Posted on 08/16/2013 10:19:12 AM PDT by Impala64ssa
That's racis!
/s
I go by "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words, they do not hurt me." I am not smart enough to be politically correct and even worse, I don't care.
How so?
The south would have caught up to the north’s advantage in the industrial revolution replacing the need for slaves. Machines are a whole lot cheaper to maintain than people.
Whenever I’m called a racist, I respond be saying “I know you are but what am I?” This childish, yet effective response gets under their skin every time, because the PC stormtroopers are masters of projectionism.
Whenever I’m called a racist, I respond be saying “I know you are but what am I?” This childish, yet effective response gets under their skin every time, because the PC stormtroopers are masters of projectionism.
In ten years? Really? And what machine would replace slaves, especially considering the first successful mechanical cotton harvester wasn't introduced until the 1930's or 40's? And as for machines being more economical, you can't put two machines to gether and produce a bunch of little machines that you can turn around and sell.
I have no idea how long slavery would have lasted, either with the Southern rebellion being successful or with the rebellion being avoided altogether, but I suspect it would have been a lot longer than 10 years. There simply wasn't a replacement available.
OK..20 then...my POINT was that there was no need to push the boundaries on the 10th amendment using a war when the natural process of economics would have solved the problem.
Except that the confederate experiment was an exercise in the denial of the “natural process of economics”. They founded their alliance on the proposition of the perpetuation of the Peculiar Institution. They were never going to divest themselves of their chattel - and they would allow no one to entice, induce, or compel them otherwise.
Or 30...or 40. Easily said when you're not the one in bondage.
But you're saying that the right to walk out of the Union with all the federal property you can get your hands on and walking away from obligations like debt and treaties entered into while a part of the country is a right protected by the 10th Amendment. I don't agree. The Constitution protects all states, those staying as well as those leaving. Walking out in the manner that the South chose to follow is hardly fair to the remaining states. That's why a true and legal secession, as Madison said, has to have the consent of both sides and should be done after matters of potential disagreement have been settled. Lincoln's actions of fighting the war that the South forced on him is hardly a violation of the 10th Amendment, or any other clause in the Constitution.
The cotton gin had nothing to do with harvesting cotton. It removed the seeds from the cotton boll after harvesting. As was pointed out, mechanization of cotton harvesting had to wait for 70 years after the rebellion before it was successfully introduced. If it took economics 70 years without slavery then how much longer would slavery have delayed it? And that does not take into account the value of the individual slave. So long as demand was high, and there was no other alternative to slaves, then the prices would be high and supplying slaves would be profitable. That, too, would work against an early demise.
The fact of the matter is that economics didn't kill slavery anywhere in the world. In every case, slavery ended through government intervention and over the objections of the slave owners themselves. If the South was willing to wage a bloody rebellion to protect their slavery in 1860 then why should we think they wouldn't be just as opposed in 1870 or 1880 or 1890?
To understand where the NAACP is coming from, when it hurls the epithet "Racist" around, you need to recognize some basic facts.
1. The NAACP was formed by White Fabian Socialists in 1909. They were shortly joined by the Mulatto Marxist, W.E. B. DuBois, but they continued to have a White Board of Directors for their first 50 years or so.
2. Their function from the start was racial confrontation--racial hostility. As such they were strenuously opposed by the true spokesman for the Southern Negro, Booker T. Washington, until his tragic death in 1915.
3. Whereas Washington, a self-educated educator, born a slave, had 'walked the walk,' and achieved real progress for those who followed him, the race hate stirrers in the NAACP eventually eclipsed his influence, with horrendous results for the Negro family structure, crime rates, etc..
To understand the stark contrast between the hate-mongers of the NAACP & Washington, consider Washington's famous address at the Atlanta Exposition in 1895, and draw the obvious conclusions.
See Booker T. Washington Address.
All of this said, I will acknowledge that some local NAACP Chapters may have evolved into something better, in the last few years. It is obvious that that cannot be said about the one in Lee County, Florida!
William Flax
I'm done re-fighting the civil war with you..it's obvious your mind is closed to other possibilities.
What you're objecting to is the fact that I didn't accept your unsupported opinion as gospel truth. I won't apologize for that, and if that's all you've got then perhaps these aren't the threads for you.
Thinking out of the box? Sure. Accepting ridiculous claims like slavery would have been gone in ten years due to the industrial revolution? Not so much.
Except = accept
Yeah well there are historians who will disagree with you. The point is that we didn’t need to have a war and trash the Constitution in order to solve the slavery problem...end of story.
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.