Abolition of human slavery

[brimstoneSalad]

So, this was an interesting point from another thread, and I thought it might be a good discussion.

Any political/economic history buffs here? What are your thoughts on abolition as it occurred?

And while we can't go back in time, what do you imagine the effects of "new welfare" practices might have been, if that approach had been taken towards gradual emancipation?

[TheVeganAtheist]

Id say it be near impossible to hypothesis what would have happened had things been different.

[wmct0]

Abolish Slavery fights human trafficking at home and abroad by combating human trafficking & restoring dignity to victims of modern day slavery
.

[brimstoneSalad]

Abolish Slavery fights human trafficking at home and abroad by combating human trafficking & restoring dignity to victims of modern day slavery
.

Hi wmct0, are you a person or a bot?

[PsYcHo]

And while we can't go back in time, what do you imagine the effects of "new welfare" practices might have been, if that approach had been taken towards gradual emancipation?

Tricky question, as applying "new welfare" practices would have required a substantial tax to be levied on the existing middle and upper classes at the time. They couldn't even provide "forty acres and a mule", so providing even a close substitute to modern welfare would likely have been impossible, and even if they managed it, the economic repercussions at the time could have led to Civil War 2.

[Red]

So, this was an interesting point from another thread, and I thought it might be a good discussion.

Any political/economic history buffs here? What are your thoughts on abolition as it occurred?

And while we can't go back in time, what do you imagine the effects of "new welfare" practices might have been, if that approach had been taken towards gradual emancipation?

Abolition, at least in the United States, was a mix of good and bad. The positive long term effects (permanently ending slavery) far outweighed the negative short term effects (rise of KKK).

The U.S. government of the day tried to ease the issue of slavery by just coming to a bunch of compromises instead of actually making a bold decision (Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas Nebraska Act) because it was quite literally splitting the Union in two. They had to have an equal amount of slave states and free states mainly just to keep a balance in Congress.

The Missouri Compromise (1820) was the most successful I think, and it proclaimed that slavery was not allowed about the 36 30 parallel (excluding Missouri), and lasted until after the Mexican American War when America acquired the Mexican Cession, which meant more land to worry about.

The Compromise of 1850 admitted California as a Free state, and made stricter Fugitive Slave Laws, which didn't really make anyone happy. They put off everything else by making the rest of the acquired land into territories to let future generations worry about it. Obviously, this Compromise didn't really please anyone, and just increased tensions.

Now the Kansas Nebraska Act proposed Popular Sovereignty, which means that the states can decide on whether they can have slavery or not. However, all it did was just make a lot of pro and anti slavery advocates flood into the states and started killing each other in order to ensure that the state would become whatever territory they believed it should. It caused about 70 deaths, and has come to be known as Bleeding Kansas. It ended up being free territory, but it didn't really work in the long term.

Then the final nail in the coffin was when the Supreme Court made the Dred Scott decision, which stated that slavery was not to be banned in the territories, which just made things worse, and caused more violence in the territories.

4 years later when Abraham Lincoln was elected, the pro slavery south seceded then we get the Civil War, and everyone knows how that turned out.

With the ratification of the 13th amendment, slavery was abolished, and the next thing to do was to give equal rights to African Americans. Lincoln wanted to do that, and so did much of Congress, but Lincoln was assassinated and was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, possibly the worst president for such an era due to his white supremacy. While Congress overrode his vetoes on bills that granted African Americans equal rights, Johnson blocked some of their bills, and he was against the 14th amendment.

However, Ulysses S. Grant was later elected President and signed Civil Rights bills and also ratified the 15th amendment.

But there was also another thing happening; the KKK, which actively tried to kill freedmen and tried to oppress them as much as possible, and when the south gained back power when Reconstruction was disbanded, Democrats were back in control of the governments, and actively oppressed the freedmen.

Make of all that as you will.

[EquALLity]

So, this was an interesting point from another thread, and I thought it might be a good discussion.

Any political/economic history buffs here? What are your thoughts on abolition as it occurred?

And while we can't go back in time, what do you imagine the effects of "new welfare" practices might have been, if that approach had been taken towards gradual emancipation?

