Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How long would slavery had lasted if the South decided NOT to secede? [View all]HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)10. It's not as cut and dry now. We're in more of a Ford vs. Chevy condition rather than regional.
Sure, there are regional areas, but the so-called "battleground" states show the diversity and intermixing of our interests and concerns. We don't really have a situation where you can "poke a bear" now. If it came to armed conflict it would be absolute chaos.
As for when slavery would have ended, that's a hard call. If anything, the South accelerated the process, but it was inevitable, as was the right for women to vote, equal rights, and all of the gains we've had since Lincoln. What concerns me the most is the GOP effort to roll back those gains.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
30 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
How long would slavery had lasted if the South decided NOT to secede? [View all]
MrScorpio
Oct 2012
OP
Not long. If I recall my history, south wanted to secede 'cause north was going to outlaw slavery...
Honeycombe8
Oct 2012
#3
As slavery died out in the south east it moved west. Canada and water would stop it eventually.
1-Old-Man
Oct 2012
#9
It's not as cut and dry now. We're in more of a Ford vs. Chevy condition rather than regional.
HopeHoops
Oct 2012
#10
according to most history i've read, slave populations in the us did expand by natural increase.
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#17
"South grew half to three-quarters of the corn crop harvested between 1840 and 1860"?
ieoeja
Oct 2012
#20
it's not the only reference that says so, but be that as it may: give me a source that says
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#21
"Battle cry of freedom" is searchable in google books, and here's what it says:
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#23
Only read the book once. Must have read that backwards. Thanks for the correction! nt
ieoeja
Oct 2012
#27
The spread of slavery into the new territories was led more by rice and cotton than corn.
1-Old-Man
Oct 2012
#29
Quite some time, I believe. Lincoln flatly stated that if he could preserve the Union by
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#18
I think eventually the Federal Government would have bought the freedom of the slaves. They could
yellowcanine
Oct 2012
#30