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

[unionblue]

Dear Daniel,

Maybe it is how many different ways we find to beat that dead horse that keeps us coming back!

Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Good to see you back.

[johan_steele]

Daniel, actually horse isn't too bad... though I prefer butchering a dead horse to beating it. Though I suppose by beating a dead horse there is the prospect of softening it up some. Meats a bit stringy and not as good as beef but a **** site better than salt pork.

I've yet to see compelling evidence that would convince me that slavery would have died out w/out the Civil War... in fact I've seen far more that would imply otherwise. Considering there were slave auctions in Charleston as late as Dec of '64... W/out the Civil War the black man in North America might very well still be a slave...

I have a hard time being sympathetic to those who held slavery as a fundamental right.

I suppose in 1860 I would have been an abolishinist... Though anyone w/ a modicum of sense has to realize John Brown was a true nutjob.

[jeffdavislegion]

Shane,

The purpose of my last post was was neither evidentiary nor culinary, but rather an observation on the process. After thousands of words and innumerable resource quotations, the same players still have the same opinions - something I stated in my first post on this board, and predicted would continue. The issue hasn't been resolved in 150 years, so why now?

A little story to illustrate my point. (Please note that I tried to use equally offensive designations for both sides. I am an equal opportunity offender.)

Unreconstructed lost causer: "When this war is over . . ."

**** Yankee: "What do you mean when this war is over? What about that little meeting at Appomattox Courthouse in April, '65? What was that all about?"

Unreconstructed lost causer: "The longest cease-fire in history . . ."

The threads on slavery, cause of the war, et. al., remind me of the definition of an optimist as one who keeps repeating the same action, while expecting a different outcome.

I may be back now and then - if only to pull the pin on a grenade or two.

By the way, I stand foursquare behind your position.

[johan_steele]

I don't know about the cease fire... have you seen Thea & I go round robbin? Thanks... stop in again... just remember that once you pull the pin on Mr Grenade he is no longer your friend.

[thea_447]

Dear Daniel,

As I understand it the whole idea of CivilWar Talk.com is to let people bandy about their thoughts on this long ago war. Of course nothing new will come of it. The War is over. But people still love to discuss it, fight over it, and debate it. I don't understand why this bothers you.

But despite your apparent depression over these discussions they will continue among those of us who still enjoy the debate. Naturally when the debate is no longer enjoyable it will end, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I hope you have a nice Christmas. Feel free to drop in now and then to let us all know how pointless this is, and of course we'll feel free to blithely ignore your opinion and go right on butting heads over this War. We LOVE doing it and it's such a small pleasure in life. <grin> And besides, I love little zingers and tiny bombs, so fire away anytime you feel like it.


"Christmas in Dixie" --- ALABAMA

By now in New York City.
There's snow on the ground.
And out in California.
The sunshines' falling down.
And maybe down in Memphis, Graceland's all in lights.
And in Atlanta, Georgia, there's peace on earth tonight.

Christmas in Dixie, its snowing in the pines.
Merry Christmas from Dixie to everyone tonight.

Its windy in Chicago.
The kids are out of school.
There's magic in Motown.
The city's on the move.
In Jackson, Mississippi to Charlotte, Caroline.
And all across the Nation, its a peaceful Christmas time.

Christmas in Dixie, its snowing in the pines.
Merry Christmas from Dixie, to everyone tonight.
And from Fort Payne, Alabama..Merry Christmas tonight.

[unionblue]

Friends,

Several questions on this topic have NOT been answered to my satisfaction and I very much would like to get a bit more input on the original question on this thread.

Why was slavery going to die out in the US in the 19th century, if there had not been a war? I have seen many on this board say the Civil War was NOT about slavery, that it was not THE cause of the war, that slavery was dying out. I have even read from some that whites and blacks would have been working in the fields together if only the war had not come.

Where do you get the ideas, the facts, the sources that bring you to the conclusion that slavery was on its way to extinction in the South? I must conclude, that I have seen NOTHING to convince me that slavery was on it's way out and I firmly believe that the institution would have survived well into the 20th century.

So where does this believe come from? What do you base it on? Any takers?

Unionblue

[eopfrank]

Neil,

There was too much passion on both sides of the issue for slavery to have died out without bloodshed. War was inevitable. If by chance there was no war and it spread to the west- then I believe it would have ended early 20th century- with the suffrage movement in full swing by the turn of the century, slavery wouldn't have lasted much longer than that ( than women getting the right to vote)... But I believe that you are that it would have at least made it to the 20th century...

...I am trying to think of another scenario- where if the southerners did not secceed and accepted Lincoln- and in his 4 years ( he wouldn't have won a second term if there was no war)he had managed to contain slavery to the states where it already existed by an amendment or something- then maybe slavery would have died out earlier... but this scenario could never have happened- as I mentioned above, this war was unavoidable...

-Frank

[tamaroa]

Neil,

I will TRY to answer your question in a roundabout manner, only because the way you phrased it immediately brought to mind one of the most satisfying jobs I ever held. I was once a Park Ranger in the Old Dominion. I served at Booker T. Washington National Monument in the early-mid 70's.

Based on what I learned there and what we interpreted for the general public, I believe that slavery would have died out without a war. However, I also believe that given all that happened prior to the war, it was inevitable. In addition, I concur with most of your observations relative to the South's violent reaction especially with regard to the alleged power struggle between north and south. But you are referring to the politicians for the most part.I think the South went way overboard. She had plenty of political sway, the courts and the legislative were loaded with southerners. It was basically a southern tinted Supreme court that decided upon the Dred Scott decision in 1856. Now for my neat segue Another event took place in 1856 which began the transformation of society. That was the birth of Booker t. Washington in Hardy, Virginia.

