# American Civil War/When/how would the south have abolished slavery without it **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359 "2014-03-10T16:42:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/81 "2014-03-11T21:58:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We’re talking about slavery in the US, which was race-based, and based on the “truth” of white supremacy. That’s only if you ignore indentured servitude earlier in U.S. history. Slavery was based on “we want slaves.” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/82 "2014-03-11T22:11:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Until the South declared independence and attacked US soldiers (or the like), which would have happened within a few years, I believe. Which almost happened in the 1820s in norther Georgia, when silver was found in the western part of the state and the residents of Georgia so no reason why they should have to abide by a treaty to stay off Indian lands there. Yep, it almost exploded then and it had nothing to do with slavery. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/83 "2014-03-11T22:21:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Which almost happened in the 1820s in norther Georgia, when silver was found in the western part of the state and the residents of Georgia so no reason why they should have to abide by a treaty to stay off Indian lands there. Yep, it almost exploded then and it had nothing to do with slavery. Are you disagreeing or agreeing with me? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/84 "2014-03-11T22:29:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Are you disagreeing or agreeing with me? Basically agreeing. It’s true that it was a states’ rights issue. And it is true that it was a slavery issue, because slavery was an important difference. Based on what almost happened in Georgia—and not just once—the issue was going to have to be resolved once and for all. Ironically, if Lincoln hadn’t forced the issue, there is the _possibility_ that it slavery would have went the way of the blunderbuss without almost half a million being killed. Slavery was quickly becoming economically unwise, as **Martin Hyde** explained in his excellent post—#79. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/85 "2014-03-11T22:58:37Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > The only thing the Republicans were planning to force was preventing the extension of slavery into new territories. The Republicans would have gladly let the existing slave states continue as they were indefinitely. > > The North did not attack the South in order to end slavery. > > The South attacked the North in order to EXPAND slavery. [And, while they were at it . . .](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_Territory_in_the_American_Civil_War) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/86 "2014-03-11T23:03:51Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Now \*that \*I did not know. Thanks for that info. > > Why was that? Because Lincoln had no constitutional authority to free the slaves, he could not even confiscate private property under eminent domain without compensation – in peacetime; but as a military CinC he had the right to dispose of the property of conquered enemies. But he couldn’t do that in the slaveholding border states, they were not in rebellion. Therefore, the Proclamation applied only in places where it would not be effective until Union troops arrived. Before the Proclamation, [Federal generals had been treating runaway slaves as “contraband of war”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraband_(American_Civil_War)) – meaning enemy property that might be useful to the enemy war effort, therefore the Army has the right to confiscate it wherever possible. In effect, they were freed. They followed the camp and did camp-work, sometimes for pay, and many joined the Army when black troops were allowed in. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/87 "2014-03-11T23:06:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Basically agreeing. It’s true that it was a states’ rights issue. And it is true that it was a slavery issue, because slavery was an important difference. Based on what almost happened in Georgia—and not just once—the issue was going to have to be resolved once and for all. > > Ironically, if Lincoln hadn’t forced the issue, there is the _possibility_ that it slavery would have went the way of the blunderbuss without almost half a million being killed. Slavery was quickly becoming economically unwise, as **Martin Hyde** explained in his excellent post—#79. How did Lincoln force the issue? By being ELECTED. The southerners seceded after Lincoln was elected but before he was inaugurated. He couldn’t do a thing to harm the interests of the slaveocracy because he wasn’t even president yet. They seceded because they new Lincoln was anti-slavery. They had no idea what he would or would not do, they just knew that with Lincoln in the white house the slaveocracy would be unable to maintain its iron grip on the national government. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/88 "2014-03-11T23:13:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because Lincoln had no constitutional authority to free the slaves, he could not even confiscate private property under eminent domain without compensation – in peacetime; but as a military CinC he had the right to dispose of the property of conquered enemies. But he couldn’t do that in the slaveholding border states, they were not in rebellion. Therefore, the Proclamation applied only in places where it would not be effective until Union troops arrived. > > Before the Proclamation, [Federal generals had been treating runaway slaves as “contraband of war”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraband_(American_Civil_War)) – meaning enemy property that might be useful to the enemy war effort, therefore the Army has the right to confiscate it wherever possible. In effect, they were freed. They followed the camp and did camp-work, sometimes for pay, and many joined the Army when black troops were allowed in. That’s an important point many people forget. The Emancipation Proclamation did free many slaves at the moment it went into effect. It emancipated all fugitive slaves whose masters lived in a rebel area. This was a significant act - prior to Lincoln’s order, the law said that those slaves still belonged to their owners and they could have been returned to slavery after the war. The Emancipation Proclamation eliminated that possibility. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/89 "2014-03-11T23:14:58Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Already answered: no one can possibly know what “would have happened if” there were some historical change. What if George Washington had been shot by a sniper at Brandywine Creek? Then Adam Weishaupt would have stepped in and impersonated him, same as in our timeline. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/90 "2014-03-11T23:17:35Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > They had no idea what he would or would not do, they just knew that with Lincoln in the white house the slaveocracy would be unable to maintain its iron grip on the national government. They knew what Lincoln planned on doing. He didn’t keep it a secret during his campaign. He said that he planned on prohibiting slavery in the territories if Congress approved. And he said he did not plan on abolishing slavery in any state where it was legal. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/91 "2014-03-11T23:24:58Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > While there may be some truth to that, the northern industrialists wanted to move the nation forward into an industrial economy, and felt that the southern agriculturalists were holding them back. That doesn’t even make sense. The northern industrialists were not some monolith. They were a bunch of individual businessmen who competed against each other for customers. Why would they have wanted the south to industrialize and offer more competition? They were undoubtedly happy to have southern plantation owners and farmers as a market for their products. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/92 "2014-03-11T23:30:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then Adam Weishaupt would have stepped in and impersonated him, same as in our timeline. He should never have revealed those big cannon to Cerebus. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/93 "2014-03-11T23:52:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Ironically, if Lincoln hadn’t forced the issue, there is the _possibility_ that it slavery would have went the way of the blunderbuss without almost half a million being killed. What planet are you living on? Because on this one Lincoln didn’t do anything to ‘force the issue’. Blaming the Civil War and a half million deaths on Lincoln is nothing but apologist bullshit. The south started the war by firing on Federal soldiers. The south ‘forced the issue’ by secceeding before Lincoln even took office. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/94 "2014-03-12T00:06:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That doesn’t even make sense. The northern industrialists were not some monolith. They were a bunch of individual businessmen who competed against each other for customers. Why would they have wanted the south to industrialize and offer more competition? They were undoubtedly happy to have southern plantation owners and farmers as a market for their products. Yes, that is where that post went off the rails for me too. The primary friction between the southern agricultural interest and Northern industrial interests were tariffs. Manufacturers love tariffs because they protect domestic manufactured goods from imported competition. However, the reason these tariffs were desired is because the more advanced (at that time) British industrial base could actually produce cheaper goods in larger quantity than American manufacturers, to the point that the goods imported 3,000 miles across the Atlantic were actually cheaper than “buying American.” So the domestic manufacturers were simply not competitive without tariffs. Southerners by and large had no vested interest in the manufacturing industry, as there was little southern heavy industry to speak of, and since (like most consumers) they primarily purchased manufactured goods based on the value for money of the product they were primarily buying British imported manufactures. The high tariffs the North sought and won, thus, reduced Southern disposable income but unlike the Northerners who saw job creation from it there were really no positives for the agrarian South. Further, in the trade-war happy days of the 19th century the British intentionally reduced the amount of cotton they purchased from the United States in response to the harshest tariffs of the late 1820s and early 1830s. So pro-industrialist tariff policy actually explains a good bit of the reason the North became so prosperous and the South didn’t from 1830-1860s. The South saw the price of goods rise while the demand for their products fell due to the tariffs, squeezing them on both ends. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/95 "2014-03-12T00:08:23Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > I don’t really believe that they did. They probably didn’t give it much thought. [Oh, yes, they did.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Tom_literature) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/96 "2014-03-12T00:17:47Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > I would like to think that Lincoln and the abolitionists did not believe that they were \*inherently \*inferior, but merely that circumstances had made them that way. Well, they thought better of blacks than most whites did, but most of them did buy the common wisdom of the day that blacks are mentally inferior by heredity. See [_What Lincoln Believed,_](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22MALCOMS.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) by Michael Lind. