2006-07-11 22:11:14 · 10 answers · asked by theWord 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes, white slavery. The african americans that were "bred" to produce more slaves would have eventually outnumbered the white race and would have turned the tables.
2006-07-11 22:16:16 · answer #1 · answered by Hillaryforpresident 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The South was close to doing away with Slavery in 1865.
Judah P. Benjamin began a dialogue in several Black Congregations trying to recruit blacks for the southern war effort and managed to form a regiment, but the War ended before the unit saw action. For more information focus on a Book titled April !865. The South did not have a prayer in winning after July 4th 1863 when Vicksburg fell, which was the first division in the South. Kirby Smith was the Military Governor of the Trans Missiissippi and the only ports available to the south that were open were in Mexico where most of the trade was able to bypass the Federal Blockade. Vicksburg was a vital link because it also had railroad access to the rest of the Confederacy.
2006-07-12 12:06:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, simply because of outside pressure from Europe, it would have removed their markets for trade, and etc, so while slavery would have officially been removed, I think it would have still been there in some other form, or we would have seen a view much like after the civil war in which blacks were 2nd class citizens, or, the north and south would have fought a few civil wars over various issues, so the slavery issue would have been second fiddle
2006-07-12 05:27:05 · answer #3 · answered by tiereon 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, even if the South would have won, there were too many people who thought the idea of slavery was a bad one.
2006-07-12 05:14:55 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The southern planters were finding slave holding economically unfeasible, especially with the advent of the cotton gin. They were stuck with the system too, having to maintain large numbers of people for what amounted to little return on their crop.
You'll note that Lincolns "emancipation" included only slaves in those states still in rebellion, not the federal states, not the occupied states. It came as a cynical political move ( late in the war) to keep the British from attacking from Canada.
Read: "Our Peculiar Institution" if its is still available. It was required university reading in the 70s.
2006-07-12 05:52:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey wake up and smell the smoke! The house is burning down on top of you! We are ALL slaves, we own nothing. Try not paying the taxes on your house, even if you paid off the bank, you lose the house. Try owning a car and not buying licence plates, or paying the insurance, our the taxes on the car, you lose it too. Don't pay your income taxes and you go to jail. You can't even run away like the slaves of old could. The gov will hunt you down no matter where you run to.
Face it we are ALL slaves and we just don't realize it! The gov has us running around like chickens with our heads cut off to keep us so busy we can't see the truth!
2006-07-12 07:43:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Slavery is not sustainable as a viable business model in today's American society.
2006-07-12 05:18:04 · answer #7 · answered by e1war 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it...it just might have taken a little longer. But in the minds of the Confederates, they weren't fighting FOR slavery, they were fighting AGAINST their rights being taken away by northern states.
2006-07-12 05:15:40 · answer #8 · answered by Crys H. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - but it would have survived for much longer.
2006-07-12 05:14:30 · answer #9 · answered by Shado 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2006-07-12 05:14:48 · answer #10 · answered by Wendy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