Slavery and the "Corner Stone" speeches

[Ga.windbreak]

I've run across this link and submit it for your enjoyment. It is truly a look at the feelings and actions of those, North and South, concerning slavery and its reasons for being.

Its quite long but well worth your time and I am only going to quote the very last bit of it to entice you to read it all.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/cornerstone.htm

So far from slavery being the cause of secession, the fact is many thinking men in the South knew that secession would be the doom of slavery. Slavery could not be economically viable or legally enforcable where freedom was just a river away. They had pushed the North so hard to enforce the Fugitive Slave Laws for just this reason. Stephens was among those who judged "slavery much more secure in the union than out of it."

The truth of that (I put it in Bold) statement which is so true and easy to see that it is no wonder that those who keep hammering away that the war was to maintain slavery will never admit that they are wrong because they are blind to the very document that is the law of the land.

[Ga.windbreak]

In thinking about this I want to take it a little farther and surmize what might have happened had the South chose to fight this battle differently, in the courts and congress rather than on the battlefield.

First off you get no split in the Union, Slavery stays on the books, it negates the 13th thru the 16th amendments, and there is no reconstruction.

How different would the country be today? How long before the Southern states freed their slaves? How different would our Race relations be today? There are so many things that we now contend with that quite possibly would not be at all in this country.

Comments?

[Ga.windbreak]

Hmm, it seems the fish are not biting. Oh well I'm content to continue down this road.

Given that Slavery was Constitutionally legal in 1861 and the Northern Abolitionist had been behind and had pushed for the Dred Scott decision to stir the pot and the fact that all of the Southern leaders of the time knew and foresaw its demise if war came why would they vote to leave the Union?

One must understand the Southern man's makeup to really get a feel for that answer imho. These were the days of duels because of either real or imagined slights to their manhood and this was even more true of the ruling class in the South. They are the one who could and did sway the masses.

Today one hears talk of the fear of a slave uprising yet if you take the time to read the letters and books of the era that simply holds no water. Even up until the 1950's people in the South almost never locked their doors.

My feeling is that the Abolitionist knew that war was the only way to get what they wanted and they set about to get their way come hell or high water. They wanted power the very power that the South had held from the begining of the birth of this country. They wanted the South's riches and the best way to get at the South was thru the slight of putting their thumbs into the Southern pie. Writing slander, AKA UTC for one, John Brown's attack, the 42% Tariff, and anyother means to cause a rift between the states.

Take a look at the election of Lincoln even the Repubs really didn't want him as he was not radical enough. Lincoln himself knew it and feared for his life from the moment he won and sure enough the very minute the war was over Lincoln was put to bed for good. Chase was made the SCOTUS and the congress ran the country for the next 8 years.

There are areas of the South today that are still little changed over the last 100 years, any who live here know what I say is true. The North still holds the reins of power with only one slip in the last 150 years and what a slip it was , Jimmy Carter! Lord have mercy!!

[subdjoe]

The reasoning is put forth in such a clear way as to compel our agreement. What more to add?

[Ga.windbreak]

The reasoning is put forth in such a clear way as to compel our agreement. What more to add?

Thank you Sir.

The debate I'm trying, not very well it seems, to engage is to see the ideas of what kind of country we might have become? How long before slavery would have died a natural death? Would the difference, if any, caused a much different 20th century? More or less war, bigger or smaller, no involvment by us? How different would race relations be, if any different at all?

By having the war and the South losing it is my firm belief that the march towards a progressive form of government which we now are seeing was made possible and therefore a natural outcome. The South has been and will continue to be conservative politically as well as the most christian area of this country. In the area of race relations the discord we see and have seen since the war has been the results of the attitude brought south by those who won. Jim Crow laws which are always thrown up in our faces are nothing more that the very same laws that the Northern states inacted as they rid themselves of the slaves they owned from 1790 going forward. All of the new slave free states followed suit long before it was used by Southern Dems after reconstruction and the Freedman/Carpetbagger/Lincoln Repub. rape of our land and social structure. The whole immigration, northern industry, child labor, and resulting Federal dole system we see and have today is the outcome of losing that war.

I'm not stating the above to get into a political or christian belief debate with a Northerner but we are not called the Bible belt for nothing.

[SHOOTALL]

Face facts my friends the north are just plain sore winners .

[subdjoe]

Hmm....slavery was on the decline in the upper South.  The leadership of the South was starting to doubt both the economics and morality of it, even in the deep south.  Many were staring to see the advantages of having an educated slave population, and also the contradiction implied in that.  Once a person is educated, the ability to keep them in bondage is diminished. 

Mechanization would also have had a major effect on the economics of slavery. Being able to buy ten machines able to do the work of 50,  for the cost of ten slaves, would have been the final nail in the coffin. 

