Was there any way for the US to both abolish slavery and preserve the Union WITHOUT conducting the bloodiest war in all...

Was there any way for the US to both abolish slavery and preserve the Union WITHOUT conducting the bloodiest war in all of American history?

literally what lincoln was doing until the carolinas chimped out and went their own way.

No. It was too embedded in Southern culture and social structure for them to give up peacefully. And it's not like they didn't have time- the areas containing 75% of the free US population had already abolished slavery and the slave trade by 1803, meanwhile the Southern states not only made zero progress in the sixty years between then and the civil war, but significantly expanded slavery and attempted to create more slave states.

Ship the slaves to Africa, pay southern aristocracy for their loss.

>pay criminals for their crimes against humanity

Kek

>Hey I'll pay you X dollars for that slave's freedom.
>"No."
What now, genius?

>carolinas

North Carolina was one of the last states to leave and half the state was controlled by Unionist guerrillas

It would have petered out in a decade or two anyways as it became less and less economically beneficial
t. antifa

>i'll pay you even more money and rig a local election for you for that slave

>crimes against humanity
kek, no such thing senpai

Imagine being this ignorant of your own country's history

This. Southerners are just too backwards and they still are today. Honestly we should just let them secede now. It’s fustrating seeing progress in our country stifled by a bunch of inbreds.

this. Atlanta was a legitimate target of war. Same as dresden.

Plantations would have gone out with time
Slavery would not
I don't know about you but id rather have work slaves in my factory over some guy who would want pay

I don't think industrial slavery would work. That would require a decent amount of training and education and it doesn't seem like slaves would get there without massive economic and societal changes.

It's what the British Empire did, and it worked very well. Ended slavery throughout the whole Empire, which was basically the whole world.

So that idea essentially ended slavery in the whole world, by setting it up as a moral taboo, whereas it was essentially accepted everywhere in almost all cultures before.

Guess you shouldn't be so dismissive of ideas when you're just some faggot typing your insignificant opinions on an online Australian Barbecue Forum.

what is eminent domain?

Sure. Each side could have nominated a champion for a fight to the death.

Are you ever going to become interested in real history?

>here's a finite amount of money
>now let me just remove the driving force behind your economy...

buy all the slaves from the holders

not to mention that you dont want slaves haveing those things

tbf during the Civil War, there were indeed factories and ironworks manned entirely by slaves during the crash-industrialization drive prompted by the conflict.

>labor scarcity
>wages increase to entice workers
>mass immigration from Europe and the Northern states "whitens" the southern population and erodes the old social structures
>???
>profit
fuck your feudal land barons desu

Lincoln campaigned on compensatory emancipation for years. The Southerners weren't buying what he was selling.

Only way is for the Founding Fathers to have addressed the problem at the formation of the country. The Constitution formalized certain processes that made Civil War inevitable. They all knew it would be a problem in the future, but they could not agree on one solution to it and because they could not agree to a solution to it, they condemned the far future generations to die for it.

Nonsense, the cotton gin made slavery insanely profitable and cotton was (and still is) one of the world's most coveted cash crops.

The cause of another civil war.

>pay southern aristocracy for their loss.

The irony is that Lincoln was in favor of compensatory abolition, so this might have actually happened if the Southern plantionists hadn't chimped out.

Maybe because they knew temporary profit wasn’t worth the destruction of their way of life and the guarantee of their children’s well being

>pay criminals for their crimes against humanity
Melodramatic much? It's not like they had international laws that are only relevant when powerful countries want to invade others back then, like we do now.
This is an interesting concept, especially in hindsight. How much were slaves worth to your typical large plantation owner?

First off, crimes against humanity don't exist, especially not in the 1800s.
Second, that's what every single other country did to abolish slavery. British did it to great success.

But not the wellbeing of other children.
Nigga just build machines

The cotton gin doesn't get invented.

1833 Slavery Abolition Act by the Brits costed 5% of their Empires' GDP just to pay off 800,000-900,000 slaves scattered throughout the empire, where the type of government and force they had allowed them to do that and stop any violent dissidents. The US in comparison had 4 million slaves, no subjected lands that they could exploit as tax sources, and the entire South was mostly one big concentrated and dense mess of cohesive plantation owners who were also the political elites of their States and were long accustomed to little centralized authority overruling them on anything.

>could have got a lucrative deal and gotten compensation for their loss like everyone else in the world
>chimp out and get nothing

Good job south