quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Looking at slavery from an economic standpoint only, it would have pretty much ended shortly after the invention of the cotton gin. Slavery was an economic solution for field work that required many hands every day. Once inventions came about that made that unnecessary, it would have slowly died out.

However not without destroying the Union. And that's what the Civil War was fought over, preserving the Union. Ending slavery was the easiest way to decimate the South economically so they couldn't try to secede again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Surely the cotton gin was invented in the 1700s?  Because it made the cloth cheaper to produce, cotton became more desirable and therefore ever more people were forced onto plantations to grow and harvest the stuff.  Far from eradicating slavery, it was the cotton gin which increased the desire to exploit slave labourers in the antebellum south.  A cotton gin is little use without bales and bales of raw material.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Averain just one of many reasons Carter wasn't right for the Presidency.Perhaps the most fundamentally good person elected to that office (IMO)in my lifetime,yet a total disaster as Commander in Chief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Averain just one of many reasons Carter wasn't right for the Presidency.Perhaps the most fundamentally good person elected to that office (IMO)in my lifetime,yet a total disaster as Commander in Chief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

It isnt that simple.    The civil war was placed into the national agenda by off shore banks.  Loans to both sides were made by the Bank of England.   We can endear our good friend Rothschild for his "help" in it.

A few of the states in the South had ended slavery prior to the civil war.  

The civil war, was also an attempt to re-establish the British Empire unto America.  As you recall, we left the motherland due to taxation with out representation.   Conveniently, England needed to assess us more tax- so as to pay its war debt.
We rebelled in 1776. 

This off shore bank rule is a perennial theme in America and indeed the world.

US presidents have even been assassinated by agents for the British Empire.

After the civil war, humans needed birth certificates.  This places you and I under Maritime Law, rather then Commen Law.  Which is not good.  The British had a kick azz Navy, hence "maritime".

The USA actually has already bankrupted many decades ago.  As have a handful of states.  Currency runs and bank collapses were quite ordinary in the prior centuries.

Anyone who has a Social Security Number, is listed as an asset. Their life earnings is subject to tax and debt, as in the National debt. IE- you actually OWE a % of that- connected to YOUR SOCIAL Security number.

Around this same time, corporate personhood became legal.

So today- we have almost no common law governance.   You and I are chattel for the nations war debt. and prior bankruptcy.

And- unless you hold allodial title to your house, you are not the actual owner of it.  Only Texas has land parcels that carry allodial title.

The Amish do not have SSNs, hence are not liable for the nations war debt.

Incidently, the off shore banks, held loans of Germany. Well- Germany simply increased its money supply.  The banks would not hear of that.  They demanded and recieved repayment of war debts in GOLD.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
It isnt that simple.    The civil war was placed into the national agenda by off shore banks.  Loans to both sides were made by the Bank of England.   We can endear our good friend Rothschild for his "help" in it.

A few of the states in the South had ended slavery prior to the civil war.