Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FLT-bird
Slavery died out in Brazil when a couple of Brazilian states banned it.

'Banned it' as in state governments ordered it ended? Not 'died out' naturally?

Slaves in the other states then ran away en masse and the enforcement costs exceeded the economic utility.

And it was ended completely on May 13, 1888 when the Brazilian government ordered the 700,000 remaining slaves to be free. Government ordered it ended; it didn't 'die out'.

...as would have happened in the seceding states had Lincoln not started a war to impose federal government rule on them.

Your imagination is almost as great as your compatriot, DiogenesLamp. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Southern leaders thought that slavery was dying out in 1861.

395 posted on 10/14/2021 4:58:48 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg
'Banned it' as in state governments ordered it ended? Not 'died out' naturally?

A couple states banned it. Slaves then ran away in droves. Enforcement costs exceeded profits. The system rapidly collapsed.

And it was ended completely on May 13, 1888 when the Brazilian government ordered the 700,000 remaining slaves to be free. Government ordered it ended; it didn't 'die out'.

It became politically possible because the economics of it collapsed. It had not been politically possible before. It died out.

Your imagination is almost as great as your compatriot, DiogenesLamp. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Southern leaders thought that slavery was dying out in 1861.

You are trying to twist what I said. I said that had the original 7 seceding states been left to go in peace, they would not have enjoyed the benefits and protections of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution. They never could have secured the border from a little north of Hilton Head, South Carolina to El Paso, Texas. Slaves would have fled in droves. They couldn't have stopped it. The enforcement costs would have exceeded the profits and slavery would have collapsed. Don't believe that? Take this guy's word for it:

"But secession, Lincoln argued, would actually make it harder for the South to preserve slavery. If the Southern states tried to leave the Union, they would lose all their constitutional guarantees, and northerners would no longer be obliged to return fugitive slaves to disloyal owners. In other words, the South was safer inside the Union than without, and to prove his point Lincoln confirmed his willingness to support a recently proposed thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, which would specifically prohibit the federal government from interfering with slavery in states where it already existed." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 32-33)

397 posted on 10/14/2021 5:30:17 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson