patrick.net

Granted, my above post is not to imply that all southerns are evil fuckbags, just that the large swaths of them who whitewash history and continue to dehumanize and oppress people are. Unfortunately, this is a large percentage of the population and such racism is a cornerstone of their evil and vile culture.

Still, in any culture, no matter how evil, there are individuals who buck the trends.

control point says

indigenous says

No it wasn't it was because Lincoln doubled the tariffs on the south

I'm curious about this one. Did you just make it up?

By history, Lincoln was inagurated March 4, 1861.

South Carolina seceded December 20, 1860. Mississippi January 9, 1861. Florida January 10, 1861. Alabama January 11, 1861. Georgia January 19, 1861. Louisanna January 26, 1861. Texas February 1, 1861.

So how did Lincoln doubling tariffs, (which did not happen, btw, the Morrill Tariff was signed by Buchanon before Lincoln took office) cause the South to secede?

Oh and by the way, the Morrill tariff was enacted on March 2, 1861. Again after the above 7 states left the Union, and after the Rebels fired on the Star of the West.

This excerpt from this article:

http://mises.org/daily/1168

The anticipation surrounding the new movie "Gods and Generals," which opens today, underscores the continuing fascination that Americans (and the world) have with the meaning of the Civil War. It also reflects a growing awareness that the simple story of Northern liberators versus Southern slaveholders fails to do justice to the truth. But what continues to be missed are the economic roots of the North-South conflict—roots which represent deviations from the free-trade ideal.

In a May 10, 2002 article on mises.org ("Lincoln's Tariff War") I elaborated on the argument in my book, The Real Lincoln, that the tariff was a far more important cause of the War between the States than most historians and economists admit. Charles Adams also makes a very powerful case for the importance of the tariff in precipitating the war in his book, When in the Course of Human Events. Professors Robert A. McGuire of the University of Akron and T. Norman Van Cott of Ball State University provided additional support for this argument in a July 2002 article in Economic Inquiry, one of the top peer-reviewed economics journals ("The Confederate Constitution, Tariffs, and the Laffer Relationship").

These authors note, as I do in my book, that the Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether. Article I, Section 8 allows for the collection of "taxes, duties, imposts and excises" but only "for revenue necessary" to finance the government and not to protect any business or industry from international competition. "Nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry . . ."

The actual tariff rates that were put into effect by the Confederate government averaged 13.3 percent, with dozens of commodities exempt altogether. This was lower than the 15 percent average tariff rate of 1857 that Frank Taussig said, in his Tariff History of the United States [FULL TEXT] was the closest to the free-trade ideal ever accomplished by the United States during the nineteenth century. (Taussig was speaking of the U.S. government's tariff rates; the Confederate government's tariff policy was in reality the high water mark of free-trade policy in the nineteenth century.)

In sharp contrast, when the Republican Party gained power in the late 1850s the top item on its agenda was to increase the average tariff rate from 15% to 32% and then to over 47%. The Republican Party would dominate national politics in America until World War I, and the average tariff rate would remain at about that level all during that time.

Abraham Lincoln was a lifelong protectionist and owed his nomination at the 1860 Republican Party convention to the fact that he won the support of the Pennsylvania and New York delegations (the two largest) by convincing them that no other candidate was more devoted to protectionism than he was. And, as Richard Bensel wrote in Yankee Leviathan, the protectionist tariff was nothing less than the cornerstone of the 1860 Republican Party platform.

Professors McGuire and Van Cott write of how "many longtime protectionists in the Northeast" argued that "low tariffs were responsible for the 'crisis' in financial markets and the ensuing depression" of the late 1850s. "As a result, a drum beat for protection among various Northeasterners, industries, and labor groups commenced in late 1857."

Southerners had been battling this protectionist cabal since at least 1824. Since they purchased the big majority of their manufactured goods from Europe or the North, and since they were so export dependent, protectionism imposed a harshly disproportionate burden on the Southern states. There were some Southern protectionists and some Northern free traders, but still, the overwhelming majority of the protectionists came from the North, and free traders from the South.

The U.S. House of Representatives, under the influence of this Northern protectionist lobby, "actually passed the Morrill tariff in its 1859–60 session, prior to the departure of southern congressman from the House of Representatives," write McGuire and Van Cott (emphasis added). "This vote took place on 10 May 1860, well before Lincoln's election, Confederate secession, and Lincoln's inauguration."

