Was there any realistic way to end slavery in America (and keep all states in the Union) without the need to kill 600...

Most Russians live in Europe.

Exactly no Americans besides expats and soldiers live in Europe.

Actually Britain made a point of rembursing slave owners for the amount their slaves were worth, the civil war wasn't fought over slavery but the extent of control the government had. Lincoln himself wasn't anti-slave and he hadn't thought of the emancipation proclamation until morale support for the war in the north was draining.

The abrupt intention to end the slavery that ended triggering the American Civil War was an obvious machination from the Northern States to undermine the Southern States wealth and influence on the nation, whose economy was based on all kind of agrarian production while the north was based on the typical industrial age wage-slavery, you know, things like employing kids on furnaces and industries based on coal combustion engines who would come to die at their late 20's of lung cancer and related diseases, very modern and progressive and not exploitative at all. Anyway, if the North/Government had just planned a slow-paced and economy-wise/adjusted end of the slavery and didn't interfere so much with the states sovereignty the war would have never happened.

In lots of Northern states it was gradually phased out, but we didn't have a lot of slaves to begin with so it wasn't that hard. For a long time in my state of Connecticut slavery was still legal but slaves had to be released at 25 years of age and given some shit to get started on life. which actually resulted in a lot of young whites (for whom the age limit was 21) going into slavery for several years to get a start on life.

For the South....probably would include cutting off imports of new slaves and encouraging resettlement of freedmen to Liberia.

The Norths pressure on the south began when Great Britiam decided that they weren't going to buy textiles from the North, that got they're Cotton from slave cultivated fields. Especially when India was just starting to pick up cotton production

Kill Eli Whitney before he invents the cotton gin
European economies didn't rely on slavery as much as the Southern US did.

What does this even mean? Just because they share the same skin color does not mean that they share the exact same values and attitudes to the exact same degree. Shit, even whites within America at that time had varying cultural attitudes, which is displayed clearly with the south and the north.

Brazil abolished slavery 20 years after the US

completely different thing user. Europeans went to war over kings giving up more power to the lower lords and shit all the fucking time.

That doesn't change the fact that every single other country banished slavery without civil war

Please do some actual research before posting.

Yes, due to the pace of technological change in the late 19th century the system would have eventually ended on its own accord in ~20 years as it did in Brazil and elsewhere. One only needed to look to the North and Great Britain to speculate about the changes that would take place in the South.

The main reason the north was fighting was not slavery, it was to dismantle the constitutional right to nullify laws.

Yeah, peaceably.

That's just a version of the slippery slope fallacy.

slavery wasnt that important to them. What part of this arent you understanding?

Europe literally caused the two biggest wars ever back to back over inane royal family squabbles and political bickering, wow so much more enlightened!

Being literally the last nation in the western world to abolish slavery is nothing to be proud of

No, the southern and northern economies were fundamentally incompatible

>the civil war wasn't fought over slavery but the extent of control the government had.
Yeah the war wasn't fought over slavery it was fought over the level of governments power...primarily it's power to ban slavery.

The Spanish Latin American republics did it around 1810.

Revolution a la Haiti?

>Haiti Revolution
>1791-1804
>350,000+ killed

Almost just as bad as a civil war

It was mostly "libertad de vientres" (no child could be born into slavery). Most black men went into the army which was basically slavery to the state, so in reality ended around 1880-90

Brazil didn't abolish slavery until 1888.

Most

Not most, all of the western world had abolished slavery before Brazil

Brazil was the last country in the Western world to abolish slavery.

and no one ever acknowledges that 40% of African slaves taken to the west destined for Brazil

What is also ignored. European colonialism created enormous wealth all on the back of the indigenous populations of the subjugated countries. Don't need institutionalized slavery when you administer huge swaths of Asia and Africa

>he thinks colonialism is ignored
Uh what? People don't ever shut up about how evil European aristocrats raped Africa.

