No slavery at all

[mobile_96]

Jenna,
Will have to differ with you on the development of farm machinery during the war.
There were more patents on farm equipment during the civil war than patents directed toward military uses.
The development and usage of new machinery enabled the stay-at-home wives to Work the farms. Not only did more wifes work the farms, and still take care of the homework, but they, with the help of the equipment, increased food production during this period.
Yes, they did get help from some of the men that were still home, but, those men were able to help the women because of their own use of the newer labor saving equipment.
Chuck in Il.

[30th_il]

I have to throw my two cents in regarding "Deere's" plow. Here in Homer TWP., Will CO., IL a fellow by the name of John Lane was actually the first to invent the steel plow in 1833.....he just didn't patent it. (Oops!, talk about a "woulda, coulda, shoulda!)
In regards to no slavery at all, I think the country would have been in conflict with other issues...maybe like too low of wages for the Irish or some other inequality...maybe women's rights would have been brought to the chapters of history a little sooner. In any case, somebody or something would be an issue.

[ole]

Matt.

You've opened an interesting idea. There would have been come contention between some sections. That's the way it is. What do you think would have been the contention if it hadn't been slavery?

[30th_il]

Well Ole, I appreciate your response/question and I have got to say, if there were no slavery...blacks got paid for there work, that it would still come down to money. With the difference between the north's industrial economy and the south's agricultural economy the tariff question would come into play. But more importantly I think the railroads would be the major player here. The north with many more tracks laid they would need to be laid more southern and who and how much would be paid would be an issues as they were in the west a decade later. Would the Irish then move south...or would the blacks pick up an industrial trade...anybody's guess. Would women be relegated to a position of a homebody for a longer period of time...I think yes. But as these transitions took place there are those who would fight the change, those that feel cheated and perhaps more who felt shorted and all these would congeal in some way to revolt. Probably not to the great extent of the civil war but I have to believe that in most growing situations, whether it's a person or a country, they have to teat the waters and flex their ambitions...I give you teenagers as an example; I think the US was perhaps in it's adolescence as a nation when the issue of slavery descended on it's collective mind(s).

[ole]

Matt:

The market would have prevailed. People follow the money. Money comes from filling a need. Needs are a bit hard to predct but, when done properly, give us Bill Gates.

Only the Lord knows what different needs might have surfaced without slaves. We can speculate, we can hope; and then we can bend in the direction of the forces that might have been.

You're a very thoughtful person. I like that.

Ole

[30th_il]

Ole, I like the Bill Gates. He is sort of the Lincoln of the modern day economic world. He rose out of nowhere...kinda geeky and surpased all that thought he'd fail...just like Lincoln. Did you mean that analogy. I mean, not necessarily direct to Lincoln but to the void that seems to be filled by an individual at/in times of need? Anyways...very poignant. It does seem however, the Lord deals with slaves from era to era....I just wonder what is the next slave-era.

[jenna]

My question would be, in this hypothetical situation, that if our fore-fathers had abolished slavery, did they come over with slaves in the first place and set them free with the Decloration of Independance, or did they just not come over with them? That would certainly make a difference don't you think?

If they had abolished it at the begining, but had set them free here, we still would have had a black population. BUT, if they had not brought them over with them in the first place, would the Africans had immigrated to the states like other ethnic groups? Our would they have been content to stay on the Dark Continant? If they had come over with our fore-fathers, been set free here, would they have stayed and been treated any differently from the get go, or would they have gone back home? And if they did stay, I think they would have been treated like the Irish, the Japanees, the Chinees, that you maybe would have had more of an uprising of ethnic equality, sort of like the women's rights movements and the civil rights movements that came later. Maybe they would have happend sooner then and the world would really have been different. And I do mean the world. Would we have had civil rights leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, or Malcom X, or would they have just been ordinary people and preachers? Interesting to ponder. And if the blacks hadn't immigrated like other nationalities, would we have had men like those?

Interesting to ponder don't you think?

Jenna

[ole]

Jenna:

If slavery had been abolished when the constitution was adopted, there still would have been a substantial black population. Slavery had been around for about a hundred years already. Although importation would have stopped then instead of later, planters were finding it profitable to raise and sell slaves.

The black population was largely born in this country. Going back to Africa would not have been workable. For one thing, there weren't that many ships to haul all of them back. For another, they were not capable of living the old way. I'd guess turning them loose in 1789 would have had about the same effect as turning them loose in 1865, although their acceptance and assimilation would have had a good running start.

I'm afraid that the obligation incurred during the war would not have been there had they been freed earlier, and we may well have been looking at a real rebellion of starving slaves.

[jenna]

I see your point Ole, but I was thinking back even further, to before the Rev war was even a thought. If the colonists had just not brought anyone over.

I do know that the black population was born in this country, due to their being slaves already brought over at the time of the colonists and before the Rev war, but I guess my statement may have been misunderstood, as I stated here above.

The impact you speak of, of "turning them loose" is quite interesting, considering that yes, and the end of the war they were just "turned loose", but if our fore-fathers had abolished slavery in 1789, then you would have had similar instances that you had in 1865, right? Same basic problems.

Now, if the idea of the black population not going back to Africa sounds far fetched even now, how did Lincoln come up with it in the 1860's? Or are you referring to prior time span? Lincoln wasn't going to let them stay, but ship them off to their own colony. I realize that in the south at the time of the war the population was roughly 9million, and a third was roughly slaves. That is a great population. But if they had been freed earlier then the war, do you think that their population would be the same numbers? Just wondering.

The capability of living the old way may not have been completely feesable, but if they had gone back, even some of them, would Africa too had changed differently, with these freed men and women taking their new knowledge of farming, construction technology, and new ways of life back to their disconnected families? This is all hypothetical, so there is probability there. We have to basically take what we know as documented history and throw it out the window and say, yes, that could very well have happened.

[sean_harris]

Even if they did return, I due not see them making an impact. Though a some might have held tribal positions, Imperialism would still have torn out the heart of Africa. I find it ironic that Europe washed it's hands of slavery, but decimated an entire region for economic gain.