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.
Yes, I know this. I’m not speaking only of the 1860s. History doesn’t stop there, and had Lincoln not gone around killing everyone for secession from the Union, slavery would have DIED OUT EVENTUALLY because of machinery yet to be invented, as well as the abolitionists’ influence. He didn’t give a damn about slaves and if you’re as well-read as you claim, you KNOW what he’s said on record about the “inferior” blacks. He was a tyrant and used the black plight as a political tool, just like the Left does today. Hell, his work as a lawyer involved returning a runaway slave to his master!
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.
Yes, I know this. I’m not speaking only of the 1860s. History doesn’t stop there, and had Lincoln not gone around killing everyone for secession from the Union, slavery would have DIED OUT EVENTUALLY because of machinery yet to be invented, as well as the abolitionists’ influence. He didn’t give a damn about slaves and if you’re as well-read as you claim, you KNOW what he’s said on record about the “inferior” blacks. He was a tyrant and used the black plight as a political tool, just like the Left does today. Hell, his work as a lawyer involved returning a runaway slave to his master!