It always takes a back seat to black folks plight in the US

to not bring them in the first place

>it's a "jamal read on the sub-saharan african equivalent of stormfront about how we wuz creatin wealth n shit for the whiteys" episode

explain how 8/10 of the top 10 HDI countries didn't have any colonies, or provide some actual reputable sources about the exact amount of wealth that was created from slaves

Allow the south to secede. Pressure them diplomatically into abolishing slavery.

That might have worked had the South not subsequently attacked United States territory ceded to the Federal Government nearly three decades ago.

Other countries abolished slavery as a result of the major socioeconomic changes taking place during the industrial revolution, the same changes taking place in the South and even Brazil despite it being far poorer. You can find many causal links on google like the rising price of slaves, the rise of a middle class and political liberalization.

How the fuck is directly stating causal links a slippery slope fallacy? I think it is obvious you are mad at me for using facts and logic instead of tugging some political biased mainstream view.

If you don't like the truth fuck off back to your reddit hugbox.

>The main reason the north was fighting was not slavery,
It sure was the South's reason though.

for many it was. a good field worker cost between 600 and 1500 dollars and quite an investment. A legal investment. 600 is close to 13k today so if you were a small farmer and had 7 or 8 slaves freeing them would make quite a financial dent. The federal government wanted to take with no plan to compensate the losses or even make assurances cheap labor could be had. Had the federal government worked on a gradual plan to subsidize the farmers that relied on slaves and make whole the loss incurred by losing their property there could have been a way out.

>The federal government wanted to take with no plan to compensate the losses or even make assurances cheap labor could be had.
The Federal Government hadn't even said that they were going to abolish slavery, nevermind discuss compensation when the South seceded. South Carolina decided it wanted out from the moment Lincoln was elected, even as he offered to preserve slavery if it were to preserve the Union.

I offer a starting point and another perspective based on OP's question not an argument on the cause of the war.

The reality with the abolition of slavery and their freedom for many was a financial not a moral issue. Not a defense of slavery but have read last will and testaments of my ancestors, not large landholders with 100's or thousands of slaves but a dozen and even the unborn offspring and future offspring of a particular female was bequeathed to family members, this was in 1809.

French colony Haiti

But if it was a financial issue for many there is scant evidence to indicate that anything close to the majority of slaveowners were willing to negotiate financial restitution for manumission, or that the existence of the institution of slavery was at all negotiable.

Moreover, the exact issue of financial restitution was offered by Lincoln in 1861 to the Southern States and Delaware (and, indeed, instated in Washington DC), and the Southern States were unwilling to accept compensated manumission. For a populace that you argue was primarily concerned with the financial consequences, the South's lack of receptiveness indicates that financial loss was not the main concern on their minds.

I am relating one historical slave holding family's perspective. I am well aware many would have never considered financial compensation hearing the passed down emotional lament of losing the right to own another human on my mothers side and the fiscal lament from my fathers of losing everything because a proclamation made and an idiotic war was lost. There was a lot invested in the means of production and a feudal pecking order with african slaves at bottom but perhaps, not for the southern politicians or rabble rousers in both camps, a financial case could have been made.

Wait about 40 years for it to become obsolete.

Also,
>the civil war was over slavery
>the Iraq war was about WMD's and democracy/freedom
Maybe on tv / movies but the point of open discussion on this board is to investigate and dispel these things which aren't real. "The Civil War was over slavery" is a pop-his meme.

The Civil War was actually something like a supreme court case which spiraled wildly out of control, and was a long time coming. It was over the precedent "are states or federal authority the ultimate law of the land?"

Brazil abolished slavery at the cost of the empire and the butt cheeks of the ruling elite. The only thing of value lost was Pedro ll. Amerishits need to be civilized. Having racial protests shutting whole cities down in TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN (2016) is completely stupid.
>RUHURHURHRUR TUBLRNINA ARRRRRRRRGH GET OUT O FMY ECHO BOX

>racial protests
these aren't racial protest but go get some shit for free and burn the rest days

>>the civil war was over slavery
It was. Do we have to school you again?

