...my FIL is a history and science professor/ author in Nawlins, the most educated man I’ve ever known, probably read every document there is to read on the subject. He says slavery was on its way of dying a natural death, as many other people support
Well, he and they are wrong. US census data indicates that the slave population continued to increase parabolicly every decade from 1790 to 1860. In 1800, there were abour 900k slaves in the US. Despite Congress's ban on the importation of slaves (signed into law by Jefferson), the slave population actually continued to rise. Slave owners realized it was actually cheaper to breed more slaves than import them. Within 30 years, the slave population more than doubled to 2 million. By 1850 it was 3.2 million and by 1860 nearly 4 million. In those last 10 years before the rebellion, that 700k jump was the largest single percentage increase in US history.
No, slavery was certainly not on it's way out. Quite the opposite actually. It was growing so much that pro-slavery groups pushed for expansion into the Western territories (the main political question from 1840-1860) and even south. The annexation of Texas and the Mexican War were spurred on to expand slavery west. The Democrat platform called for the annexation of Cuba to continue south.
It is true however, that in the mid Atlantic slave states like VA and NC, there was a movement to enact gradual emancipation. This is why when the first 7 deep South states conspired in their rebellion, they didn't immediately get all of the slave states. They had to provoke violence in order to coerce the other states to join in their rebellion. The real conspiracy was the fireeaters in Miss, Alabama, Georgia, and most importantly South Carolina (research the Rhetts and Bluffton Boys). Who started the war? These slaver assholes. They seized federal property. They deposed duly elected state legislatures and governors. They denied states of a republican form of government. They violated the rights of American citizens. They engaged in open rebellion and insurrection all because they LOST an election. Had they rallied behind Douglas, Lincoln likely wouldn't have won. Instead, the fireeating slave faction demanded slavery be expanded west (and south, and north), they broke from the Democratic convention (the real start of the civil war), split the Democrat ticket, lost the election (perhaps intentionally) and then made war upon the USA.
It was on its way out politically and because of machinery. Those are the facts. We didn’t go to war to free slaves, because that’s what legislation is for, not battlefields. It was the totalitarian Lincoln usurping powers and overreaching with his big fed govt. Just like today The states created the Union, and the creature is not greater than the creator. We could go back and forth all day long but I really don’t have the time. I’ve got a 2 hogs to butcher. Pax
Again, no. While slavery was seemingly on the way out early on in the first 20 years of the country's existence, by 1810 that changed. The facts are that the number of slaves INCREASED and was INCREASING at higher rates very year since 1810. Why? Slave owners could no longer import slaves (but they illegally did anyway) but the breeding effort actually increased the number of slaves and was far more cost effective. Ironically the machinery you mention actually had the OPPOSITE effect on slavery. Instead of killing it, it revitalised it, making it far more profitable. The cotton gin increased production and profits from cash crops from slave labor grew exponentially year after year, making King Cotton. The real problem was that without crop rotation and the focus only on cash crops, the slaveowning plantation systems ran low on fertile soil. Thus, the need to expand westward. These sectional, factional, slave-centric politics made the issue of slavery the #1 political issue from 1820 to 1860. It was the underlying issue from which all others were impacted, culturally, socially, religiously and yes, economically. Every sectional conflict in the antebellum period spawned from the debate over the maintenance and expansion of slavery. When you're done butchering your hogs, I suggest reading more books, particularly primary sources from 1810 to 1860 to remedy your misunderstanding of history.
I’m referring to the USE of slavery and the attitude towards it, not the sexual reproduction numbers of slaves. Machinery has eliminated much of the work done by manual labor and if you deny that, I can’t help you. Judge Napolitano discusses slavery’s trend toward a natural death in one of his books. And he loathes Honest Abe.
...my FIL is a history and science professor/ author in Nawlins, the most educated man I’ve ever known, probably read every document there is to read on the subject. He says slavery was on its way of dying a natural death, as many other people support
Well, he and they are wrong. US census data indicates that the slave population continued to increase parabolicly every decade from 1790 to 1860. In 1800, there were abour 900k slaves in the US. Despite Congress's ban on the importation of slaves (signed into law by Jefferson), the slave population actually continued to rise. Slave owners realized it was actually cheaper to breed more slaves than import them. Within 30 years, the slave population more than doubled to 2 million. By 1850 it was 3.2 million and by 1860 nearly 4 million. In those last 10 years before the rebellion, that 700k jump was the largest single percentage increase in US history.
No, slavery was certainly not on it's way out. Quite the opposite actually. It was growing so much that pro-slavery groups pushed for expansion into the Western territories (the main political question from 1840-1860) and even south. The annexation of Texas and the Mexican War were spurred on to expand slavery west. The Democrat platform called for the annexation of Cuba to continue south.
It is true however, that in the mid Atlantic slave states like VA and NC, there was a movement to enact gradual emancipation. This is why when the first 7 deep South states conspired in their rebellion, they didn't immediately get all of the slave states. They had to provoke violence in order to coerce the other states to join in their rebellion. The real conspiracy was the fireeaters in Miss, Alabama, Georgia, and most importantly South Carolina (research the Rhetts and Bluffton Boys). Who started the war? These slaver assholes. They seized federal property. They deposed duly elected state legislatures and governors. They denied states of a republican form of government. They violated the rights of American citizens. They engaged in open rebellion and insurrection all because they LOST an election. Had they rallied behind Douglas, Lincoln likely wouldn't have won. Instead, the fireeating slave faction demanded slavery be expanded west (and south, and north), they broke from the Democratic convention (the real start of the civil war), split the Democrat ticket, lost the election (perhaps intentionally) and then made war upon the USA.
These are the facts.
It was on its way out politically and because of machinery. Those are the facts. We didn’t go to war to free slaves, because that’s what legislation is for, not battlefields. It was the totalitarian Lincoln usurping powers and overreaching with his big fed govt. Just like today The states created the Union, and the creature is not greater than the creator. We could go back and forth all day long but I really don’t have the time. I’ve got a 2 hogs to butcher. Pax
Again, no. While slavery was seemingly on the way out early on in the first 20 years of the country's existence, by 1810 that changed. The facts are that the number of slaves INCREASED and was INCREASING at higher rates very year since 1810. Why? Slave owners could no longer import slaves (but they illegally did anyway) but the breeding effort actually increased the number of slaves and was far more cost effective. Ironically the machinery you mention actually had the OPPOSITE effect on slavery. Instead of killing it, it revitalised it, making it far more profitable. The cotton gin increased production and profits from cash crops from slave labor grew exponentially year after year, making King Cotton. The real problem was that without crop rotation and the focus only on cash crops, the slaveowning plantation systems ran low on fertile soil. Thus, the need to expand westward. These sectional, factional, slave-centric politics made the issue of slavery the #1 political issue from 1820 to 1860. It was the underlying issue from which all others were impacted, culturally, socially, religiously and yes, economically. Every sectional conflict in the antebellum period spawned from the debate over the maintenance and expansion of slavery. When you're done butchering your hogs, I suggest reading more books, particularly primary sources from 1810 to 1860 to remedy your misunderstanding of history.
I’m referring to the USE of slavery and the attitude towards it, not the sexual reproduction numbers of slaves. Machinery has eliminated much of the work done by manual labor and if you deny that, I can’t help you. Judge Napolitano discusses slavery’s trend toward a natural death in one of his books. And he loathes Honest Abe.