Posted on 09/13/2025 1:03:13 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
Easier terms probably
The radicals then were todays woke fanatics
You think race relations were peachy up north?
They didn’t want them up there
They wanted them stay put
Votes
That’s not true at all.
In the 20th century, the authorities in Muslim states gradually outlawed and suppressed slavery.[10] Slavery in Zanzibar was abolished in 1909, when slave concubines were freed, and the open slave market in Morocco was closed in 1922. Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924 when the new Turkish Constitution disbanded the Imperial Harem and made the last concubines and eunuchs free citizens of the newly proclaimed republic.[11] Slavery in Iran and slavery in Jordan was abolished in 1929. In the Persian Gulf, slavery in Bahrain was first to be abolished in 1937, followed by slavery in Kuwait in 1949 and slavery in Qatar in 1952, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished it in 1962,[12] and Oman followed in 1970. Mauritania became the last state to abolish slavery, in 1981.In 1990 the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam declared that "no one has the right to enslave" another human being.[13] As of 2001, however, instances of modern slavery persisted in areas of the Sahel,[14][15] and several 21st-century terroristic jihadist groups have attempted to use historic slavery in the Muslim world as a pretext for reviving slavery in the 21st century.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
Let’s not forget that Andrew Johnson did not want to exactly be hard on the South. The Republican Congress and the rest of Lincoln’s Cabinet drove a lot of this. Johnson was impeached, and darn near convicted. Lincoln would have likely built up more good will, but I am not sure he would be beyond impeachment if the Republicans in Congress thought he was being to lenient with the “rebels”.
Lincoln wanted to return the slaves to Africa I do believe. Any confirmation?
JFK wanted to get us out of Viet Nam after he got reelected. True?
Good question. So why weren't they allowed to secede? Do I think they had the legal right to secede? Yes. (Tabling for now the WHY for secession, this is about COULD they secede.)
So why didn't the U.S. allow the southern states to secede? I dunno. I do know that, just 85 years before that in 1776, England didn't let the U.S. secede without having to fight for it. Nor did Spain let Mexico secede in 1821. Nor did the new nation of Mexico let Texas secede in 1836. Nor did the U.S. allow the Confederate States secede beginning in late 1860.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it was the norm for this area. At least as far as I can tell. So maybe nobody should be surprised.
My great grandmother’s family had one slave who stayed as a member of the family until her death. My grandmother remembered her from early childhood; and she also experienced meeting Black people in the North in the early 1900s who told her that the Yankees ‘didn’t know how to treat Black people.’
But there was also a lot of deep racist feeling in much of the South; and segregation and other kinds of discrimination would have persisted at least as long in a Confederate nation as it did in reality. I suspect longer.
kinda strange that free republic silences people and places them in timeout while seeking financial donations for freedom of speech...
i’m speaking from experience...
The evidence indicates the 1860 Republicans were the same sort of people living in the same parts of the country as are modern Democrats.
And I firmly believe access to government and government controlled money is the common denominator to all of it.
He wanted them *OUT* and he didn't care where they were sent. He looked at Africa, and he looked at Central and South America. He even tried an experiment with locating a bunch of them in Central America, but the effort ended in disaster, with him having to send ships to rescue them and return them to America.
According to Union General Benjamin Butler, He and Lincoln discussed on the very day of Lincoln's assassination, a plan to use them to dig the Panama Canal.
He said Lincoln was delighted with the idea and agreed to discuss it further at a later time.
Money. The Southern states were pumping 700 million through the Northern economy each year, and they were producing between 72% and 78% of all the taxes used to run the government.
Secession would cost the North millions as the South took away much of their European trade, and stopped paying the tariffs that kept the US government running.
Racism was baked into the cake. The entire premise of slavery was that they were an inferior race and therefore there was nothing wrong with forcing them to serve.
But what your grandmother remembers is what actually happened. I think there would have been less animosity and hatred had slavery been abolished gradually.
For one thing, the Northern Liberals were using the blacks as a tool to keep them in power in Congress, and the laws they passed and the people who were appointed to govern the South, allowed them to be abused and exploited in a manner that wouldn't have happened without the war.
The blacks were seen as helping the enemy; as the tool of the enemy. I think in an alternate timeline of gradual emancipation, the racism would have still been there, but the hatred would have been less. They would have been seen more as harmless, than as a means of helping the oppressive government.
Well, it happened the way it happened.
Yes it did, but I think the nation would have been better had slavery just went away without the war.
I think we would have a better, stronger society than we do now.
I think we would have a better, stronger society than we do now.
Suppose you're right. LBJ ends up becoming President anyway in this alternate timeline. We know that he'll propose the Great Society programs which ended up destroying the Black family in America.
Seeing today’s blacks, I believe there majority do not have the capacity to be educated. Most ore ignorant to the point of belonging I Africa. Let them loot the jungle.
Thanks for that info. I'm not familiar with Stryker, although I did read several Lincoln bios, mainly the ones published years ago. When Lincoln was killed, those same Radical Republicans who would have probably persecuted his reconstruction policy had he lived, latched onto his assassination, while under their breath, were likely pleased they wouldn't have had to wrangle with him now.
I wish we had. But when a country is founded on the declaration that ‘all men are created equal’ but much of it continues to have slavery for a hundred years and unfair discrimination for another hundred, it’s hard to have faith that it would have happened any time soon.
That war was so horrible, I devoutly hope nothing like it is ever repeated. But almost every day, someone - even here - seems to be calling for it to solve today’s problems.
I don't know how much you know about LBJ, but he was a deceitful conniving bastard.
Unpacking alternate timelines in history can be tricky, especially if they are a long distance in time from the alternate branch point, but we only got LBJ as a result of Kennedy picking him.
We only got Kennedy through vote fraud in Chicago, and because Joe Kennedy had become wealthy and powerful as a result of his criminal doings, mostly bootlegging, but also extortion and such.
How did alcohol prohibition occur? Liberal women "progressives" pushing for the 18th amendment. (and the 19th.)
Now that i've gotten to prohibition, I want to take a little side branch here. A couple of weeks ago I watched a video featuring Jay Leno teaching a young man how to drive a model T. During the video, Jay Leno mentions that Henry Ford used to go on camping trips with John Rockefeller and other wealthy men of that era. Ford had mentioned to the group that he had designed the Model T to run on Alcohol, because he felt that he would have a good market in selling the vehicle to farmers, who could distill their own grains into fuel for the car.
Rockefeller then started financing the Prohibition movement, which would have made sure alcohol would never be a threat to his standard oil company.
Now back to the branch timeline.
The progressive era featured Northern women activists from Republican families, meddling about in politics and getting social changes enacted. There is a good chance that without the civil war, these women would have never attained the levels of power and influence that they came to have.
No prohibition, no Joe Kennedy, no John Kennedy, and no LBJ, and therefore no "Great Society."
If nothing else, I hope this view entertained you.
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.