«12. . .21,93621,93721,93821,93921,94021,94121,942. . .24,40624,407»
Slavery would have died not long after the war, Kentucky, Tennessee, N. Carolina and Virginia were already looking for a way out of the peculiar institution, probably would have done something like Brazil did. As far as one country instead of at least 4, you are right, without a united United States, Germany would have probably won WW1.
nation=athara_magarat/detail=factbook/id=1159862
One thing I realized, my capital is so bland that I forgot what I was gonna write for the rest...
All of the states had small anti slavery movements, but the south relied on slavery in its economy. It would have survived a lot longer than a few years or even decades.
Of course you have to understand, I had three great-grandfathers fight for the Confederacy and was taught since before I could walk the South was right, I was 13 before I learned that damnyankee was two words. I was in fifth grade before integration of the schools, when the tv went off the air at midnight, the channels played the national anthem and then Dixie. CBS had a show called the Gray Ghost about Mosby and his raiders as heroes, Gone With the Wind was an annual tradition, I grew up in a world you could understand and lots of time I知 confused about this one.
Which is better
A Carolina bbq
B Texas bbq
C Kansas City bbq
I like c
I'm sorry to hear that. I too grew up in a near cultish environment
Slavery was quickly becoming uneconomical, with the end of the slave trade, the price of slaves had increased 10 fold, field hands were costing 200 to 300 dollars apiece, a house servant or a trained one could cost thousands of dollars. The governor of Virginia wanted to put a luxury tax on slaves. Brazil was also a slave society, but they let the plantation owners not pay taxes in any year they freed 10% of their slaves, in fact most Brazilian plantations were slave free within 5 years, without bankrupting the population. It was more economical for a northern factory owner forcing his workers into economic slavery, then it was for a Southern plantation owner to maintain a legal slave force.
Just because you grew up with something doesn't mean it is correct.
I知 happy with my childhood and make no apologies. I am who I am today do to growth and understanding, plus I see the follies of modern history, my mother had a black nanny, her family had close to a hundred share croppers living on the pecan plantation my grandfather owned, they all gathered on the front lawn in the evening to listen to the radio, my mother and her siblings grew up playing with the other kids, there was not near the animosity that the history books would make you believe. Some of the older sharecroppers were born slaves or were the children of slaves, and most worked for my grandfather because he took care of them and paid them well. I remember playing in some of the quarters were the sharecroppers lived, they were all nice little apartments. Racial problems are much worst today then they were 50 years ago.
I know, but without those things that happened before the country or individual would not be who they are. We have to know the bad as well as the good.
I知 a yankee through and though but I still wouldn稚 call the confederacy evil, it was just a product of its time and if the north was more suited to cash crops we壇 be singing Dixie songs and would call the free spoilers evil
#jayhawkers
50 years ago black people were being killed, beaten and hosed in the streets. I think you have rose tinted glasses. Just because sharecroppers and some slaves were treated well does not mean that the position many were forced into was right or beneficial.
As a resident of Memphis Tennessee, where its 76 percent black, where MLK was killed, and race riots forced my fire fighter grandfather to carry an M-1 on his back, I highly doubt racial tensions are worse today than then.
Y誕ll need some joes of Kansas City
ah, a man of culture
so is everything lol
I'd go more with the 1900s. Brazil was compelled to give it up mostly because it was the last big nation to allow it. The international pressure was immense. The thing is, slavery was profitable. I strongly recommend The Half Has Never Been Told by Edward Baptist if you want to read more about the economics of it. What would most likely happen is a hardening around the institution for several decades, as people would not be willing to give up the thing that they had fought and died for. On the other hand, the idea of slavery as a bad thing that should be gotten rid of eventually, when it's safe, would start to come back into vogue. The intensity of the arguments over slavery, and the fact that it was profitable, were the main reasons that the idea fell out of fashion in the first place. You know how people in the middle of an argument double down on their position, even when they're losing? That's basically what was happening, IMHO. Without an enemy to fight against, the physiological block on thinking about eventual abolition would go away. They'd start looking for an economic excuse to get rid of it in most of the states, although the deep south and South Carolina would probably resist for awhile. My guess is that the final straw would be the mechanical cotton picker, eliminating the big agricultural need for labor in the deep south, which is where slavery was strong at that point. So around the 1910s. It might coincide with WW1. I'd also guess colonization would be the preferable path, although a number of former slaves would still want to stay.
KC BBQ is too sweet usually
She wanna meet Carti
That b*tch is a Baddie
Just to inform you guys.
I am back to doing my thing again :P
«12. . .21,93621,93721,93821,93921,94021,94121,942. . .24,40624,407»
Advertisement
