What if the slave owning democrat party didn't sucede from the Union

[Tucker]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021629093

Star Member MrScorpio (52,030 posts)

View profile
How long would slavery had lasted if the South decided NOT to secede?
Let's say that Fort Sumpter was never attacked, that the Confederacy had never been founded and that Lincoln had not freed the slaves in response to the Union finding themselves in the predicament that they had.

Clearly, the slave owning states thought that Lincoln's election was the end of their world. Their worst fears were going to be realized if he declared slavery illegal and marched the troops into the South to free all of the blacks. And it's not like the South had even given him a chance to fail in dissolving slavery through due process, because they launched their attack one month after he was inaugurated.

Outside of the Southern propaganda of the time, where was the proof that Lincoln intended to unilaterally end slavery without a response to a secession? Was it even possible without the war that began from the South's attack? Was Abolition as inevitable as soon as it was?

Outside of the newly established states where slavery was prohibited, how secure was the institution in the old slave states?

In attacking the North, the Slave States eventually brought about the realization of their own fears. The South created the monster in Lincoln that they feared and through their own action, that monster came to life.

I think about the people today who are driven to create a Barack Obama that doesn't really exist. So far, they haven't acted on their fears and thus, there's no real reason to believe that those fears can be realized. All they have to do is compare the list of fears they issued four years ago in the even of Obama's election and find out that not one of them have come true.

The South in 1861 poked a bear and the bear got back at them. If they had not poked that bear, what would America look like today?

For one thing, you wouldn't have a welfare state.

Honeycombe8 (13,564 posts)
3. Not long. If I recall my history, south wanted to secede 'cause north was going to outlaw slavery...

View profile
so the south took the "states' rights" position and declared secession, and the war started.

So if the states hadn't declared secession, slavery would've been outlawed, and Lincoln no doubt would have freed the slaves, as he ultimately did.

Wrong.

Lincoln only freed the slaves held by the succeeding states. The Republican party had only been formed a few years earlier and they still managed to piss off the democrats.

aikoaiko (14,384 posts)
6. I would imagine that WWI would have been the end of the last of slavery

View profile

I wouldn't surprise me if a few states held out as most others disavowed slavery, but the need for black soldiers in support roles might have motivated the Federal government to finish it off.

If I recall, there were plenty of black troops that fought in WWl. The democrat president Woodrow Wilson kept them segregated though as though they were second class citizens.

vinny9698 (171 posts)
12. Poor whites hated slavery for economic reasons

View profile
It was impossible for a white person to start a business when a plantation owner would compete against your family business with slave employees. There were counties in the South, GA, and Texas who were Unionist and flew the Union flag through out the war.

Also blockade runners did not smuggle weapons, but instead smuggled out cotton and tobacco to the UK and in return they would bring back luxury items to trade with the plantation owners. If you bought back weapons the Confederacy would pay you back with confederate dollars, which were nearly worthless at that time. As a smuggler you are in it for the money.
The confederate troops and the population starved because the plantation owners did not plant corn or food items, they only planted cotton and tobacco cash crops to smuggle out to the UK.

Elitist democrat party looked down on serfs even back then.

[FlaGator]

Slavery is still alive and doing well in the United States, now they call welfare and it comes with an Obamaphone

[DumbAss Tanker]

There's an awful lot of ignorance there, which should be no surprise, being DU and all.  Certainly Lincoln opposed slavery, but the newborn Republican Party was a coalition of several factions, not all of whom were militantly focused on slavery, and without the War, it would not have been feasible for him to do any such thing as abolish the institution himself, either in a legal or a political-reality sense.

It probably would have hung on until the end of the century in parts of the South if things had been able to be de-escalated.  Keeping it depended on Southern solidarity, and I suspect that as soon as the tide turned in a couple of the marginal Southern States, the block would have lost cohesion and been forced to deal with a Congress and Supreme Court that supported abolition by a sufficient margin to finally resolve it against them...but in 1860, that time was still far in the future.

[Undies]

The end of slavery gave the democrats the excuse to form the Ku Klux Klan and to support Margaret Sanger and her version of Planned Parenthood so the bigots and racists (democrats all) could encourage the snuffing out those pesky Negro babies who might grow up to be black men and women.

Then there was the democrats and the whole lunch counter and drinking fountains and restroom thing......

[Tucker]

The end of slavery gave the democrats the excuse to form the Ku Klux Klan and to support Margaret Sanger and her version of Planned Parenthood so the bigots and racists (democrats all) could encourage the snuffing out those pesky Negro babies who might grow up to be black men and women.

Then there was the democrats and the whole lunch counter and drinking fountains and restroom thing......

Now, now. You know that the democrat party denies their own history.

[BattleHymn]

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why the primitives somehow forgot to mention the prevailing attitudes of both political parties at that time, in regards to blacks. 








Oh yeah, that.  I think I understand why, now.

[Randy]

Slavery was already dying on it's own. Taxation of the food and raw materials producing part of the country ( the south ) to support the northern robber barons led to the war. If they'd used the money collected fairly slavery would have gone away on it's own. BUT continued taxes and tarriffs made slavery the only way to make money and still pay what the gubbamint demanded.

Have a lil war, give in to freeing the expensive PITA slaves in exchange for getting more of the taxes levied back to where they belonged and look what happened. The south is the power and the north is mostly a hole. DUmicrats are still racists and using the blacks as pawns. Uncle Sugar became the new Massa with the welfare arm the new Overseer keeping the plantation in line.

[FlippyDoo]

Maybe Pam would know the answer since one of her students that she'd be a good slave owner.

