Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans
The slaves in Britain where a much smaller percentage of the population, and owning slaves was probably less connected to the economics, lifestyle, and self image of a large part of the country. I'm not so sure that buying out the slave owners, would have worked in the US in the 1850s or 1860s.
Also its not like slavery was the only issue of the civil war (even if it was the biggest root issue), or the end of slavery in the US the only consequence of the war. There where serious concerns over tariffs (the North was protectionist, the South more dependent on trade, than much of the North), and there where other issues. Perhaps none of those issues would have been enough to cause the war, but they do have to be considered.
This is not responding to the question I asked.
If the offer to buy out the slave owners failed (and I think it would have), then your left with the following possibilities.
In fact, someone posted that Buchanan offered to buy the slaves but the South balked.
1 - You have slavery in the South, no slavery in the North. The North accepts/supports slavery in the South just enough to keep the country together. As the country expands to the West you get local battles (political and on a smaller scale than the Civil War violent even military) in new states. Perhaps the Civil War happens anyway with even deadlier weapons. Best case scenario is the war is indeed avoided, and slavery ends in a few decades, but I have some real doubts about that scenario.
2 - The South leaves, the North resists, you have the Civil War, the North wins. This is of course what actually happened.
3 - The South leaves, the North resists, the South wins.
4 - The South leaves, and the North says "good riddence".
In either 3 or 4 you have an independent South with slavery past 1865. When would slavery have ended? Almost certainly it would not longer be legal today, but would it have gone on in to the 20th century? It probably would have at least lasted another generation or two in to the later 1800s. Its possible that the South having slaves would have led to other countries maintaining slavery longer.
Assuming that slavery did end (and I think very likely if not certain that it would have been outlawed by now even if the CSA was still seperate from the USA), you might have also had sustained servere offical discrimination after slavery ended (would "Jim Crow", or worse still be alive today?).
Also when would the country have reunified? Perhaps never.
That's right. That's what Ron Paul is suggesting. I am not sure the country should be unified. There are some significant differences between the North and the South regarding the major issues.
And if it does reunify perhaps its as the result of an even bloodier war. You could even have something like a North American front in WWI. The unified US played a massively important role in the 20th century, if it was split, and esp. if it warred against itself, you could have seen Germany win WWI (if WWI happened), or you might have seen more of the world fall under facism/nazism or communism.
Maybe, maybe not. Up until WW II, the North was the strongest part of the Union......economically speaking. In addition most of the defense plants were in the North. Since WW II, the South has grown dramatically but still the North has more wealth.
Such what if's (esp. the 20th century speculation) are hardly solid ground for people to make moral or practical decisions in the 1860s, but it is quite possible that
1 - Without the Civil War millions of people (I think there where about 4 million slaves) in the US would have been in slavery for at least another generation and maybe for much longer than that, and also slavery might have been a stronger institution in the world.
2 - Even ignoring slavery the practical consequences might have been worse than those 600,000 deaths.
That's hard to say. Its hard to know exactly what would have transpired had the North let the South secede. One possibility you did not discuss.......the South coming back into the Union of their own volition. That could well have made a huge difference going forward. |
