In the discussion thread: How long would slavery had lasted if the South decided NOT to secede? [View all]
Response to MrScorpio (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:27 PM
ieoeja (8,731 posts)
14. It would have lasted until the slaves died out.
I do not believe any slave owning country in history ever maintained a domestic source of slaves. Pregnant slaves have to be cared for while providing little in return. Child slaves have to be cared for while providing little in return. Businessmen then weren't much different in their short-term view of profits than they are now.
The European powers had already cut us off from Africa. Actually, we joined them in that endeavor which was, I believe, the *only* anti-slavery action taken by the federal government before the Civil War (which made southern fears all the more ridiculous).
Southerners conquered Texas. They conquered Baja California, then lost it when they invaded Sonoma. They conquered Guatemala then lost it when they re-imposed slavery outraging their neighbors. They re-invaded Guatemala and were killed. They invaded Cuba. Twice.
The Cuban and Guatemala invasions were for the specific purpose of obtaining more slaves. They were running out of slaves. Eventually, the Black population in the United States would have died out to levels incapable of supporting slavery. Attempts to use Indians as slaves did not work very well. And while there was some talk during the Civil War about replacing Black slaves with Anglo-Saxons, that would have, of course, meant Civil War again.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Spider Jerusalem||Oct 2012||#4|
It would have lasted until the slaves died out.
|Egalitarian Thug||Oct 2012||#18|
Please login to view edit histories.