First of all, by citing trends in the western world and correlating them with the abolition of slavery in the southern united states, you are not establishing direct casual links. That's just nonsense.

Second, no amount of emotion will change the fact that you're arguing that a general trend in the western world towards abolition would have made the abolition of slavery in the south certain. That's a slippery slope.

In fact, the civil war was a reaction against the trend of abolition and an attempt to defend a way of life in the face industrialization and economic liberalization. It's foolish to presume that history marches toward the beat of progress.

>calling informal fallacies out
Hello poltard
>inb4 reeee rearhrhghgh tumblrina!!!1111111!
Also, brazil wasn't THAT poor at the time. From the colonization to 1945 they've ALWAYS were on some crazy economic bubble that made major dosh. They abolished it just wasn't profitable anymore, humanitarian concerns and "for british eyes" as they say there.

Here you can read the timeline of the Abolition of Slavery

Most European and Western Hemisphere Nations outlawed outright slavery within a couple of decades of each other

Haiti in 1804 was on of the first in the WH, South America stepped up pretty quickly even Mexico stopped the practice 30 years before the US

Lots of European countries like to Pat themselves on the back, most banned the importation, the owning of slaves in territories or owning of certain people's (Chinese in Portugal)

Changes pretty much took hold in the 19th century, all over

Interestingly Africa and the Middle East were holdouts well into the 20th and in the case of several African Nations until the 21st century

Forgot the link:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

drive up northern conciousness by making all new states slave states, switch national focus to liberal loyalty, if you're lucky yankee conciousness will be high enough for you to pass the abolish slavery reform before the slavery debate triggers.

If the Haitian Revolution hadn't ended in literal white genocide and Nat Turner's revolt hadn't occurred maybe.

Both of those undermined abolitionism in the South and led to the strengthening of proslavery sentiment.

Virginia, the industrial heart of the South actually failed a referendum to end slavery in the 1850s by a single vote.

>literal French genocide

FTFY

remember, Brits took part in the rebellion too

>increase the number of proslavey congressmen by making new slave states
>Pass abolition bills

Are you actually retarded?

the South seceded over slavery, the North declared war to preserve the union

Poles were spared, Germans were spared, anyone who wasn't French was spared.

They banned in in their nation but colonies it still was allowed or other forms of not slavery but coerced and abusive labour practices which were acceptable because "at least it isn't slavery so it's A-Okay!".

When compared to slavery it was quite better desu

Realistic? No

Southern slave-owners would demand full compensation for all the property they would lose - which the North was not down to pay

There's also the whole demographic issue. The solution there? Send them back to Africa, which utterly failed on every count

The invention of the tractor around 1900 would have put the slaves out of business.

The north didn't need slaves they had an endless supply of immigrants to take advantage of.

Wait it out til the machines were more cost effective over slave labor.

About 1910ish slavery would've been all but eradicated.

Still really very shitty.

Which were slaves in everything but name.

Lincoln was the writing on the wall. As time went on the slave states were going to find themselves outnumbered in the Senate. They struck while they thought they still had a chance.

Still really very shitty and very restrictive on people along with the logic behind it being pretty flimsy and nonsensical.

Nah Uzbekistan still uses citizens forced to pick cotton. If there is a culture that supports slavery, forced labour or very shitty care for workers then it won't change at all or it will take a very long time to do so.

"The civil war was not over slavery" is literally a revisionist meme.

No, but Paradox interactive is.

You're assuming they wouldn't have slaves drive the tractors and retool them towards other tasks. There's plenty an automaton as smart as a human can do for the its master.

Not to mention that urbanization made humans utterly dependent on others for their primary needs to be met, making them, "wage slaves" as it's called and the horrors of industrialization as viewed by the South made whites in the North seem like human cattle, not exactly the way of life the dreamed of.

>ok guys it's been cool but we're out, we obviously have irreconcilable differences
>north proceeds to violently bring the south back into the union

How are Yankees any better than wifebeaters?

>Says the literal slave-whipper

More like
>ok guys it's been cool but we're out, we obviously have irreconcilable differences
>oh by the way we're also unilaterally revoking the treaty we made with you thirty years ago and invading the fort built with your money on land we gave you.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices today than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling.

DO IT AGAIN SHERMAN

2 cents has been added to your account

>And you are lynching negroes!

>the south wants war, look how close their bases are to us

>the south wants war, look how close their bases are to us
Ah yes, I forgot that it was the walls of Fort Sumter that started hostilities by assaulting the Charleston Militia's cannonballs.

>And you are lynching negroes!

Nigga, it isn't a tu quoque fallacy if you're talking about the bad thing in the first place.

>stop eating babies
>god, you're just saying that because I eat all those babies red herring harder faggot

Reminder again: The land belonged to the state of Massachusetts.

At least the south wasn't hypocritical.

>build country on secession from Britain
>forbid states from seceding

Devilish

So do you think the Cuban missile crisis was unjustified?

>2 cents has been added to your account

Oh lawd, that is some delicious butthurt.

>'my gosh, those white men in the northern cities seem like human cattle!'
>meanwhile blacks in the south are literally human cattle

The cognitive dissonance of neo-confederate revisionists is hilarious. At least the actual slave owners at the time had the decency to at least be honest and say their system was justifiable because blacks were an inferior race who were supposed to be slaves. Which was wrong of course but at least those slave owning cunts meant what they said

It's also weird because the South wasn't some buccolic agrarian state. It was the 4th largest industrial power in the world.

>So do you think the Cuban missile crisis was unjustified?
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a naval blockade of Cuba, and a standoff between Soviet and American forces that was resolved with negotiations. I think the result was satisfactory to both parties and a good example of what to do in the situation.

In the case of Fort Sumter, the Confederacy decided unilaterally to break the standoff through military action and the occupation of United States territory instead of resorting to diplomatic channels. If this had happened in the cuban missile crisis there would have been a nuclear war, and we would not have the luxury to wonder whether it was justified. But had the United States launched an open military invasion of Cuba, I believe that Cuba would have been justified in using whatever means it had available to defend itself.

So yes, I think the Cuban Missile Crisis is a perfect example of what the Confederacy didn't do, and how it fucked up.

Sumter was the pretext the North wanted.

>fire on Sumter
>immediately declare war to reunify the country

Kind of a flimsy pretext don't you think? When the British refused to leave their forts after the revolution we didn't try to annex GB.

>get called out on being a self loathing cuck
>b-butthurt

>Sumter was the pretext the North wanted.
>Pearl Harbor was the pretext that the United States wanted
Here's a hint: if you don't want to give another nation a pretext to fight a war with you, don't fucking attack its territory. This is not and should not be an alien concept to you.
>When the British refused to leave their forts after the revolution we didn't try to annex GB.
We did, actually, we tried to invade Canada, and if we had a navy capable of doing so we probably would have tried to do the same in the Bahamas.

>When the British refused to leave their forts after the revolution we didn't try to annex GB.
When the US refused to leave their forts after secession the Confederacy tried to annex Fort Sumter, so by your own argument the South started the war on a flimsy pretext.

>Kind of a flimsy pretext don't you think?

Not really. Attacking a military base is a sure-fire way to start a war.

Oh boo hoo the buds are sticky and it's a bit hot today. The world isn't all ice cream and rainbows, forcing people to be good people is not wrong, it is the only way things can work.

Probably would have become an obsolete method of production in time, I reckon.

Hell no, the civil war was completely necessary for us as a country. And the fact that we got it out of the way so early in our history is the only reason we are still a super power instead of dark world Russia

>self loathing

Nigga, one nation under god, with liberty and justice for all.

That's who I am. That's my people. That's what I'm loyal to.

If you want to destroy that, so that you can feel safe from niggers, then you aren't my countryman, and you aren't my nigga.

>implying a nigga can be yours