Abolition, at least in the United States, was a mix of good and bad. The positive long term effects (permanently ending slavery) far outweighed the negative short term effects (rise of KKK).

The U.S. government of the day tried to ease the issue of slavery by just coming to a bunch of compromises instead of actually making a bold decision (Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas Nebraska Act) because it was quite literally splitting the Union in two. They had to have an equal amount of slave states and free states mainly just to keep a balance in Congress.

The Missouri Compromise (1820) was the most successful I think, and it proclaimed that slavery was not allowed about the 36 30 parallel (excluding Missouri), and lasted until after the Mexican American War when America acquired the Mexican Cession, which meant more land to worry about.

The Compromise of 1850 admitted California as a Free state, and made stricter Fugitive Slave Laws, which didn't really make anyone happy. They put off everything else by making the rest of the acquired land into territories to let future generations worry about it. Obviously, this Compromise didn't really please anyone, and just increased tensions.

Now the Kansas Nebraska Act proposed Popular Sovereignty, which means that the states can decide on whether they can have slavery or not. However, all it did was just make a lot of pro and anti slavery advocates flood into the states and started killing each other in order to ensure that the state would become whatever territory they believed it should. It caused about 70 deaths, and has come to be known as Bleeding Kansas. It ended up being free territory, but it didn't really work in the long term.

Then the final nail in the coffin was when the Supreme Court made the Dred Scott decision, which stated that slavery was not to be banned in the territories, which just made things worse, and caused more violence in the territories.

4 years later when Abraham Lincoln was elected, the pro slavery south seceded then we get the Civil War, and everyone knows how that turned out.

With the ratification of the 13th amendment, slavery was abolished, and the next thing to do was to give equal rights to African Americans. Lincoln wanted to do that, and so did much of Congress, but Lincoln was assassinated and was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, possibly the worst president for such an era due to his white supremacy. While Congress overrode his vetoes on bills that granted African Americans equal rights, Johnson blocked some of their bills, and he was against the 14th amendment.

However, Ulysses S. Grant was later elected President and signed Civil Rights bills and also ratified the 15th amendment.

But there was also another thing happening; the KKK, which actively tried to kill freedmen and tried to oppress them as much as possible, and when the south gained back power when Reconstruction was disbanded, Democrats were back in control of the governments, and actively oppressed the freedmen.

Make of all that as you will.

Ah, APUSH.

I think the failure of the compromises shows that slavery wouldn't have been abolished peacefully if we had attempted to ease into it more. There was no way to peacefully ease into completely overhauling the southern economic system, social hierarchy, and political power (the 3/5ths compromise gave the south more political power, another reason they wanted to maintain slavery).
After all, the south seceded despite Lincoln promising that slavery could be maintained in areas in which it already existed.

Similarly, in Brown vs. Board of Ed, the Supreme Court gave the south "deliberate speed" to integrate their schools, meaning that integration would be a gradual process so the south would peacefully accept it. Instead, the south made no attempt to integrate for over a decade, and Prince Edward County closed all its schools so that they wouldn't need to be integrated. When "deliberate speed" was done with and the south was required to immediately integrate, the south retaliated by creating private schools so they could maintain segregation.

The south never would have peacefully eased into ending slavery, making the Civil War, unfortunately, inevitable.

[Dsalles]

BrimstoneSalad, I do not know what New Welfare is or what it has to do with slavery, can you elaborate?

This is a map I found on Reddit of countries in the Americas and when they legally abolished, it seems to check out. As far as I know, the US South is the only region that fought a war to keep slavery legal. Brazil was the only monarchy, and the last to abolish.
https://i.redditmedia.com/2yBIBqqc415cl ... 005cb13749

[Jebus]

Slavery, in my country, was even more horrific than in the U.S. Because we are so close to Madagascar, slaves were considered expendable. It was simply easier to kill a sick slave and replace him with a new one than to offer him medical treatment. It was also cheaper to kill and replace an underperfoming slave.

Fortunately, slavery was abolished by the British government in the 1830s. As in almost all cases, there was no need for a war.

[brimstoneSalad]

@Dsalles New welfare is about improving welfare standards until animal agriculture can eventually be phased out.