Battle Hymn of the Republic = NOT Christian

[nickcopernicus]

Nick, you do know that in Lincoln's first inaugural speech, he told the South she could keep her slaves? But he warned her the North would collect its tariffs and imposts, implying that would be even if the South seceded. IIRC South Carolina had already seceded.

Nick:
Yes, I did know that. I'm neither a Lincoln-Lover nor hater. He certainly was an astute politician.

Augustine:
You made the assumption that slavery is sufficiently profitable that the free South could have sustained it indefinitely. Support it please.

Nick:
On the contrary, you made the assumption that slavery would need to be profitable for the South to sustain it indefinitely.

Anyway, it's not like the Industrial Revolution made manual labour obsolete. It's true that the slave owners had to feed and house their slaves. So long as the cost of feeding and housing those slaves was less than the profit margins then there was no reason for it to stop. Perhaps instead of needing 30 slaves to work the fields, one could use 3 slaves to operate tractor or combines.

Societies do all sorts of things that don't make economic sense. Perhaps some slave owners would have kept women slaves around to amuse themselves sexually. Smoking ciggarettes isn't very healthy, and I suspect most smokers know this. It certainly doesn't stop them.

Cheers,

Nick

[Augustine2004]

The Constitution gave the USFG LIMITED powers. A clause in the Constitution says that any powers NOT given to the USFG BELONGS to the several States. The right to secede was not explicitly stated IIRC, but surely the USFG had no right to prohibit secession.

[Augustine2004]

Rum Tum Tugger, I'm sorry. See, I like to write over-dramatic posts as a way of kidding around.

[Augustine2004]

On the contrary, you made the assumption that slavery would need to be profitable for the South to sustain it indefinitely.

Anyway, it's not like the Industrial Revolution made manual labour obsolete. It's true that the slave owners had to feed and house their slaves. So long as the cost of feeding and housing those slaves was less than the profit margins then there was no reason for it to stop. Perhaps instead of needing 30 slaves to work the fields, one could use 3 slaves to operate tractor or combines.

Societies do all sorts of things that don't make economic sense. Perhaps some slave owners would have kept women slaves around to amuse themselves sexually. Smoking ciggarettes isn't very healthy, and I suspect most smokers know this. It certainly doesn't stop them.

Sorry, Nick, I only just saw this.

It's true that the decision to give up slavery or continue it is not wholly economic. It's also true slavery has not entirely gone out of the world. Lots of sexual slavery in fact.

As regards the idea that a slave could operate a combine, it would seem to involve a great deal of training before he could be so used. It seems to me more probable that the farm or plantation owner would get the training himself or look around to hire an operator.

The economic pressure to give up slavery has obviously increased, to judge from the result (today's world). Note that slavery tends to be endemic in the poorer regions of the world, such as Africa.

My opinion remains that the South would have felt compelled to abandon the slavery institution eventually, even without the threat of Northern conquest.