The Tobacco farm lies in a sleepy little town very close to a crossroads called Burnt Chimney, south of Roanoke. It was a 207 acre farm that consisted of a corn crib, blacksmith shop, a horse barn, A hog run,the Tobacco barn, curing shed and the main house. John and Elizabeth Burroughs owned the farm, they had three sons and six slaves.

Amongst the crops grown were tobacco, summer squash, corn,flax, snow peas and acorn squash. The Burroughs and their sons worked side by side with their slaves in the fields. Idyllic yet true. When the war came all three Burrough's sons enlisted to fight for the Confederacy. One was killed in action and another badly wounded. The wounded son was sent home to recuperate and cared for by the slaves of the plantation. The one who died, Billy, was mourned by master and slave alike.

Neil, I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture of slavery, I am merely pointing out that they both master and slave relied upon one another and cared about each other. Read Booker T. Washington's book Up From Slavery and you get an idea about how he felt about those close to him be they Black or White. This equation was not in Franklyn County, Virginia alone. It was repeated all to often throughout the South. After being intimately involved with the life of Booker T. and his mother on that farm then multiplying it throughout the region, I cannot see how slavery would have persisted more than another decade or two had there not been a war.

Maybe on the plantations where you had several hundred slaves or more it would have been tough to give up, but these huge plantations were in fact in the minority, the small farms such as that owned by the Burroughs would be where equality would first take root as it already had by the mid 1850's. I'm sorry but after what I learned about Virginia life in the mid 19th century,sociologically speaking I see only better things down the road.

Peruse this site please:
http://www.nps.gov/bowa/home.htm

I have tilled the hard red clay on that plantation that the Burroughs and their slaves worked together. I cured tobacco, picked slugs off tobacco leaves by hand,made wooden shingles using a handmade wooden mallet and a froe. Working that clay in the hot Virginia sun gives you a new perspective on life.Maybe I didn't answer your question, Maybe I look at things a little differently. What I do know is that these folks shared a common bond, Black or White and I think that the differences could have been settled because of that bond.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

I am VERY impressed by your post above and found it interesting and compelling. At no time do I think you paint a rosy picture of slavery and I am willing to concede the conditions you talk about on the Burroughs farm.

I am also willing to concede that conditions on such farms varied from place to place and that there were families and masters, as it were, that worked side by side with their slaves in the field. After working some summers on a farm I understand that such an operation as the one you describe would require 'all hands', black and white, to make the farm a going concern. The owner and the sons of the farm I worked on with other high school summer highers would come out, bale hay, shuck corn, etc., with us, sweating under the same hot sun, getting dirty with the rest of us. I came away with the greatest respect for farmers and just how truly hard the work was and how much of it there was!

You point out the one choke point I have with the institution going away any time soon. Those men on the big plantations with the money and political power who had their views imposed on the small farmers you and I admire so much. I also am of the opinion that tradition and custom, that the very idea of having slaves, no matter how gentle and fair the condition, would be a hard idea to abandon when you have lived with the institution all your life. What's wrong with keeping slaves if you are so fair and kind and understanding of them? We've always had slaves and we don't treat them bad, etc., etc.

While I am willing to concede that there was a faint chance of the institution dying out on small farms and such (and I said FAINT chance) those men in power you describe above, the ones who were the politicians in power who went way overboard, the ones who feared the loss of power and personal wealth if the institution was ever abolished, were never going to let that happen. Heck, Bill, there was even talk of a plan to get every small white farmer one or two slaves so he would be more inclined to see the institution survive and florish in the South. Right before and right after the 1860 Democratic Convention split the party due to the hotheads there.

Herein lies the tragedy concerning those small farmers who had only one or two or no slaves and did treat them kindly without violence. They had no voice, no power and no real inclination to change the system. There was no voice in the South with enough power and range who could reach these people as any valid oppossing viewpoint on slavery was crushed out by those in political power, the large slaveholders.

We are closer in agreement in this than you imagine, friend Bill. Thanks for the view and the chance to have me mull them over.

Your Friend,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 07, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 07, 2004)

[johan_steele]

Bill,

Thanks for the interesting viewpoint, I've got to mirror much of what Niel said in his above post so I won't repeat him.

Small farms that had small numbers of slaves were similar in makeup to the modern family farms. They were financialy strapped and doing everything possible to make ends meet. But they in no way made up the "Aristocricy" that started the war. Smaller farms don't fail, they are absorbed by larger more profitable interests or parcelled out and dismanteled. When a farm is foreclosed on it's assests are sold off to get the bank some of its money back... unfortunately slaves were viewed as assets, much like a tractor today. That is the attitude that would have kept slavery alive for the forseeable future.

Some slaves were treated considerably better than others and from what I've read and gleamed from research this was the norm. Maltreatment of a slave was the exception instead of the rule amongthe smaller slave owners. I suppose a modern equivelant would be a small company vs a large company, the smaller compay is more likely to know who their employees are and to treat them better.

On the note that slaves were assets, when times are tough excess assets are sold off to provide capital to make it through the tough times. You can look at sale bills from the period and see what I mean. The black man was not viewed as a human being by the majority of people, north or south. But as many in the north saw the conditions of slaves in the south they came to change their opinions, especially those who made comments like (I'm paraphrasing as I can't find the specific note) "These coloreds live in absolute squalor, I wouln't keep a horse this way." Unnamed soldier 1/16th US.

Slaves were treated by and large as property, that is what would have had to change in order for slavery to end peacefully.