If the South had won the Civil War, would we still have slavery in America today? Why, or why not?

Answer 1

Slavery was not the issue of the War of Northern Aggression (a.k.a. Civil War) Until that idiot Lincoln decided he had to have a reason for the war. The Missouri Compromise and the Dread Scott Decision played a part but not because of slavery.

Slavery was already on the way out when the war began. The invention of the Cotton Gin and other equipment cut down on the amount of manual labor required. The South seceded from the Union for the same reason the original 13 colonies seceded from the UK; taxes and taxes without representation.

Because the South had a much larger tax base than the north and they were being taxed more and getting less. The south protested but could get nowhere with the Central government of the north. They were left no alternative but to secede or be taxed to death. When the south seceded the north was soon going into a depression. In effect Lincoln forced the South to fire upon Ft Sumter by installing additional arms and troops three times each time the south requested that the additional troops be removed but Lincoln put more in. The south considered this an act of war against the south and did what they said they would do. Fire!

Today there would most likely be no slavery left in the south because there are machines that do the entire farming process and does not require the vast manual labor that was required in the 1700's and 1800's. There would not be the back lash there today either if there had not been the carpetbaggers that came south and ruined the relationships that were between the blacks and the whites.

One thing most people also fail to realize, and that is slavery is very Biblical. There have been slaves for thousands of years and not all of them were black. Today, although there are still slaves in scattered parts of the world, it is not practical or necessary to have them.

I hope this answers your question...and those of you who may doubt what I have said, you can find all the information in writings by various authors. All you need do is look.

Answer 2

Slavery would have been rendered moot by Eli Whitney's cotton gin and the Cyrus McCormack's reaper. They could do the work of many slaves; required no food, shelter or clothing; never need medical care; could be repaired and reused year after year.

The personal issues of involuntary servitude would have been sorted out in time. The Emancipation Proclaimation offered opportunities for those who had been slaves to seek out their own life and jobs with the skills that had been imposed upon them or they could chose others for money.

As the industrial revolution occurred, the destruction of the South as a whole led to the wholesale relocation of many of those who had served masters. The plantation systems was rendered useless when the slaves could no longer be compelled by reason of force to serve the master. The masters were in no position to pay the workers and those who stayed behind to become sharecroppers were too poor to flee, both black and white.

There would have been an ignorant faction who still wanted to practice domination and force....oh, wait...we have them...they are the KKK and their ilk who still believe that God created some people who were lesser than them.
Monetary considerations would have forced an end to slavery in time.

on a personal note to mneil: color doesn't make a person lazy anymore than sitting in your garage makes you a Buick.

Personal character and willingness to do for one's own betterment has NO color.

Grow up.

Answer 3

no; the war was really about money. the south had agriculture income but the north had more income due to the manufacturing boom. so therefore during the war both regions had to spend money and the south didn't have any to support the agriculture so therefore there wasn't a need for slavery because nothing was growing.

Answer 4

I would say not.....the main reason for slavery was a source of labor. Slaves were actually expensive to purchase and maintain. I think with the invention of more modern time and labor saving devices, the use of slaves would have eventually ended. Thankfully, we didn't have to experience this alternate history.

Answer 5

I doubt it, as the rest of the world had (slowly)
forsaken it.

I really don't think the war would have ended
if the Union troops had surrendered. There
would be other countries, other battles ...

There was simply no way that the Southern
ideal could survive.

Answer 6

I really don't think so. A lot of the Southerners adored and appreciated the way the slaves were. In fact the a lot of the slaves were being freed by the Southerners, because they were grateful.

Answer 7

yeah u would still have slavery because the southerners were too lazy to get of their buts to do any work themselves and they had too much pride for their precious white skin

Answer 8

YOU NEED TO STUDY....
SOUTH COULD NOT HAVE WON THE WAR.
QUESTION IS MOOT.

SLAVERY DESTINED TO END REGARDLESS. DON'T YOU KNOW WHY?

ASK ELI WHITNEY
AND OTHER INVENTORS.

Answer 9

Not only would we still have it, we might, to this day, still have an underground railroad

Answer 10

i don't think that the fight would have stopped until the North won