"Odd, it used to be called "history".
I seem to remember a quote about what happens to those who ignore "history"...must look that up."
I have a really silly historical question, since I'm not a learned student of history. Why is it that so many other countries were able to abolish slavery without resorting to a Civil war that took hundreds of thousands of lives? Wasn't there an economic way to abolish slavery, even if it took just a little bit longer? I'm sure someone has asked this before during the many heated Civil war debates, but I've never heard what the answer is.
Slavery might have lasted almost into the 20th century as it did in Brazil.
The southern states forced Lincoln's hand by seceding over what they thought he might do over slavery. The war began as a war over secession, not slavery. In fact the Civil War did not end slavery in any of the Union states or Union-occupied states--the 14th amendment did.
If there is, why is Wal Mart enjoying so much success?
Unlike the Founding Fathers (who almost universally considered slavery an evil) the Slavers considered it a positive good. Thus, they had NO inclination to do away with it, have it limited, have it criticized.
THEY were the ones who attacked the Union.
In every case where slavery was ended it was done through government intervention and in the face of strong opposition on the part of the slave owners themselves. The U.S. was the only area where the slave owners formed a large enough segment of the population where they were able to forment a rebellion in order to protect their institution from what they saw as threats to it.
Wasn't there an economic way to abolish slavery, even if it took just a little bit longer?
Regardless of when slavery was ended, the country would still be faced with the social problem of what to do with all those free blacks suddenly wandering around. The North didn't want them, free or slave. The South sure didn't want them as free men and women. It's hard to imagine what sort of solution could have been found peacefully.
The expansion of slavery, not slavery per se'. Slavery was but one of the issues that festered in the Southerner's mind regarding the power suddenly found by the central gov't.
It is a myth that the WBTS was fought over slavery only. You won't find historical record of unioin forces going to war over it. You will find record of Lincoln and his army going to war to preserve the union. Other than a handful of abolitionists, mostly in New England, the North had no moral qualms about slavery at the time.
Also, it should be noted that slavery was guaranteed by the Constitution at the time. Lincoln even remarked that what he did he did for the union and not for the slave. He was perfectly willing to let the institution exist to preserve his blessed "union". (tariffs and power)
Generally, slavery dies out when it is no longer economically viable,
or when someone runs out of competing tribes;
here it went away along with some rather scratchy constitutional issues.
(But not because of the emancipation proclamation and not until after the war ended)
Learn what you will from history but recounting the fact that Jews were more prominent and better assimilated in the antebellum south is NOT 'divisive' and it is not suddenly wrong to relate people to events of 140 years ago.....we've had selected parts of that relationship rammed up our throats forever.
PS:Yes, slavery is a bad thing.
PPS: Also yes, as pogroms go, this one was pretty tame but it took place nonetheless.
no matter how much the SELF-righteous, sanctimonious northerners WISH it was a "crusade against slavery", only a lunatic/nitwit or a REVISIONIST/DAMNyankee APOLOGIST would say that it was.
the war was about JUST ONE main cause : DIXIE LIBERTY.
our dixie ancestors war for FREEDOM was essentially for the same reasons that the Revolution of 1776 was fought.
free dixie,sw