1. There was no United States when slavery was first imposed on this continent, but there was certainly an America, which is what Europeans called it. In fact there was a north and a south america.
2. Slavery was an absolute disaster for the economy of the south. As missnu intelligently (in contrast with the nimrods) says - the northern economy grew because it innovated and embraced technology, while the south remained a backward feudal region living on old agriculture and slavery. The south was doomed from the beginning - the civil war was the culmination.
3. The libruls on this board are a parody of librulism. Real libruls will man-up and answer the question. I have seen some very good answers, too.
I totally agree. It's just there was no decision point where is could be said, "Hey let's have slaves." So, no decision point where we could say, No. We can look back and say this and that, but we can't be there and see the slippery slope of a few hundred years.
And I don't agree with the Monday morning assessment and the smug generalized, charged words. Innovated, embraced, backwards.
The war was about state rights on one side and toddying the British on the other. The Brits abolished the slave trade and were not happy with carrying on Economy with slave owners. The North needed the cotton to sell to the British and they did not want the South selling the cotton to France.
The very worse part of the Civil War to me was the killing of Lincoln. That put an end to the war crimes trials for the Southern leaders. And since Andrew Johnson was intimidated physcially with the same threat, he allowed the South to return to what you talking about. That was after the war, not before.
To say the South was not prosperous in it's system, is not correct.