This suggests that the Morrill Tariff was not a "war tariff" put into place to finance the war but the usual kind, designed to thwart free trade and plunder consumers, especially Southern consumers.

Moreover, the House vote of 105–64 was very lopsided in terms of Northern supporters and Southern opponents of the Morrill Tariff (Congressman Justin Morrill was a steel manufacturer from Vermont). "Only one yes vote was from a secessionist state (Tennessee)" and "only 15 no votes came from northern states."

This means

[T]hat 87% of northern congressmen but only 12.5% of southern congressmen (and just 1 out of 40 congressmen from secessionist states) voted in favor of the Morrill tariff, the year prior to secession. The handwriting was on the wall for the South, and ultimately for the Confederacy, after the Panic of 1857.

Northern newspapers that were associated with the Republican Party openly advocated protectionist tariffs as a tool of plunder directed at the Southern states. As the Daily Chicago Times editorialized on December 10, 1860:

The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole . . . We have a tariff [the Morrill Tariff] that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.

Cognizant that the Confederate Congress was about to adopt a much lower tariff rate, the Chicago paper warned that if the North were to "let the South adopt the free-trade system," the North's "commerce must be reduced to less than half what it is now . . . leading to very general bankruptcy and ruin."

On March 12, 1861, a week after Lincoln's inauguration and a month before Fort Sumter, the New York Evening Post, another Republican Party mouthpiece, advocated a preemptive strike against the Southern free traders with a naval attack that would "abolish all ports of entry" into the Southern states.

The Newark Daily Advertiser, meanwhile, expressed its disgust that Southerners had apparently "taken to their bosoms the liberal and popular doctrine of free trade," and that they "may be willing to go . . . toward free trade with the European powers." "The chief instigator of the present troubles—South Carolina—have all along for years been preparing the way for the adoption of free trade," and must therefore be stopped "by the closing of the ports" by military force.

When Lincoln was inaugurated his party had just doubled the average tariff rate and was planning on increasing it even more. Then, in his First Inaugural Address, he promised a federal invasion of any state that did not collect the higher tariffs, as South Carolina had refused to do when it nullified the "Tariff of Abominations" in 1832.

As he said: "The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using force against, or among the people anywhere" (emphasis added).

Collect the higher tariff rate, he said, and there will be no invasion. Fail to collect it, and there will be an invasion. Two years later, he would deport the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, after Vallandigham said this in a speech:

[T]he Confederate Congress . . . adopted our old tariff of 1857 . . .fixing their rate of duties at five, fifteen, and twenty percent lower than ours. The result was . . . trade and commerce . . . began to look to the South . . . . The city of New York, the great commercial emporium of the Union, and the North-west, the chief granary of the union, began to clamor now, loudly, for a repeal of the pernicious and ruinous tariff. Threatened thus with the loss of both political power and wealth, or the repeal of the tariff, and, at last, of both, New England—and Pennsylvania . . . demanded, now, coercion and civil war, with all its horrors, as the price of preserving either from destruction . . . . The subjugation of the South, and the closing up of her ports—first, by force, in war, and afterward, by tariff laws, in peace, was deliberately resolved upon by the East.

As McGuire and Van Cott conclude: "[T]he tariff issue may in fact have been even more important in the North-South tensions that led to the Civil War than many economists and historians currently believe."

So nothing in that article refutes that Lincoln wasn't in office when the South seceded.

It is an opinion piece. If you want to believe the threat of tariffs (which they could have defeated in the Senate if they hadn't seceded) was more of a reason to secede than slavery, so be it. Britain (who, by the way, was still not our friend) had more of a hand than tariffs - it was in their best interest to fragment the growing power in the new world and on the seas. That's an opinion too.

But it wasn't Lincoln. He wasn't even in office.

seeitnow says

So nothing in that article refutes that Lincoln wasn't in office when the South seceded.

It is an opinion piece. If you want to believe the threat of tariffs (which they could have defeated in the Senate if they hadn't seceded) was more of a reason to secede than slavery, so be it. Britain (who, by the way, was still not our friend) had more of a hand than tariffs - it was in their best interest to fragment the growing power in the new world and on the seas. That's an opinion too.

