Virginia apologizes for slavery

[Gurdur]

As a result, we have things like the insane War on Drugs.

That is ridiculous; you might as well blame Lincoln for Nixon and wiretapping. It's self-serving nonsense.

Gurder, I gave you my answer. SLAVERY IS OVER. But the Civil War was about so much more than that; it was about the power of the Fed over the states.

And I reminded you that that selfsame power of the Fed over the states is what meant the end of slavery and the end of 20th-century segregation in the USA. That is what you keep on evading; you denounce the Fed in the name of "freedom" while evading the fact that Fed power over the states actually brought freedom --- whether through the end of slavery or the end of segregation.

And what I want to know is why do you keep on evading, shanek? Just why won't you face up to who and what ended segregation? Or slavery? Just why, in effect, are you defending those by denouncing the Fed?

 

[shanek]

No, it didn't. Slavery was already on the way out; it was becoming economically unviable. It was the FEDERAL Fugitive Slave Act that helped it hang on as long as it did. But were there no Civil War (and no 600,000 lives lost), slavery would have been on the way out anyway. WE DID NOT NEED TO FIGHT A CIVIL WAR TO FREE THE SLAVES. That's just all there is to it.

 

[Lonewulf]

No, it didn't. Slavery was already on the way out; it was becoming economically unviable. It was the FEDERAL Fugitive Slave Act that helped it hang on as long as it did. But were there no Civil War (and no 600,000 lives lost), slavery would have been on the way out anyway. WE DID NOT NEED TO FIGHT A CIVIL WAR TO FREE THE SLAVES. That's just all there is to it.

????

That's certainly not what I learned in History class, that's for sure. In fact, one of the major points of contention in the whole debate was the spread of slavery; namely, whether or not a new state will become a slave state, as they were carving up the American map. That's what let to Bleeding Kansas, which was certainly one of the preludes to the civil war.

And the civil war was not originally fought to free the slaves, it was fought to keep the union together; the south seceded thanks to some political maneuvering that they didn't like, but in retrospection, slavery was a critical part of the whole thing.

Though I'd be the first to say that I think that both the Republicans and the Democrats, the North and the South, had their own roles to play in the whole thing; neither one was "innocent".

 

[shanek]

Well, economists tell a different story. Slavery was a very inefficient means of providing labor; you had an unmotivated workforce with low morale, you had to provide for every aspect of their life including perpetual shelter, food, etc., and there were plenty of poor whites who would have loved to have had those jobs. Their wealth allowed them to take on the economic drag of owning slaves; the slaves did not make them wealthy. This becomes even more pronounced the more mechanization is introduced.

Also, slavery ended everywhere else in the world without a war, except for Haiti, and that was a slave uprising.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well, economists tell a different story. Slavery was a very inefficient means of providing labor; you had an unmotivated workforce with low morale, you had to provide for every aspect of their life including perpetual shelter, food, etc., and there were plenty of poor whites who would have loved to have had those jobs. Their wealth allowed them to take on the economic drag of owning slaves; the slaves did not make them wealthy. This becomes even more pronounced the more mechanization is introduced.

That may be so, but even after the ACW there was still slavery, in the name of debt. Loopholing the laws in order to keep people as slaves, in everything but name.

 

[Kaylee]

No, it didn't. Slavery was already on the way out; it was becoming economically unviable. It was the FEDERAL Fugitive Slave Act that helped it hang on as long as it did. But were there no Civil War (and no 600,000 lives lost), slavery would have been on the way out anyway. WE DID NOT NEED TO FIGHT A CIVIL WAR TO FREE THE SLAVES. That's just all there is to it.

????

That's certainly not what I learned in History class, that's for sure. In fact, one of the major points of contention in the whole debate was the spread of slavery; namely, whether or not a new state will become a slave state, as they were carving up the American map. That's what let to Bleeding Kansas, which was certainly one of the preludes to the civil war.

And the civil war was not originally fought to free the slaves, it was fought to keep the union together; the south seceded thanks to some political maneuvering that they didn't like, but in retrospection, slavery was a critical part of the whole thing.

Though I'd be the first to say that I think that both the Republicans and the Democrats, the North and the South, had their own roles to play in the whole thing; neither one was "innocent".

IMHO, Shanek is not being an honest debater on the subject.

Whether this is intentional or he got brainwashed in early childhood with "lost cause" indoctrination, I can't say. I'm surprised and disappointed because while I have I have disagreed with Shanek before in other threads, I don't recall him appearing to be deliberately dishonest.

He keeps insisting that slavery was not economically viable and was on its way out.

But as you and others have pointed out -- "Bleeding Kansas" would not have happened if the South didn't want to spread slavery in the new territories.

Also as I had pointed out to him in post #97 and #114, the comparison of the 1850 and 1860 US Census data

(available at the University of Virginia's census browser: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/index.html)

simply doesn't support his statement.

To be precise -- it shows that slavery increased from 3,200,600 to 3,950,546 people. That's an increase of 749,946 people, or an increase of 23%. Slavery increased in every state and territory it existed in, except for three Union states: Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey. Shanek can continue to ignore this fact -- but it won't change it.

 

[Kaylee]

Their wealth allowed them to take on the economic drag of owning slaves; the slaves did not make them wealthy.

This thread is a complete waste of time. I'm out of here!

 

[Gurdur]

No, it didn't. Slavery was already on the way out; it was becoming economically unviable. It was the FEDERAL Fugitive Slave Act that helped it hang on as long as it did.

Complete nonsense. BTW, I just love how you refused to answer the point about desegregation of the American South in the 20th century. Why so coy about segregation, shanek?

WE DID NOT NEED TO FIGHT A CIVIL WAR TO FREE THE SLAVES.

Ha ha ha. That's why the CSA used violence to protect slavery; you are being nothing more than a rank apologist for the CSA. And I find it incredibly ironic that someone who professes to be for freedom should suddenly become an apologist for the CSA and slavery. BTW, don't forget desegregation, now.

Their wealth allowed them to take on the economic drag of owning slaves;

Thigh-slapping fun, shanek; next thing is you will be telling us what a favour the slave-owners did for the darkies by buying and keeping them as slaves -- by violence. Funny how you ignore just how valuble slaves were to the owners --- prices shot up for slaves during the American Civil War owing to lack of supply. Col. Alexander, a CSA artillery commander, wrote back home to his wife telling her to speculate in slave-buying and -selling, just for one example.
That sort of thing is supposed to be completely against all your libertarian principles, so what gives, shanek? hmmm?

Also, slavery ended everywhere else in the world without a war, except for Haiti

That, quite simply, is ignorant nonsense. Armed force was necessary in many places to stop slavery; the British navy for decades had anti-slaver patrols around Africa; several regimes were toppled by force to end slavery. Shanek, your ignorance of world history is appalling, but also rather hilarious.

BTW, don't forget to reply to how it was Federal power that also ended segregation in the South.