No, I think you’re missing my point. In both cases (by war or purchase), slaves would have been freed. They were freed, but slavery was not reintroduced. It is only logical to assume that if slaves were freed by some other means, the same thing likely would have occurred. The North occupied the South until the early 1870s, but quickly left. The South remained a predominantly agricultural region until at least after World War II. My question still stands, if as you and another poster claim, it would be so easy to illegally purchase and use slaves, then why wasn’t slavery reintroduced in the 1870s?
How are these scenarios different? It is not enough to say one is “before” and one is “after” the war. In both instances slavery would have been illegal; you argue that being illegal doesn’t mean that it isn’t still practiced on a wide-scale basis. Why did one thing happen in the scenario that did occur (i.e., no reintroduction of slavery), but I should believe that something totally different (i.e., the reintroduction of slavery) would have occurred under similar circumstances in the second scenario? Now, I’m not even saying that such a purchasing agreement could have been reached in the first place. However, if it was reached, *why* should I believe that Southerners would have broken the agreement and illegally purchased new (I would assume, kidnapped) slaves?
The fact that it was illegal to import new slaves wouldn’t have stopped people from bringing in more slaves unless slavery was abolished in the southern states. The southern states didn’t want to abolish slavery. They wanted to expand it into the new territories.
If, as paul suggested, they just bought the slaves freedom and they hadn’t abolished slavery, there would be nothing to stop people from smuggling in more slaves just like they smuggle Mexicans in today.
It’s illegal for Mexicans to cross the border and come here. It’s illegal for people to smuggle Mexicans in. We have laws. But there are millions of them here. And until our gov gets serious about our laws we’re going to see more illegals smuggled in too. So do you really think there wouldn’t have been more slaves smuggled in when the south wouldn’t abolish slavery? When they wanted to expand it?
I saw a TV show, I don’t remember, 48hrs or something like that. It was about five or six years ago, maybe more I can’t remember. But I was shocked to find out that slavery was still being practiced in Africa.
Anyway they took some money and bought the freedom for a few of the slaves. All young girls if I remember right. Can’t remember what African state. But buying some of the slaves didn’t stop slavery there. And that was one of the sad points of the show. That slavery existed in today’s world. Or should I say in the world of five or six years ago, maybe more when I saw the show.