But it wasn't Lincoln. He wasn't even in office.

Wars more often than not are setup by the aggressor to have an excuse to start the war. This was the case with Lusitania and Wilson, and Polk and provoking the Mexicans into war, and Lincoln and fort Sumpter

The tariffs were to be enforced by Lincoln as indicated in the article it was how he got elected. Did you read the excerpt?

You have to connect the dots, not that you will see that now? You or the other mutt.

Dan8267 says

Does the south want forgiveness for all the vile evil it did? Then fucking repent, bitches.

Dan8267 says

If the south wants forgiveness, it must admit it all the things that need to be forgiven. The south needs to confess its sins, repent, and never commit those sins again.

Dan8267 says

They are morally inferior and deserve to be treated as such.

Dan, you sound like a Christian fundamentalist preacher. ;-)

Dan8267 says

f the south wants forgiveness, it must admit it all the things that need to be forgiven. The south needs to confess its sins, repent, and never commit those sins again. And you can't do these things if you continue to white wash history.

Until then, fuck the south. They are morally inferior and deserve to be treated as such.

I'm no fan of lynchings or southern attitudes and beliefs that blacks were or are somehow inferior.

But the generalizations don't make sense. It's not much different than the hate that exists in some corners of the world toward America. Even if they have some examples of questionable American imperialist actions, that doesn't make generalizing that America is evil correct.

Your an interesting combination Dan, of liberal but also absolutist sort of authoritarian in your thinking. Often liberals are accused of being relativists. Not you. Everything is black and white to you. Good or evil.

Are humans inherently evil, and not worthy of forgiveness ? And if they are, who do they need to beg for forgiveness ?

humanity says

But the generalizations don't make sense.

In this case, the lynchings are based around Reconstruction/Jim Crow post-war south.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

So while things are different today, Dan doesn't want to forget the past without the south accounting for the lost century.

freak80 says

Dan, you sound like a Christian fundamentalist preacher. ;-)

Sometimes you just got to talk to people in the language they understand. And the southern conservative understands moral shaming. It's what they do and it's what they should get when they take the side of evil. Of course, they hate it when outsiders point out their moral hypocrisy and can back it up with irrefutable proof. They like to pretend they are godly when their history and culture is rank.

humanity says

Your an interesting combination Dan, of liberal but also absolutist sort of authoritarian in your thinking. Often liberals are accused of being relativists. Not you. Everything is black and white to you. Good or evil.

It is true that most issues are not black and white, evil vs good. However, some issues are. For example, there really aren't two sides to the Holocaust. The Nazis were the bad guys, period. Same thing for slavery. The question "is slavery morally acceptable" is the easiest moral question you could pose. Of course, it is wrong. There is no subtlety here. And you don't have to present both sides of an issue if one side is complete b.s. That's not being impartial or objective.

And you don't have to claim that both parties are at fought when that's not true either. The Holocaust wasn't the fault of both Nazis and Jews, but just Nazis. It's not a "neutral point of view" to include the Nazi perspective. That's just whitewashing history.

And there are quite a few things in American history that get whitewashed such as slavery, the genocide of the Native Americans, segregation, and voter suppression.

humanity says

Are humans inherently evil, and not worthy of forgiveness ? And if they are, who do they need to beg for forgiveness ?

My reference to beg for forgiveness relates to how the Christian south preach morality. If they were to ever start practicing what they preach they would have to literally beg for forgiveness for their multitude of sins. If this wasn't clear, I apologize. I wasn't implying the belief in literal sin or the necessity of seeking forgiveness from others or a "higher power".

As for the other question, philosophers have asked the question, "Is man inherently good and does evil when something goes wrong, or is man inherently evil and does good only if reformed by outside forces?", for millennia. Half contend that man would be good unless outside forces (poverty, war, oppression, etc.) corrupts him. Half believe man would be selfish and do evil unless outside forces (law, religion, culture, etc.) discourages or prevents him. Both are wrong.

It is human nature to be good when the behavior is expected to be reciprocated, and it is human nature to be selfish, possibly evil, when the expectation is that the behavior cannot or will not be reciprocated. This is exactly why people behave so rudely and selfishly when driving, but would be polite and courteous when meeting the same strangers while walking on the sidewalk. People don't expect to ever see again or recognize the other drivers, and more importantly, that the other drivers won't see them again or recognize them if they did. Thus, there is no chance for reciprocation of behavior outside the immediate timeframe.

