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

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)

21. it's not the only reference that says so, but be that as it may: give me a source that says

Reply to ieoeja (Reply #20)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 02:14 PM

Oct 2012

the slave population in the south was declining or the rate of natural increase in that population was negative.

it's certainly the case that history is always contentious. however, plenty of history has been written that takes issue with the ruling party line. so if there's evidence the slave population was declining because deaths > births, it ought to be out there.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How long would slavery had lasted if the South decided NOT to secede? [View all] MrScorpio Oct 2012 OP

A big question would be how much longer would the exboyfil Oct 2012 #1

Very interesting question. redwitch Oct 2012 #2

Not long. If I recall my history, south wanted to secede 'cause north was going to outlaw slavery... Honeycombe8 Oct 2012 #3

Slavery was already in decline in the border states by 1861. Spider Jerusalem Oct 2012 #4

Was a funny movie about that topic JPZenger Oct 2012 #5

"CSA": Confederate States of America AspenRose Oct 2012 #15

That movie is on Netflix LeftInTX Oct 2012 #19

I would imagine that WWI would have been the end of the last of slavery aikoaiko Oct 2012 #6

Too depressing to think about too much gollygee Oct 2012 #7

the value of labor has declined steadily since 1820 KurtNYC Oct 2012 #8

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

Way too many factors to be sure, but interesting to think about. n/t porphyrian Oct 2012 #11

Poor whites hated slavery for economic reasons vinny9698 Oct 2012 #12

Not long. England had already abolished slavery in 1833. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #13

It would have lasted until the slaves died out. ieoeja Oct 2012 #14

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

I got it from "The Battle Cry of Freedom". ieoeja Oct 2012 #22

"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

A shockingly long time, imo. 1920 or so. reformist2 Oct 2012 #16

Quite some time, I believe. Lincoln flatly stated that if he could preserve the Union by Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #18

Until Jimmy Carter got elected. RagAss Oct 2012 #24

Slavery was becoming a system too costly to maintain. Kaleva Oct 2012 #25

Read this editorial from the time and you will understand it a lot better 1-Old-Man Oct 2012 #26

Economically the South was in decline. JackRiddler Oct 2012 #28

I think eventually the Federal Government would have bought the freedom of the slaves. They could yellowcanine Oct 2012 #30