My guess is that slavery would have died out in the upper South by about 1880, and in the lower South by about 1910, if not closer to 1900 because of social and economic pressure.  There would have been a gradual, natural, elimination of slavery, rather than the disruption of suddenly turning millions out, with no education, no jobs, no property, no means of support, and ruining the Southern economy.  And likely, race relations would be much better.  Northern racist attitudes would not have been imposed on the South, nor would there be the resentment of having things like the Freedmans Bureau, and all the other "benefits" of Reconstruction.

No telling what the effect would have been if the economy of the South had not been destroyed by the War.  All I can suggest is that things would be very different.

[SHOOTALL]

As medicine improved and people expected treatment to be given to slaves along with housing , clothes etc. the share cropper makes more sense as it lifts the burden off the slave owner and makes him a farmer . In poor years the ex slave bears the lost and in good years only gets his agreed share . Change was comming war or not.

[Ga.windbreak]

As medicine improved and people expected treatment to be given to slaves along with housing , clothes etc. the share cropper makes more sense as it lifts the burden off the slave owner and makes him a farmer . In poor years the ex slave bears the lost and in good years only gets his agreed share . Change was comming war or not.

I agree SHOOTALL, not to be disagreeable with you subdjoe, but I think slavery would have died a normal death no later than the 1880's if that long. The pressure to do something had to be great in more ways than one by 1860. Don't forget the Chinese were begining to show up on the west coast, paying for services rendered was growing all over and surely those in the South had to see the writing on the wall. It was, after all, no more than just good business to cut expenses and increase profits. The only sticking point I see is how they would overcome the real problem of Education so that those in slavery became productive citizens when given their freedom. Most of those who were free had already answered the question of the slave being able to become responsible. A Southern Blind man could see that was true.

[subdjoe]

As medicine improved and people expected treatment to be given to slaves along with housing , clothes etc. the share cropper makes more sense as it lifts the burden off the slave owner and makes him a farmer . In poor years the ex slave bears the lost and in good years only gets his agreed share . Change was comming war or not.

I agree SHOOTALL, not to be disagreeable with you subdjoe, but I think slavery would have died a normal death no later than the 1880's if that long. The pressure to do something had to be great in more ways than one by 1860. Don't forget the Chinese were begining to show up on the west coast, paying for services rendered was growing all over and surely those in the South had to see the writing on the wall. It was, after all, no more than just good business to cut expenses and increase profits. The only sticking point I see is how they would overcome the real problem of Education so that those in slavery became productive citizens when given their freedom. Most of those who were free had already answered the question of the slave being able to become responsible. A Southern Blind man could see that was true.

Not disagreeable at all, sir. After all, it is kind of hard to have an interesting discussion if everyone agrees on everything.  We just happen to have slightly differing opinions on the matter. Or, maybe more accurately, we are working from different assumptions. 

Emotionally I can agree with your 1880s date, and was originally going to use that for the whole of the South, not just the upper portion.  I'll stick with my guestimate of around 1900, 1910 at the outside, maybe go back to 1895 if pushed hard for the lower or deep South.  Why so much later?  (not that another 20 years or so is really all that much longer).  Part of it is that I'm thinking that it would have taken until then to get the mechanization needed to really make slavery uneconomical.  But mostly - social inertia.  Ending slavery, not just masters freeing slaves, but a whole society outlawing it, is a HUGE change.  People tend to resist change. Even if it is in their best interest, they resist it.  Look at how the auto industry has resisted change.

I think the education part is the easy part.  Many were finding that having educated slaves was beneficial to them, so in spite of the laws against teaching blacks to read, write, and cipher, slaves were being given "book learning."  Not only were they able to carry out their tasks better and with less supervision, but by having them able to read, write, and have trades, they could make money by renting them out. 

[All Hawks Kill]

There is no doubt in my mind that slavery was dieing off and would have been gone by nature causes by 1900.  It was an economics issue that is why it was all but gone in the north.  It was no longer making money, so it was no longer needed.  With the inventions of better methods and tools/equipment for farming it would have soon not been needed in the south either.

On the other hand, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a political ploy to keep England and France out of the war.  He knew that had either or both of those countries sided with the Confederacy the Union would have not have been able to maintain the war effort.

Without getting too far off base, I'll end by saying, had slavery been left to end by nature means there would not have been the race issues we have seen in this country. 

[SHOOTALL]

AS an aside , if slavery had of been allowed to die natural would this country have been better off ? As with most things that become political , much like children in a divorce they get abused . It was well into the 60's that many who's family came from slaves really even saw a chance to better themselves . And at that time the dumbing down of America started . There were many laws passed after the war to "contain" slaves in a second class role - no vote and other things .