Reciprocity, or the lack thereof, is also the reason why you tend to get ripped off and screwed over by certain businesses like car or house purchases and treated well by other businesses like grocery stores, massage parlors, restaurants. In the first category, you are making a large, one-time purchase. It pays the seller to betray and screw you. In the second category, you are making many purchases over a long period of time. It would be unprofitable to betray a recurring customer. Whatever profit gain from taking advantage of the customer would be far offset by the loss of profit should the customer leave. Again, reciprocity explains exactly when man behaves selflessly and selfishly.

Human nature is based entirely on Game Theory and Evolution. It is a purely natural phenomenon.

Rin says

So while things are different today, Dan doesn't want to forget the past without the south accounting for the lost century.

This are only different in the south up to the point that the north has dragged the south kicking and screaming into the early 20th century. Yes, the south has to acknowledge the reality of their history before they can move past it. When the allies won WWII, they made the German citizens bury the people killed in concentration camps. This was done so that no German could deny the holocaust happened or white wash it. Germany had to admit what it did was wrong, and it was through that admission of guilt that Germany could be redeemed. Admission of the crimes is necessary to learn the moral lesson and to change the thinking of a people so that they do not repeat the crimes when given a chance. This has nothing to do with what I want, and everything to do with ending the evil culture that still permeates the south.

And we know it still permeates the south given the recent voter suppression efforts made under the guise of voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud that does not happen. Furthermore, it's not just racism. The same vileness at the heart of racism is also the core of anti-gay bigotry and the "defense" of traditional marriage movement. It is also the reason the south hates Mexicans, wants constant war with the Middle East, and wants to remove all safety social nets least they be used by non-whites. It's a xenophobic culture.

And yes, culture can be bad. A culture that promotes slavery, honor killings, unjust war, oppression of any sub-population, or irrationality is a bad culture. I have no problem calling out a bad culture when it is ripe with historical atrocities.

Dan8267 says

Sometimes you just got to talk to people in the language they understand. And the southern conservative understands moral shaming. It's what they do and it's what they should get when they take the side of evil. Of course, they hate it when outsiders point out their moral hypocrisy and can back it up with irrefutable proof. They like to pretend they are godly when their history and culture is rank.

Good point.

Dan8267 says

Human nature is based entirely on Game Theory and Evolution. It is a purely natural phenomenon.

Dan8267 says

The same vileness at the heart of racism is also the core of anti-gay bigotry and the "defense" of traditional marriage movement. It is also the reason the
south hates Mexicans, wants constant war with the Middle East, and wants to remove all safety social nets least they be used by non-whites. It's a xenophobic culture.

But if human nature is a purely natural phenonmenon, why are racism, bigotry, hatred, and xenophobia "immoral"? Didn't evolution create all of those behaviors?

Is it just your opinion that those things are immoral? Or can it be shown objectively/mathematically that those things are immoral?

humanity says

the south wants forgiveness, it must admit it all the things that need to be forgiven.

Let me back up the train for just a second. Let me say that as a Southerner who first lived on the East and now West coast, racism, intolerance, and ignorance are prevelant everywhere I've lived so far.

Secondly, while the South still has a lot of conservatives, I'd equate this to the higher concentrations of people living in rural areas rather than the areas themselves. Most of the cities around where I lived were small, but fairly liberal compared to the rest of the surrounding, mostly rural areas. I grew up in a rural area where most of the families there had been living in the general area for sometimes 200 years. There was a very low exposure to other cultures, music, food, places, and people. Most of what they knew was what was present in their own small environments. I am a firm believer that many racist and intolerant attitudes also comes from lack of real exposure to different things. This was the case where I grew up for sure. But let me be clear: MOST people even in the rural area I grew up in were good, decent, and morally sound people who had more moderate political leanings.

But I would say that out of the rest of the country the South is probably changing at a much faster rate culturally than any other part of the country. A LOT of people from other states are moving to those areas, the cities are growing larger, and due to the relative connectivity that even people in rural areas have, there is an increasing growth and understanding. I'd also say that the easy access to things like the Internet have perhaps brought out the loudest of the more conservative in general. A large chunk of the content I see online from the far-right are not at all representative of the greater whole. They simply make the most noise.