[Splashdown]

Mrscorpio said "the blacks."

 

[BlueStateSaint]

Maybe Pam would know the answer since one of her students that she'd be a good slave owner.

Flippy!  Nice to see ya!  Is this going to be a trend (you being around here) leading up to the election?

[GOP Congress]

Not an answer to the DUmpmonkey's question, but an apologist black dude, backed by Harvey Weinstein of the bin Laden farce of a movie, made a documentary called "CSA: The Confederate States of America." It basically said that if the South had won the war, the CSA would have taken over, and today we would have slaves. A bunch of cool commercials ensued.

If you can spare an hour and a half for a few guffaws, here ye be:

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJJtH_5vcmM[/youtube]

REALLY love the "Runaway!" commercial. It's a commercial based upon "Cops", except it's about the CBI ("Confederate Bureau of Investigation"...get it?) chasing down runaway slaves.

[FlippyDoo]

Flippy!  Nice to see ya!  Is this going to be a trend (you being around here) leading up to the election?

Even though I'm not a soothsayer, I've got a feeling that the DUmmies may need all the fictional spirit guides that they can get because of this election so I'm going to try to be around from time to time. After all, I'm a caring fictional spirit guide.

[BlueStateSaint]

Even though I'm not a soothsayer, I've got a feeling that the DUmmies may need all the fictional spirit guides that they can get because of this election so I'm going to try to be around from time to time. After all, I'm a caring fictional spirit guide.

Will your advice contain the useful info, "Down the road, not across the street?"

[franksolich]

Will your advice contain the useful info, "Down the road, not across the street?"

And remember, DUmmie of the year awards can be awarded posthumously.

<<wouldn't mind writing a few posthumous awards this year.

[BlueStateSaint]

And remember, DUmmie of the year awards can be awarded posthumously.

<<wouldn't mind writing a few posthumous awards this year.

I share that sentiment.

[Tucker]

And remember, DUmmie of the year awards can be awarded posthumously.

<<wouldn't mind writing a few posthumous awards this year.

Who of note died?

Did Mrs Dawson finally kick the bucket?

[franksolich]

Who of note died?

Did Mrs Dawson finally kick the bucket?

I wish.

No, the comment was in reference to something else that was said, about the primitives promising to do themselves in after the elections.  A promise no primitive has ever kept, but one can always hope.....

[BlueStateSaint]

Who of note died?

Did Mrs Dawson finally kick the bucket?

Sadly, no.

[franksolich]

Sadly, no.

I didn't do it this week--in too foul of a mood--but the week before, I began keeping track of primitives promising to do themselves in.

There were four then, the week before. 

I am going to keep track.

[BlueStateSaint]

I didn't do it this week--in too foul of a mood--but the week before, I began keeping track of primitives promising to do themselves in.

There were four then, the week before. 

I am going to keep track.

Uh-oh for the primitives!

[Tucker]

Sadly, no.

Yeah. I know. I was just putting it out there in case some of their so called Karma was floating by on its way to Pam's place.

Trying to contaminate their mystical belief with some bad ju-ju.

[franksolich]

Yeah. I know. I was just putting it out there in case some of their so called Karma was floating by on its way to Pam's place.

Trying to contaminate their mystical belief with some bad ju-ju.

It irritates the Hell out of me, the primitives never keeping their promises.

[AprilRazz]

vinny9698 (171 posts)
12. Poor whites hated slavery for economic reasons

View profile
It was impossible for a white person to start a business when a plantation owner would compete against your family business with slave employees. There were counties in the South, GA, and Texas who were Unionist and flew the Union flag through out the war.

Also blockade runners did not smuggle weapons, but instead smuggled out cotton and tobacco to the UK and in return they would bring back luxury items to trade with the plantation owners. If you bought back weapons the Confederacy would pay you back with confederate dollars, which were nearly worthless at that time. As a smuggler you are in it for the money.
The confederate troops and the population starved because the plantation owners did not plant corn or food items, they only planted cotton and tobacco cash crops to smuggle out to the UK.

Funny there were plenty of plantation owners that converted from cotton to foodstuffs for the army. William Ellison was such a person. He was also one of the larger slave owners in South Carolina. I even found a photo of him. I am posting it here because I know it will get this primitive's panties in a bunch.

[DumbAss Tanker]

It's funny how the accepted wisdom about slavery and the Southern economy has changed over the years.  A lot of people were taught and believe that the invention of the cotton gin had made slavery less profitable and therefore it was a dying institution.  At one time, and somewhat again now, the opposite was taught, i.e. that the invention of the gin had rendered volume production of cotton possible and therefore vastly increased the the economic value of slaves in order to plant, tend, and harvest all the additional cotton acreage from which the harvest could be processed mechanically.

Looking at when the gin was patented (Shortly before 1800) and the escalating cost of slaves before 1860 (Which was due also to international blockades off Africa beginning in the 1840s and by the Navy in US waters in the years leading up to the War), I have to say the idea that the cotton gin tolling the end of slavery really doesn't make any sense.  In a larger super-macro sense, the large-scale mechanization of planting, harrowing, and harvesting that took hold in the 1880s probably would have done in the institution eventually, but that conceptual leap across a gulf of 80 years is too much of a stretch for me.

[BigTex]

The end of slavery gave the democrats the excuse to form the Ku Klux Klan and to support Margaret Sanger and her version of Planned Parenthood so the bigots and racists (democrats all) could encourage the snuffing out those pesky Negro babies who might grow up to be black men and women.

Then there was the democrats and the whole lunch counter and drinking fountains and restroom thing......

even though Sanger was a republican who was against abortion?