Slavery, would it have died out in the US without the war?

[unionblue]

Bill,

Here is another opinion on the idea that slavery was going to experience a 'peaceful extinction' expressed in a letter dated August 15, 1855.

"...You are not a friend of slavery in the abstract. In that speech you spoke of "the peaceful extinction of slavery" and used other expressions indicating your belief that the thing was, at some time, to have an end. Since we have had thirty-six years of experience; and this experience has demonstrated, I think, that there is no peaceful extinction of slavery in prospect for us. The single failure of Henry Clay, and other good and great men, in 1849, to effect any thing in favor of gradual emancipation in Kentucky, together with a thousand other signs, extinguishes that hope utterly. On the question of liberty, as a principle, we are not what we have been. When we were the political slaves of King George, and wanted to be free, we called the maxim that "all men are created equal" a self evident truth; but now when we have grown fat, and have lost all dread of being slaves ourselves, we have become so greedy to become masters that we call the same maxim "a self evident lie." The Fourth of July has not quite dwindled away; it is still a great day--for burning fire-crackers!!!

That spirit which desired the peaceful extinction of slavery, has itself become extinct, with the occasion, and the men of the Revolution. Under the impulse of that occasion, nearly half the states adopted systems of emancipation at once; and it is a significant fact, that not a single state has done the like since. So far as peaceful, voluntary emancipation is concerned, the condition of the negro slave in America, scarcely less terrible to the contemplation of a free mind, is now so fixed, and hopeless of change for the better, as that of the lost souls of the finally impenitent. The Autocrat of all the Russians will resign his crown, and proclaim his subjects free republicans sooner than will our American masters voluntarily give up their slaves.

Our political problem now is "Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently--forever--half slave, and half free?" The problem is too mighty for me. May God, in his mercy, superintend the solution.

Your much obliged friend, and humble servant."

A. Lincoln

Unionblue

[thea_447]

In answer to slavery dying out, the answer is yes.

I don't quite know where to put this and I didn't want to start another thread so I'll insert here a few more thoughts:

This war, contrary to some opinion, was not all about slavery. Surely it's easy enough to see how a people could rise up and defend their homes when those homes are invaded? You don’t believe that the south fought to protect itself from invasion? If it was all about slavery then please explain why the 154 recorded volumes of debates in the Virginia legislature, (recorded from South Carolina’s secession to Virginia’s secession), do not mention slavery even once? I guess the causes of the war are much more complex.

This War, as someone once said, “is America’s felt history, that is not to say that all Americans feel it in exactly the same way.”

Also, read Eisenhower's Civil War Proclamation No. 3882, delivered Dec. 6, 1960, to see how closely Southern heritage is woven into the very fabric of this country.
http://www.southernmessenger.org/resolutions.htm

The subject of the transcontinental railways has opened my eyes even more to the manipulation of the North; the tariff, opening the land in the West, all of it, was a prize too valuable not to be had, and paid for by the Southern economy.

But many on this board want to lay the entire war at the feet of that evil institution, slavery. Tell me, what made it proper to free the slaves in the rebelling Southern states and yet, AFTER Appomattox, it was still these United States where the enslavement of humans was legal until December 1865, eight months later?

[unionblue]

Thea,

As before, many times on other threads on this board, The South left the Union over the issue of Slavery, the North went to war to preserve the Union.

Now, my question to you is, what indications do you have from that troubled time, that the South, particularly, those who owned slaves, were going to give up this institution anytime soon? Where in the South was the pressure to do so? Where was the call from the social and political leadership that slavery in the South was going to end and soon, in the years leading up to and through the Civil War?

And please tell me the time period of those 154 volumes of recorded debates between South Carolina's and Virginia's secession and then let me try and show you where slavery as a cause WAS mentioned.

There were many side issues, but the spark was slavery.

YMOS,
Unionblue
PS This thread was a good choice for your post, trust me.