I like to think that most people, regardless of where they live or whatever political background are decent, reasonable people with common sense traits and sensible opinions.

So I disagree that the bad behavior of a select few people can be used to personify and entire region, a region that is rich in culture, music, food, and people.

freak80 says

But if human nature is a purely natural phenonmenon, why are racism, bigotry, hatred, and xenophobia "immoral"? Didn't evolution create all of those behaviors?

Whether or not something is natural has nothing to do with whether or not it is moral. Rape and murder occur throughout nature, but they are clearly not moral. Laws and courthouses are not at all natural, but they prevent violations of rights by prohibiting and punishing various acts of evil. Nature is amoral.

But yes, all of human nature, good and evil, comes from our evolution. Luckily we now have frontal lobes that lets us take the issue of morality and cooperation past simplistic and crude rules and into more refined and useful methodologies.

freak80 says

Is it just your opinion that those things are immoral? Or can it be shown objectively/mathematically that those things are immoral?

That is a big subject matter. I'd have to spawn a new thread to answer that adequately. Short answer: no, it's not an opinion, but morality is not absolute either, but there are underlying absolute mathematics that govern moral systems. Maybe this weekend I'll write up a more complete answer to this.

Maybe cultures are subject to "natural selection" just like individual organisms are. Perhaps cultures that promote "bad" morality die off when individuals "vote with their feet" and move to cultures that promote "good" morality.

Example: I hate going home to visit my parents, because they still live in the culture of medieval Christianity. I'd much rather live in the more secular, mainstream American culture.

Then again, the Amish population is growing and they refuse to have any real contact with the outside world. A counterpoint.

It's just a conjecture on my part. Thoughts?

freak80 says

Maybe cultures are subject to "natural selection" just like individual organisms are.

Cultures are subject to forces of selection, whether they are "natural" or not is another matter. However, selective filtering does not guarantee that cultures will be selected for good morality, cooperation, or happiness of its people.

In any case, gradual ascent does not lead to a global maximum. There is something to be said for intelligent design in the affairs of men. Not all things should be modeled after evolution.

Dan8267 says

Yes, the south has to acknowledge the reality of their history before they can move past it. When the allies won WWII, they made the German citizens bury the people killed in concentration camps. This was done so that no German could deny the holocaust happened or white wash it. Germany had to admit what it did was wrong, and it was through that admission of guilt that Germany could be redeemed. Admission of the crimes is necessary to learn the moral lesson and to change the thinking of a people so that they do not repeat the crimes when given a chance.

As much as I like the basic vector of the argument, the South is not the same as either Germany or Japan. If you recall, MacArthur put the onus of the WWII Japanese atrocities in Korea & China on the head of General Tojo and left the people and the Emperor out of it. As a result, the Japanese ppl have no sense that that war was an act of aggression and regional genocides. And still, even today, the Germans and the Japanese are not really tolerant of other ppls, since 3rd/4th generation German-Turks are not accepted as true Germans and the Koreans in Japan still need to carry a Green Card w/o a path towards citizenship, regardless of the number of generations in Japan. The difference is that in Germany, denying the holocaust is a crime but despite it all, they have more skinhead problems than we do.

As for the South, it's a region within the same country. People do move around for work and schooling. And thus, it's not such a separated entity as a Germany or Japan. I'm rather certain that bigots in some regions of Maine, upstate NY, west VA, & Idaho have more in common with the KKK crowd in rural Georgia than the university types in Boston or California. Likewise, I'd even argue that Athens Georgia, home of REM & the B-52s, is as liberal as Amherst Massachusetts.

Rin says

the South is not the same as either Germany or Japan

That was never claimed. I used Germany as an example of why atrocities have to be admitted in order for an evil culture to be replaced with a good one. I stand by that statement and example.

In my analysis the South isn't like Germany and that's a bad thing. If the South had been like Germany and had accepted that slavery was utterly evil, admitted its crimes, and purged its criminals in open trials like the Nuremberg Trials then the entire evil history of the South after the Civil War would not have happened. No segregation, no Jim Crow, no assassination of MLK, no voter suppression today. Had the South done the same path as Germany did after WWII, the South would have regain the respect of the rest of the world. It is precisely because they didn't reverse paths that they don't deserve respect.

