1. There was never at any time prior to the Civil War a threat of emancipation.
2. The Southern States never argued that they feared emancipation in existing slave States. Their arguments centered around whether or not NEW States would be slave-holding or free and whether or not Northern States would return fugitive slaves as the law mandated at that time.
3. There were FAR more pressing issues with real-world consequences in the South, namely import tariffs, than legal and academic debates regarding slavery in future States.
4. Abraham Lincoln did not have the moral conviction or political support to emancipate slaves without some politically expedient pretext. That pretext turned out to be the fact that emancipating slaves would deal a crippling economic blow to the Confederate States in the middle of a war in which the Union was being thrashed.
The Civil War was not about slavery, but it brought about its end much sooner than it would have happened had Southerners been content with paying their taxes. So, the answer to the poll question is YES. It was worth it.
Last edited by Napoleon; 03-19-13 at 10:23 PM.
Yes. They would have had slaves working in Southern factories. At least for a while. Realistically, until about the 1930s factory workers in the US were essentially slaves anyway. EVENTUALLY slavery would be illegal. Maybe by now, maybe not. It would make us more competitive in the labor market with China. Why should they have slaves but not us?
***Anyone who's planning on responding with the "the US committed an act of aggression by invading the CSA," don't. The war wasn't an invasion of the Confederacy by the United States as the apologists like to pretend. The battle of Fort Sumter was CSA-initiated, on territory that was legally Union territory even if the secession of the states was legal, because Ft. Sumter was military property. Therefore the CSA was the aggressor.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
Perhaps they never really cared. Certainly, progressives in America in pre-Civil War days had no problem at all with slavery. Indeed, they had "scientific" explanations for why people of color were inferior and bondage was justified. The only strong push toward abolition of slavery came from strongly Christian groups, the same sort that are routinely derided these days. The main attention that progressives had for people of color after the Civil War was mainly in terms of eugenics -- eliminating undesirable blood lines. Such was the impulse behind the founding of Planned Parenthood, to reduce the numbers of people of color and other "undesirables", and it's an effort that goes on even today and is highly effective.
If progressives had established as an aim the destruction of the black community, the destruction of black society and the black family, and the genocidal elimination of the black race, then white progressives could hardly have done a better job of it short of organizing death squads. (Here I might mention the KKK, which were all Democrats, but I hesitate to call them progressive.)
It's almost like all this concern for slavery in America coming from the left is just a bunch of partisan rhetoric and protective coloration that hides their true aims. The same goes for the obsessive harping on identity politics and the constant effort to demonize and marginalize political opponents.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.