Why would slavery "choke to death?"

Let's just say it isn't anything at all period - except humbug.

Let's have a discussion based on some actual facts instead.

Aboriginal is the correct term for original settlers of a land. Native American offends me immensely when used for original settlers as I am a Native American by virtue of having been born here.

Tell it to a Native American (which you're not).
 
I thin it may really depend on what group of natives you are talking to. If you are in Australia, aboriginal is more often seen. Here in the US its a mixture of both Native Americans/Indians. In Central America its often more complex. Generally if you aren't trying to be offensive, its pretty clear I feel to most people

As for the slavery topic... the greatest pro slavery intellectuals of the deep south continuously argued for its expansion. Most were afraid of continued population dynamics if slave populations grew without the land to utilize them efficiently. The fact that heavy overwork had largely drained the soils of Virginia and other parts of the upper south and that slavery was migrating south/west throughout the 19th century shows that slavery would not simply have shriveled up and died, but rather moved to different regions. Democrat efforts at the time to annex Cuba, the Yucatan, additional land in Mexico often had this goal in mind for a safety valve for Slavery. Take the case of Polk for example, he expanded the US significantly into Mexico - but couldn't take more of Mexico because of Northern opposition against the spread of slavery which enraged the South. If the CSA had became independent, you know they wouldn't have been satisfied with the limited land conquest of Polk - and would have ended up annexing Cuba, the Yucatan, most of Mexico, etc. In Texas's constitution following annexation, direct mentions to the spread of slavery were made - with even a provision being slipped in, to potentially split Texas into four different states to give slavery more representation and opportunity to spread.

Slavery wasn't dying - but southern slaveholders feared the North's growing backbone against it. Northern reaction was inevitable due to poor southern politics, but slavery in the US if played all over again probably would still only choke to death on the barrel of a civil war rifle.
 
Economically speaking, slavery was a dinosaur. It kept the South agrarian, while the North was rapidly industrializing. Ultimately, there was no need for slavery to die at the end of a barrel, but the South chose that path - misguidedly, as it turned out.

Happy to.

Be my guest. I hear there are still a few left.
 
Economically speaking, slavery was a dinosaur. It kept the South agrarian, while the North was rapidly industrializing. Ultimately, there was no need for slavery to die at the end of a barrel, but the South chose that path - misguidedly, as it turned out.

Are you saying that we should get rid of everything agrarian? Is cheap immigrant labor still keeping the US agrarian? Do we need more protection from such agrarian encroachment on our society? I am not sure how slavery is a worse economic condition than paying people to merely exist. I am not saying that forcing people to work gives them their self worth, but even though slaves got the short end of the stick, they still contributed a lot to the economical well being of the country because they were working. It was definitely not an economic dinosaur. It was definitely a human rights issue. There was no doubt that eventually slaves would have been replaced by more efficient technological advances, we are currently contemplating the replacement of all human labor with technological means. I don't think that slaves would have slowed down that progress. Slave owners still had to feed and clothe their slaves. I daresay that did not change drastically with the upkeep and maintenance on the machinery that may have replaced them.


Does being born in the US qualify one as being a native?
 
Are you saying that we should get rid of everything agrarian? Is cheap immigrant labor still keeping the US agrarian?

Very false comparison. It's economic conditions that attract cheap labour. There were no economic conditions to keep slavery legal. The South did not economically collapse because of its abolition.

Does being born in the US qualify one as being a native?

There's a difference between being native and being Native American. Or being a native American and being a Native American. If Native Americans agree with the term, I don't see a problem.

And I don't believe a native American (read: U.S. citizen) being 'offended' by it.
 
Words and labels aren't created according to logical thought. Unfortunately.
 
Top Bottom