stream history education taught that the South was a slavery-island in a non-slavery world; that the moral high ground was held by advanced civilizations in the North and in Europe where rank and file citizens had long-since rejected the concept of human bondage; where factory workers produced shells to fire into southern cities humming “as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free . . .”
Now you tell me “they cared less who produced the cotton.”
Perhaps we can agree: relatively few northerners made money owning and working slaves outright. Northerners only benefitted from slavery by transporting slaves on their ships; and insuring the slave cargoes; and buying and trading slaves; and shipping slave grown cotton; and importing goods for southerners who paid for the goods with slave produced profits; or perhaps benefited from slave generated import taxes used to build and maintain northern ports and roads. Or perhaps, benefitted from low-cost slave -grown cotton.
And let us agree that every time a Puritan cashed a slavery dividend, he turned to his neighbor and announced in a loud voice, “I accept this benefit under protest.”
Your education is sadly lacking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.