"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:k57aj0l3n8kjqmbtqsdedlgvggkn7lubnl@4ax.com...

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:48:05 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<1%8Zc.1100$Np2.983@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:

I admit my wording was poor. Let me re-phrase.

If the civil was had not been fought slavery would still have ended
because it made no economic sense when machinery was available to
prove the needed cheap labor.

Slavery in the form of indentured servitde would have ended in time

because

workers would flee to the north in 'free' states

Interesting. Since slavery was almost universal in every culture
throughout history yet seems to have mostly disappeared today where
was the "north" for all of those slaves in other countries to flee to?

There was only one reason for slavery - cheap labor. When machinery
could do most of the work needed cheaper than a slave there was no
contest. And no more slaves.

Nah. We outproduced the North even then.
And we outproduced them by more than 25 percent of what they produced.

Remember, a slave was a major expense in that he needed to be fed,
clothed, housed, and guarded in some way. A machine needed none of
these things.

That is equivalent to wages.
Freedom is another issue.

and workers were needed in
the cotton industry to be employed. After the invention of the cotton gin

by

Eli Whitney cotton was processes faster (Industrial revolution there,

too.)

It is amusing that you picked the cotton industry as an example, and
homed in on the cotton gin. Are you aware it was the invention of the
cotton gin that did more to establish slavery in the South than any
other single activity or action? When this was invented in 1793 for
the first time there was a rapid way to remove seeds from cotton and
provide a large quantity of material to textile factories.

As a result everyone in sight started growing cotton, and slaves were
needed for the labor involved. The rest is history.

And?

The system we have now enslaves people to a system with which many of our
people do not agree with.

Only when a pregnant woman is denied the right to terminate her
pregnancy.

Wrong.
You are amiss.

The South was outproducing the North 56 to 44 percent on a GNP basis

then.

Because the economy was still basically agricultural.

Not all of it. The South was outproducing the North 56 to 44 percent on a
GNP basis then.

Not in manufactured goods.

*****. Who cares? and what difference does it make?
Pollution?

It just so happens that cotton output was so great and the South was
importing goods from foreign nations because they had an excess to what

the

North could provide them.
The South was becoming very wealthy and disproportionately so. The
population of the South was much less than that of the North: AND, we

made

more wealth.
But, nevermind. Slavery was the issue that caused the dissent, correct?

Slavery was the one issue, but the actual issue was the power of the
state vs the power of the central government.

Nah.

This is difficult for people to understand today.

Me?

The South produced more wealth with fewer people.

Slavery would have ended without a war, and the Civil War was over
States rights vs the Federal Government.

Maybe so, because the slaveowners coulda started paying them in money

and

charging rent and letting them purchase their food and clothes, etc.
And, maybe that woulda happened if enough slaves fled the South to be

in

the

North.

Slavery did not become the
'big issue' until the northern army was in danger of dissolving when
the initial enlistment period ended and Lincoln needed a point

around

which to rally popular support.

Northern army? The US had military installations in the South then;

e.g.,

Fort Sumter, remember that much?

When the Union (or northern) army was formed it had a specific
enlistment period. As the end of this period approached and a large
number of troops were going to be eligible to leave Lincoln had a
problem. It appeared most of them were ready to do just that.

He turned the war from a war to preserve the Union into a war to end
slavery and thus convinced most of the men to stay in the army. If
you read the actual history of the period you will see it was a near
thing.

Ok. You are from the North?

Born in Georgia, grew up in Ga, Ala, Tx, and Md (Military family).
Spent ages 7 - 11 in Selma, Ala. I have never lived further north
than Anacostia Md. And when I was there it was a good place to live,
unlike today.

Why don't you get a text about the Civil War then? I did.

Reread my comments - I think you have my position wrong.

Maybe, but don't worry.
I am pretty much convinced of my ideas unless someone can show me better.

I never read what you mentioned about the preservation of the Union Army.
And, if that is so which I do not believe to be 100 percent true, why would
Lincoln want to tax the people only on that basis?
Lincoln was much smarter than that.

Read the Gettysburg Address, and please do not tell me that the words he
wrote are somehow a motivation to preserve Union Troops' salaries or to
provide for the common defense.

Where were our enemies then anyway?

I do not like people who act as if things written are somehow written for
another purpose than what the documents themselves say.

"Curly Surmudgeon" <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.09.01.10.54.07.740214@curlysurmudgeon.com...

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 01:20:40 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Attila wrote:

You do not know the facts. The industrial revolution did not end
slavery. A Civil War did.

I admit my wording was poor. Let me re-phrase.

If the civil was had not been fought slavery would still have ended
because it made no economic sense when machinery was available to prove
the needed cheap labor.

Oh go on, you can do better than that if you pay attention to your own
keyboard and proof before you send.

Attila's statements weren't opinion, they're the studied consensus of
historians and experts who have spent their lives studying the (un)Civil
War. Brazil, Mexico, most of Latin America abolished slavery before we
did and they didn't even have the industrial base.

Biased historians who did not cite fact but only opinion.
I know what happend because I read what happened.

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:54:09 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
<curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<pan.2004.09.01.10.54.07.740214@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 01:20:40 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Attila wrote:

You do not know the facts. The industrial revolution did not end
slavery. A Civil War did.

I admit my wording was poor. Let me re-phrase.

If the civil was had not been fought slavery would still have ended
because it made no economic sense when machinery was available to
prove the needed cheap labor.

Oh go on, you can do better than that if you pay attention to your own
keyboard and proof before you send.

Attila's statements weren't opinion, they're the studied consensus of
historians and experts who have spent their lives studying the (un)Civil
War. Brazil, Mexico, most of Latin America abolished slavery before we
did and they didn't even have the industrial base.

Slavery was becoming impossible to justify on a humanitarian level. If
you disagree then please state rather than simply dismissing an
arguement.

One small problem - I am stating slavery was eliminated as an institution
because it became economically unaffordable and unnecessary with the
advent of machines to provide cheaper labor.

If this machinery did not exist slavery would still be widespread.

Humanitarian and social factors had nothing to do with it other than to
make some people feel good about themselves.