[unionblue]

Thea & Bill,

Found an interesting quote in the forward of the book, Without Consent Or Contract: The Rise And Fall Of American Slavery, by Robert W. Fogel. It reads:

"If the foes of slavery had waited for economic forces to do their work for them, America might still be a slave society, and democracy, as we know it, might have been a subject only for history books."

The book is making for some very interesting reading.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Thea,

Please check out the "What if.." area under the 'Civil War History Chat' section.

I would like your views on my latest version of 'What if the Confederacy had won the war?' thread. This scenario deals directly with the idea that the South left the Union without war and what the consequences were for the country, the North and the world. It made for a fun read.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 19, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 19, 2003)

[thea_447]

Since this pertains to slavery, I adding this remark here.
Lorenzo Johnson Green, in his 1966 book The Negro in Colonial New England 1620-1776, says John Adams insisted that the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts was due to the protest of competing white laborers rather than for ethical or moral reasons.
"Argument might have some weight in the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, but the real cause was the multiplication of labouring white people, who would no longer suffer the rich to employ these sable rivals so much to their injury. The common people would not suffer the labor, by which alone they could obtain a subsistence, to be done by slaves. If the gentlemen had been permitted by law to hold slaves, the common white people would have put the slaves to death, and their masters too perhaps"

[unionblue]

Thea,

OK, then why didn't slavery die out in the South for the same reasons? The issue of the thread here is was slavery going to die out in the South without the Civil War. Why didn't slavery go away from the South before the war?

Unionblue

[johan_steele]

"It was states right, not slavery," has been bandied about very often. At the face of it I would be tempted to agree. But why then was Davis and his cabinet so offended about the 13th Amendment? And on 3, Feb 65 when President Lincoln met w/ Confederate commisioners to talk peace the 13th Amendment was again the stumbling point. Lincoln made it clear that the prerequisite of peace was the restoration of the Union and the acceptance of the abolition of slavery.

Lincoln was quite rigid in his insistance that there was no Confederate nation and upon conclusion of the conflict the 13th Amendment would stand.

Confederate Senator Hunter made the comment: "Mr President, if we understand you correctly, you think we of the Confederacy have commited treason; that we are traitors to your government; that we have forfeited our rights, and are proper subjects for the hangman?"

President Lincoln gave a long thoughtful pause. "Yes. You have stated the proposition better than I did." (The best reasoning for my attitude towards the CSA I've evere read!)

It would seem that at least as late as Feb of 65 when all was lost slavery was still a prime stumbling point for the CSA.

It would seem to me that Slavery became the issue for the Union only after Antietem... and was an issue for the South through the entire war almost to the bitter end.

I think that if the South had somehow won the War Slavery would have continued at least well into the 20th Century if not to the present day.

[unionblue]

From the book, 1863, The Rebirth of a Nation, by Joseph E. Stevens.

"No one better understood the consequences of the South's manpower woes than the frontline combat commanders. One such officer was Patrick Cleburne. On December 31, 1863, he wrote a memorandum proposing a startling solution to the problem of insufficient troops. Why not, he asked, enlist the South's male slaves, promising freedom to them and their families in exchange for their service? This action would not only rejuvenate the armies of the Confederacy, it "would remove forever all selfish taint from our cause and place independence above every question of property. The very magnitude of the sacrifice itself, such as no nation has ever voluntarily made before, would appall our enemies...and fill our hearts with a pride and singleness of purpose which would clothe us with new strength in battle."

"He intended to present his paper at a meeting of the Army of Tennessee's general staff the day after New Year's. He knew his suggestion would be controversial, but he believed his colleagues could be persuaded to support it. "As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery," he wrote in his conclusion, "I assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter--give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself."

"He would soon find out just how wrong he was."

Unionblue

[jeffdavislegion]

All,

I just came back to read a bit after some absence. My reading confirms that the old saying about beating a dead horse is true. No matter how many strokes are delivered, there is no effect.