If the Civil War hadn't happened when it did, would there have been significant slave revolts in the South?
If the Civil War hadn't happened when it did, would there have been significant slave revolts in the South?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
If I was an isekai protagonist I would buy the slave waifu then set her free.
My nice guy personality would convince her to stay with me of her own free will
I'd buy her and subject her to the vilest sex acts imaginable until I get bored of her and then sell her to a salt mine.
You're making her stay with your nice guy personality. That's not free will.
Congrats, you're an average isekai protagonist.
>Get cute elf/catgirl/blonde slave waifu
>You're free but if you want to stay you c- wait where are you going? No you should stay with me as gratitude for freeing you!
She can choose to stay or leave, I trust that she would choose to stay.
You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar
you are giving money to the slave trader,
The Civil War would have happened. Bleeding Kansas and the subsequent fighting within Congress was causing law and order to break down. State sponsored terrorism - regardless of who's doing it - is the only consequence of that. The question was when and when came with the 1860 election.
Sneed agreed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Sneed
If there was going to be a slave uprising, it would have happened way earlier than the civil war.
Compared to the slaves in the Caribbean and South America, US slaves had it pretty good. Obviously not ideal, but it could've been worse.
Had the civil war somehow magically not happened, slavery would have been naturally phased out by the industrial revolution.
there was also a lot more whites in the south than in some of the other slave holding countries in the Caribbean or south America. a slave rebellion like in Haiti would have been crushed.
>Had the civil war somehow magically not happened, slavery would have been naturally phased out by the industrial revolution.
The Industrial revolution had been going on already for 60-odd years. The fuck you talking about? At that time slavery was still very profitable, and these plantations were an integral part of the world economy. Sure, the South was at a disadvantage as an independent state not being industrialized, but the ability to export mass amounts of a high-demand raw good was still profitable and necessary to provide materials for the textile mills of New England and Britian.
In the decades before the war, the south was slowly building an industrial base and naturally, much of the grunt work was done by slaves. By 1860 they had a rail network rivaled only by the north and a few European countries, with most of the construction and maintenance done by slaves. The massive Tredegar Iron works in Richmond used scores of slaves, as well as the coal and iron mines that fed it. “What if the south had won?” scenarios are retarded but it’s weird to think how slave labor would have been used in a postwar economy, as they probably would have tried to build up native industry rather than rely on the north or imports. There’s a limit to what you could get out of slaves though. Building railroad grades or stoking furnaces is one thing, but factory wok is another. The first real wave of factories in the south, the Piedmont region cotton mills, used poor whites rather than cheaper black labor, and it would have been the same under slavery.
>Had the civil war somehow magically not happened, slavery would have been naturally phased out by the industrial revolution.
I don't care about slavery tbh but I never understood this arguement. What stops a plantation owner from selling his plantation and using the capital and slaves to build a factory and then have them work in it?
About the only thing that I can think of was that he would have to cover for their living costs, but that was the situation on the plantation as well.
There's some history book about how theologist that were pro or anti slavery argued and how it affected the church at the time, I should read it sounds interesting.
slavery isnt a sustainable economic system, south would collapse in 10 to 50 years
collapse how?
starvation or willingly baktrupt before start lf a famine to avoid starvation, your choice.
why.
slavery is not a sustainable economic model in modern times
most retarded thing i ever heard in my life
>nooo how dare you say neo-feudalism will work fine in moern times!!!
A slaveholder has to pay for the room and board, food, clothing, and medical treatment of his slaves. Of course, this can be incredibly minimal—even dehumanizing—but costs nonetheless he would not incur if he did not treat them as living property. A wage reflects value added and is not meant to compensate workers for the food and board they need to survive. With slavery, instead of paying a low wage commensurate with the value created, the slaveholder pays for these living expenses directly.
In the free market, some are paid even above the equilibrium wage for an industry or job at a rate known as an efficiency wage. This wage is higher because it attracts exceptional workers who can do the job with greater skill and efficiency, more than justifying their wage. While this type of wage is mainly used in high skill sectors, and slavery is usually centered around low skills, the worker attitude is relevant. Slaves have no incentive to work harder or better. In fact, in all likelihood, they resent and hate their oppressors. This means they will not be working as efficiently as possible. This turns into inefficiency for a few reasons.
If the slaveholder forces them to work hard at a low-skill job, they can threaten pain or withhold food or comfort. This means the slave has no options and must keep up the output, but due to fear, pain, or exhaustion, is less likely to be operating at full capacity. The mental resistance likely drags this even further.
Thats why many cities literally starved right aftr embargo was set in the southern states during the civil war, they were communist-tier retarded in terms of economics.
Slavery isn't feudalism you inbred.
All the rest is retarded make believe. Slavery is omnipresent wherever state authority breaks down and the cartels and arab millionaires don't practice it out of goodwill.
the south was starting to industrialize. slavery would have died a natural death by the 1880's.
The south was barely industrializing, and would have maintained slavery as long as the possibly could. The plan was not to build factories and then ban slavery, but to use slaves in the industrializing process.
>the south which didn't have anybody living in it until 20 years before the war wasn't industrialized
this is how you know people posting in these threads are naggers
Yes, slaves would've eventually took over
Successful large scale slave revolts seemed to occur in far off areas where whites were massively outnumbered by blacks and the climate was inhospitable to wypipo in general so you can't just send in reinforcements to put it down. The South had neither of these problems. Aside from the rare John Brown gigacuck even the most strident norther abolitionists probably wouldn't have the stomach for whites being slaughtered in a race war either.
19 out of 20 people would fare better as slaves and should be granted the right to do so.
>judgement of the Lord
>when Christianity prescribes slavery
What did he mean by this?
What
No as in Brazil ended slavery because it was economical worse then just paying people and free-market Capitalism in 1888. Especially without the war; slave owners wouldn’t feel like they had to struggle to keep them or have reasons to have them as the industrial revolution as made by factories was the beginning of the end for instutionialized slavery.
>seethe at CHAD HAREM ISEKAI
Kys redditor subhuman
The South was reliant on a slave-run agricultural economy. Such an economy paled in comparison to the north which was richer, innovative, and had a vastly superior capability for manufacturing.
One could argue that a reliance on a slave-based economy make the South and Southern Whites poor in comparison to their peers in the North