Nachricht von Diskussion slavery
Received: by 10.180.75.8 with SMTP id y8mr659556wiv.4.1345242551012;
Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:18:16 -0500
From: Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: slavery
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:18:04 -0400
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_willieO...@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:08:24 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
>>Which do you believe?
>>1. Since slavery must expand or die, the Lincoln program of halting its
>>expansion was a death sentence.
>>2. The slaveowners would have been safe in the enjoyment of slaveowning
>>for generations had they not provoked a crisis by seceding.
>>3. Or, something else.
> From my reading on the subject, I'd suggest that had there been no
> secession, slavery would not have been abolished until about 1900.
> I suppose even the South would have had to give it up after Brazil did
> in 1895. Even the larger planters would have gotten embarrassed
> being the only civilized people on Earth that practiced it.
> On the other hand, had the secession been successful, I'd guess
> slavery in the Southern states would have remained until the early
> 1930s. At which time the worldwide depression might have taken the
> glow off slave ownership.
Here's a wikipedia on slavery's ending in Brazil.