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/97 "2014-03-12T01:50:31Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Yes, that is where that post went off the rails for me too. The primary friction between the southern agricultural interest and Northern industrial interests were tariffs. Manufacturers love tariffs because they protect domestic manufactured goods from imported competition. However, the reason these tariffs were desired is because the more advanced (at that time) British industrial base could actually produce cheaper goods in larger quantity than American manufacturers, to the point that the goods imported 3,000 miles across the Atlantic were actually cheaper than “buying American.” So the domestic manufacturers were simply not competitive without tariffs. Southerners by and large had no vested interest in the manufacturing industry, as there was little southern heavy industry to speak of, and since (like most consumers) they primarily purchased manufactured goods based on the value for money of the product they were primarily buying British imported manufactures. That could be because British goods were better and cheaper (due in part to the lack of cheap means of shipping). Just a speculation though. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/98 "2014-03-12T01:57:54Z")
The tariff argument? Really? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/99 "2014-03-12T02:40:16Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Yes, that is where that post went off the rails for me too. The primary friction between the southern agricultural interest and Northern industrial interests were tariffs. Manufacturers love tariffs because they protect domestic manufactured goods from imported competition. However, the reason these tariffs were desired is because the more advanced (at that time) British industrial base could actually produce cheaper goods in larger quantity than American manufacturers, to the point that the goods imported 3,000 miles across the Atlantic were actually cheaper than “buying American.” So the domestic manufacturers were simply not competitive without tariffs. Southerners by and large had no vested interest in the manufacturing industry, as there was little southern heavy industry to speak of, and since (like most consumers) they primarily purchased manufactured goods based on the value for money of the product they were primarily buying British imported manufactures. > > The high tariffs the North sought and won, thus, reduced Southern disposable income but unlike the Northerners who saw job creation from it there were really no positives for the agrarian South. Further, in the trade-war happy days of the 19th century the British intentionally reduced the amount of cotton they purchased from the United States in response to the harshest tariffs of the late 1820s and early 1830s. So pro-industrialist tariff policy actually explains a good bit of the reason the North became so prosperous and the South didn’t from 1830-1860s. The South saw the price of goods rise while the demand for their products fell due to the tariffs, squeezing them on both ends. Tariffs did hurt southerners. But it was pretty much a self-inflicted wound. It was not a deliberate northern conspiracy against the south. The reality is if you’re going to have a country, you’re going to have a government. And if you’re going to have a government, you’re going to have to collect taxes. And in the mid-19th century, that meant tariffs. The government did not have a system to collect income tax or sales tax. Our national revenue was based on taxing imports coming into the country. The Confederacy understood this - as soon as they formed their own country, they imposed a tariff of their own. So were the details of the tariff designed to hurt the south and help the north? No, it just worked out that way. If you want to collect revenue from a tariff, you have to put it on real imports. And as you noted, what we imported were industrial products. So that’s what we put a tariff on. There would have been no point in putting a tariff on agricultural products - the United States didn’t import agricultural products and a tariff on them would have collected nothing. So some businessmen read the economic writing on the wall. They saw that a tariff on industrial goods created an opportunity for them to manufacture industrial goods domestically and make a good profit doing it. They were just practicing basic capitalism and putting their money where it would get them the best return. And there was no reason why southerners couldn’t have done the same. They could have build up their own industries at the same time northerners were building up theirs and taken advantage of the same opportunities northerners were taking advantage of. They had the money, they had the opportunity, they had the same information - they just chose not to step up. Instead they decided to remain in agriculture even though it made less economic sense. They willingly made bad business decisions and then blamed other people for the consequences. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/100 "2014-03-12T06:19:41Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > In the United States Congress lacked the sort of power that a Russian or Austrian Emperor had and thus could not have easily just legislated an end to slavery. So without the Civil War you’d basically have to wait until such a large majority of the States had abolished slavery that you could pass a constitutional amendment, which probably would have taken years and years. As a practical matter, the federal government had tools to move quickly and strongly against slavery. If Congress outlaws interstate trafficking then states like Virginia and Maryland with lots of large unproductive plantations that get by by selling slaves down the river are looking at an increasing and increasingly idle slave population. They would become free states in short order I think. Soon enough with the incoming states there is a supermajority of free states. In places like South Carolina, the president might appoint only African-American postmasters. That would soon necessitate federal troops to protect them. Even if only anti-slavery whites were appointed the flood of abolitionist literature would no longer be held back. Again that probably brings in federal troops in short order. That’s just quibbling though. Nice post. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359.md?page=6)