Would The Civil War Been Fought Without Slavery?...
- Thread starter Jep
- Start date
Of course! The southern secessionists were in open rebellion and committed acts of war against the United States government. The United States government and military had a constitutional obligation to put down the rebellion. In this sense, a name like "The War of Northern Aggression" seemed apt, because the United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps aggressively defeated the southern traitors.
The way liberty is being flushed down the toilet, it looks like we need more traitors like Stonewall Jackson. The real traitors to the constitution are the ones trampling all over it today. Our Founding Fathers did their best to protect us from big gov't but most of them knew that gov't is like a cancer, I believe John Adams made this point.
All the left wing commies have been arguing for two weeks it was about slavery then the professor says it would have still happened without slavery. Wind must be blowing a different direction today.
Of course not, only idiots, liars and idiot liars would even make such a farcical suggestion.
Some people need to ask themselves if they want to be ignorant and backward when their time comes to exit this life.
Some people need to ask themselves if they want to be ignorant and backward when their time comes to exit this life.
Well get a hay wagon load of other bozos and go join your ISIS buddies. They think like you do.
1845: Sweden is coming here, and is being cordially invited!
1848: Germany is coming here, and is being cordially invited!
1852: Ireland is coming here, and is being cordially invited!
1870: China is coming here, and is being cordially invited!
1890: Italy is coming here, and is being cordially invited!
1900: Eastern Europe is coming here, and is being cordially invited!
1980: Vietnam is coming here, and is being cordially invited!
Didn't you ever pay attention to that Neil Diamond song? They're coming to America! So what?
The current wave of immigrants are assimilating, too. Why does immigration to this country bother you so much?
You forgot to address would anyone be getting rich off of southern cotton without slavery. You can't simply remove one major variable and assume the rest of the story remains the same.
Someone had to do the labor so if there was no slavery then who was going to produce at a level that sustained the production of goods without requiring pay that would have eaten away at the revenue?
Also, it's not just a Southern thing when it comes to slavery. The North shared in the benefits of slavery too so the entire face of America's economy would have changed. I'd suggest that without slavery, we never become independent from the Brits and that they eventually lose their standing in Europe.
I also believe that technology does not advance globally the way it has in our current reality. I have worked with people from all over the world and the one constant they say about the USA is that they admire our ingenuity, creativity, and vision. A lot of other cultures feel trapped in traditional ways of living while America is seen as the shiny oasis of progress, creativity, and opportunity. We capitalize on new opportunities better than anyone.
So to answer the original question, no, I do not think the Civil War would have been fought without slavery because I don't think the USA would have existed in the first place.
''Assimilated'' , Little Italy, China Town, St Patrick's Day. All of these foreign traditions still thrive, many areas still speak their native languages in their communities as well.
Slavery had little to nothing to do with those whose words and actions led to Revolution. Virginia had some vocal leaders but the action was up north.
The catalyst to action were New Englanders who had little early stake in the slave trade other than some shipping.
This was about Yankee goods and imported goods and high taxes Britain used to fund their war with France.
The Revolution would in all likelihood happened had their been no slavery in The Colonies.
The problem you moron is...you're applying todays overbearing anti Constitutional governemnt to a tiem where States were the more powerful government....as the Constitution intended. It was Lincoln that started us down the descructive path we're at today. Had he let the South go....slavery would have ended on its own within a decade...as it did in South America. It was getting to expensive to maintain slavery. But today we haev no nothing numbnuts like you teaching snot nose empty headed skulls full of mush propoganda rather than HISTORY
You are so informed, Go to your local italian owned business and ask how many people there speak Italian. The asnwer you get will be "just grandpa, we were taught that we were Americans and we were to speak English." Assimilation means: Speaking the Language, PAYING the taxes and not demanding English as a second language in schools.
I'm from an Italian family. No one speaks Italian as a first language even my Grandparents made my Father speak english. Yes go to those enclaves in NY. My guess is that take your order in English.
Helen,
Naughty naughty! Comparing me to an ISIS fighter? You lose.
That was poor sportsmanship on your part.
And WHITEpug?
Yes I hear Neil Diamond but America they came to was a country of laws.
Mine came here legally. Not sneaking in under cover of darkness to claim benefits we weren't prepared to work legally for.
There's 2 reasons for those laws and one is also to protect the new Immigrants.
And if you want to base your politics on Neil Diamond songs,
does Cracklin Rosie song call for our government funding free train rides
for your lady?
Aw, Cracklin' Rosie, get on board
We're gonna ride
Till there ain't no more to go
Taking it slow
And Lord, don't you know
We'll have me a time with a poor man's lady.
Naughty naughty! Comparing me to an ISIS fighter? You lose.
That was poor sportsmanship on your part.
And WHITEpug?
Yes I hear Neil Diamond but America they came to was a country of laws.
Mine came here legally. Not sneaking in under cover of darkness to claim benefits we weren't prepared to work legally for.
There's 2 reasons for those laws and one is also to protect the new Immigrants.
And if you want to base your politics on Neil Diamond songs,
does Cracklin Rosie song call for our government funding free train rides
for your lady?
Aw, Cracklin' Rosie, get on board
We're gonna ride
Till there ain't no more to go
Taking it slow
And Lord, don't you know
We'll have me a time with a poor man's lady.
I never said that slavery had anything to do with declaring independence and leading to revolution. I said I don't think the colonies would have successfully broken away from England. Slavery was used by the north and south, and was key to the accelerated growth of the colonies to the point we could maintain a productive economy yielding valuable goods to even face high taxation.
Without slavery, do the colonies have enough economic growth to even get ticked at the Brits about high taxes or is everyone too busy working their tails off just to get by? For all we know, an America without slavery could have been extremely dependent on British assistance and the development of this new land would have been slowed compared to the reality we know.
Even if we are to assume that we arrive at a revolution without the economic advantages of slavery, do the colonies have the resources to defeat the Brits with slower development? What about the timeline? Does the revolt happen decades later?
And from the war angle itself, each body counts, so slaves who were offered their freedom in exchange for fighting along with American forces and those who remained as slaves but still fought on behalf of America were key resources that wouldn't have existed in this slave-less scenario.
I'm looking at this from a practical perspective, not political.
If you look at English colonization in America---Virginia beginning in 1607 and Plymouth beginning in 1620---you can see the seeds of future sectional conflict. The people in each colony and the people back in England supporting each colony are fundamentally different. They have different motives for coming to America, different means of supporting themselves, they organize their societies differently, and worship differently.
The Constitution and history. Slavery was discontinued in South America in the 1880s
I just don't see any sectionalization being that pronounced without something as divisive as slavery being the catalyst. A lot of the people who colonized America understood the importance of tolerance.
No, what I'm admitting is that you libs are predictable because you're so freaking dumb and emotional. You can't think past the fleeting thought racing through your head.
So you think these descendants would be better off had their not been slavery and they lived in the fine progressive Continent of Africa? Bless ur heart LOL
If he's a moron you must be completely brain dead.
Nobody with brain waves thinks The South would have voluntarily given up their slaves while it was profitable to keep them. The early 20th century maybe, but 10 years ? nonsense.
I know it would have been fine with your sort to allow two more generations to give up their entire lives to massa and worse, THEIR CHILDREN'S LIVES, but your sort lost, your thinking is a dead end to put it mildly.
