Lincoln said prior to 1863 that the end of slavery was not his motivation for war.
I believe the South paid more like 3/4 of the tariffs, but I put 2/3 to be safe. Maybe it was all about money, instead of the ending of the "excreable commerce," as Jefferson once called slavery.
Why was slavery ended peacefully everywhere else in the world (with a few places in
Africa still having chattel slavery) but required a war in the USA? I don't know the answer. Wouldn't it have been cheaper for the North to pay southerners compensation for all their slaves to avoid a war that physically destroy nearly half of the country?
Why was slavery ended peacefully everywhere else in the world (with a few places in
Africa still having chattel slavery) but required a war in the USA?>>>
Because 11 American states were inhabited by a critical mass of gibbering racists and neo-aristocrats who needed to get their butts kicked to convinced them that the social world they had created was nakedly evil.
There is not a single instance where slavery ended with the support of the slave owners themselves. In every case slavery ended through government legislation and despite the opposition of those benefiting from the institution. And if it required a war in the U.S., then it is because only in the U.S. did the slave owners believe defending slavery was worth going to war over.
Wouldn't it have been cheaper for the North to pay southerners compensation for all their slaves to avoid a war that physically destroy nearly half of the country?
In 1860 Lincoln could have run on a platform proposing an end to slavery through compensated emancipation and it would have made absolutely no difference, because there is no evidence whatsoever that the southern slave owners were interested in ending slavery under any circumstances. The rebellion would still have come.