Well they weren't the good guys.

Dan8267 says

admitted in order for an evil culture to be replaced with a good one

What's the culture here?

I'm not exactly certain that the culture of the South is much different from the culture of West VA, parts of Maine, rural upstate NY, or Idaho. I believe the landed aristocracy of the South, Scarlett O'Hara's clique & so-called high Southern Culture, was pretty much liquidated during the war. What followed was the society of rural America which could be "Redneck" whenever anyone leaves a major metropolis.

As much as I'd like to believe that the North had some abolitionist *solidarity*, it really wasn't the case. The average northerner was not like William Lloyd Garrison nor the infamous John Brown. In fact, Garrison got plenty of death threats from fellow Bostonians, for being such a vocal abolitionist during the pre-Civil War years.

Dan8267 says

This is exactly why people behave so rudely and selfishly when driving, but would be polite and courteous when meeting the same strangers while walking on the sidewalk. People don't expect to ever see again or recognize the other drivers, and more importantly, that the other drivers won't see them again or recognize them if they did. Thus, there is no chance for reciprocation of behavior outside the immediate timeframe.

And it's why internet arguments can get so nasty! :-D

It's true that racism isn't limited to the South. There are plenty of racist rednecks in the rural areas outside of Corning/Elmira, NY where I live. The same is probably true for any rural part of the US.

Blanket condemnations of lynching sow confusion over what's really a mob rights issue.

freak80 says

There are plenty of racist rednecks in the rural areas outside of Corning/Elmira, NY where I live. The same is probably true for any rural part of the US.

I think pretty much outside of Vermont [ possibly the most tolerant & liberal rural state ], the standard rural model where white=good & dark=bad is the group think of most non-cosmopolitan areas.

It was definitely about a LOT more than slavery. That war was in the making for hundreds of years before the Brits settled the west.

You had two cultures in England that didn't like each other are were similar to North and South here. In fact, that is how they settled our East coast! Puritans, Calvinists and they continued to not get along once they were here.

Lincoln was an evil MFer... He didn't care about slavery and didn't even free the slaves in the union states during the war. On the other hand southerners had blacks fighting in the confederacy.

Southerners DID NOT want a war. They were basically poor people who still had muskets. They used slavery because they were so poor. The North had rifles and industry - and still almost got their ass kicked. They were an industrial powerhouse second only the the Brits. The North wanted to start a trade war with the Brits and the Southerners didn't. It was mostly about the North enslaving the south - in a way - by trying to take over their ports, and control their cotton - which the Brits were buying. The South wanted to sell direct.

Lincoln didn't have to start that war and the way it ended was brutal. Slavery would have died out on it's own. If the North would have encouraged industrialization in the South it would have died out even faster.

On the other hand, you win the war, you get to write the history...

I'd thought Lincoln was a great guy for freeing the slaves - that's what my grammar school books taught me. It wasn't until I went to University I learned the other side. This is (slightly) pre-internet as well but I'm sure there is some stuff on the web that is over the top anti-north.

The South was fighting for their 'rights'. Although if you heard them say it you might think they were fighting for their 'rats'. haha.

Rin says

white=good & dark=bad

In Christianity, Light = Good, Darkness = Evil. That symbolism can work it's way into the subconscious mind and affect one's views on race, IMO.

Oddly enough, in the far-right Christian sect I grew up in, we sang "red and yellow, black and white, Jesus loves the little children of the world." Thankfully racism wasn't part of the program.

We all look the same in the Infrared!

Saying that the Confed were on the verge of full liberty is a stretch. Likely the beatings encouraged them.

I one heard a guy say the Russians were going to take the Berlin wall down on their own, and if not Mondale (and he darn near won :) ) was fixin' to encourage Gorbochev to do the same.........

Entitlemented says

Saying that the Confed were on the verge of full liberty is a stretch. Likely the beatings encouraged them.

Very true... Slavery still would have died out eventually like it did in other parts of the world.

just_passing_through says

Very true... Slavery still would have died out eventually like it did in other parts of the world

Reality mentioned before that it would have died out sooner if the government did not have the policy/law of returning escaped slaves to their owners.