No indeed, the US is not literally every other country. Was there something unique to the land or people of the United States that would make it buck the trend of every other country that participated in the Atlantic slave trade?
Yes. The fierce sense of Entitlement and Independence, that they could do whatever the hell the wanted to...including enslaving Black people who they saw as animals and not human
How does that differ from all of the other countries, like England. Brazil, Portugal, etc. that enslaved black people who they saw as animals and not human?
The difference is they stopped earlier. The United States was the last industrialized nation to end slavery. Literally the last. And unlike those other nations, ours required one of the bloodiest civil wars in world history to end it.
Brazil stopped slavery 30 years after the United States, so they didn't all stop earlier. The claim was that slavery would have continued forever absent the Civil War. Are you supporting that claim with your response? My contention is that while the civil war ended slavery, it was not necessary and slavery would have ended within 30 years or so without the war. The southern economy was much more similar to Brazil than to England. Therefor, it stands to reason we would have followed the same pattern. Eventually immigration and technology made slave labor obsolete. Modernly, slavery in America is primarily limited to sex work and payment for illegal immigration from Asia.
The claim isn't that it continue forever. If slavery ended 30-50 years after it did, that's 30-50 years of going backwards in racial integration and suffrage. That would mean there would be a chance that in the year 2021 we would still be fighting over the basics such as legislation that would make it illegal racial discrimination such as banks denying mortgages purely based on race. You really welcome that hypothetical? Fortunately we've moved forward and are past that are now in the modern era of racism claiming that the median white family is 1000% wealthier than the median black family because of inherent cultural differences rather than systemic racism.
That's the most disgusting part. Like try to imagine that poster hearing that sentiment towards a hypothetical scenario where new born babies are sent to be parted out in some death factory. You think he'd have the same mindset of "let's just let that naturally end in 30 years or so".
A point of contention that goes against the narrative that the South would naturally stop slavery in 30 years is why they decided to secede Remember, Lincoln was willing to compromise. The South's main fear was that the institutions of slavery had a bleak future due to new territories that didn't have slavery turning into free states which would swing Congress into a majority coalition of free states lessoning the power and influence of slave states. The South seceded because they feared that slavery would end naturally in the decades to come. So that kinda harms your narrative. They didn't want it to end naturally within the next few decades hence why they left the Union. At no point did they think Lincoln would end slavery overnight. They thought what you thought, and didn't want that. They wanted it to last a much longer time.
Except that the Soviets lost a significant amount of industrial capacity in the initial attack along with Stalin's policies that held them back. The US stepped in to help arm them and other of the Allies significantly without which it's not certain that a successful counter attack could've been made. While the UK might've held out also even with two fronts Germany had very good control of Western Europe the UK with the remnants of other Allies likely can't launch a counter attack to take back Europe without US aid. Chances are that even if the UK and USSR aren't conquered they end up in a stalemate or a diplomatic agreement accepting Germany's control of most of Europe. Remember even with the US in the war Germany was still defeated at great costs and Germany had a good chances to push back the Allied invasion and DDay could've gone very differently if Hitler had recognized that Calais was a ruse. Also if Germany had been more successful in the battle of the Bulge. A similar situation likely in the Asia. China doesn't have enough resources to hold off Japan without US aid and while Japan might not have taken all of China China isn't able to counterattack back and Japan cements it's hold on most of Eastern and Northern China along with Korea, and most of SE Asia. I'm actually one of those who believe slavery would've ended even if the Confederacy won as it is a dead end system for a modern economy. That said it would've take a much longer time. The problems with the Confederate system besides slavery was that for a country to be a continent wide superpower it would be very difficult to manage without a stronger federal government that could do things like guarantee territorial integrity and basic rights to all the citizens. Those were things that ended up being resolved from the Civil War. Under the idea of the Confederate system individual states might not be as free as other states which would cause problems regarding movement of people and recognition of laws between the states. Also states still might be leaving the Union for all sorts of reasons. We need to remember too that the Civil War wasn't started by the Lincoln or the Union but by the Confederacy. Lincoln was willing to give them a compromise allowing them to keep slavery as long as they stayed in the Union. The Confederacy rejected it because they wanted to expand slavery to the new states. So while slavery was a dead end it was still essential to the Southern cause and to the expansion of the US so whether the Civil War was fought in 1861 it likely would've been fought later. That FDR prolonged the Depression I've heard that argument and it is very possible the business cycle just fixes things but it likely would've caused far more misery. As stated above the Allied victory certainly wasn't inevitable. You're again positing an argument on an outcome but ignoring what actually went into that outcome. True but the nature of the conflict and structure between the states was different than other countries and as noted it wasn't Lincoln that started the war but the Southern States.
The very nature of the conflict showed that the US was different. It was a conglomeration of states where some had already banned slavery and others felt it was essential to their being.
that's why I don't waste my time going back with "I'm not a racist but I don't mind slavery continuing for another 30 years additional generation or 2"
That is speculative, it is possible that without the devastation of the Civil War and the Confederacy being denied the right of self-governance that the people in slave states would have been more amenable to advancements in civil rights earlier rather than later. Even were it not the case, I don't know that a 30 year delay is worth 600,000 plus dead, millions of wounded, and the abandonment of the rule of law. There are means in place by which to change the law. They were ignored in favor of naked force. The ends do not justify the means. I imagine there are multiple factors. There are many wrongs in the world. A generation of Uighers are currently being interned in China and killed or "reeducated". Should we invade China to free them? Should we invade the African continent in its entirety where it is estimated 7 out of every 1,000 people are enslaved. Does your preference for war over slavery not extend beyond the area between Canada and Mexico? The Soviets massively outproduced Germany after the invasion of the Soviet Union, so it is ahistorical to believe they would not have done so without American involvement in WWII. There is also no reason to believe Lend-Lease would not happen without Roosevelt, as it was supported by more than 55% of Americans outright with 15% in support with qualifications such as, "if it doesn't get us into the war". It also passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion with 66 votes. It is of course impossible to know what the endgame of WWII would have been without US involvement. Maybe the British and Canada launch D-Day anyway, and they are both just far more all in on the war. Maybe the Soviets nuke Germany instead of the US nuking Japan. Maybe Japan retains control of more of China and thus Japan is more powerful now and China less. Maybe the US, having not participated, is better positioned to rebuild the world and been seen as an ambassador of peace and prosperity. All of those issues can be worked out legally. There was already law and precedent for recognition of laws between the states and movement of people. The Civil War was started when the Confederates fired on Fort Sumpter after Lincoln moved to resupply it. No resupply of Fort Sumpter means no Civil War, as Lincoln was well aware. The Confederacy didn't want the war, the Union did. If they were allowed to succeed, there would have been no war. I'm not ignoring it, I just disagree with you and there is support for both arguments. I disagree. If you consider the Confederacy on its own, it is quite comparable to Brazil, vis-a-vis slavery. The other point I addressed above. But the CSA was not different in that way.
Considering the Civil War actually happened I find it ironic you're that your claiming that other's arguments are speculative. Everything you're stating here is extremely speculative. Except the PRC was never part of the US and wouldn't be sharing a large land border with the US. Again it's interesting you're claiming an argument is ahistorical when you're arguing against what actually happened. Leaving that aside the Soviet Union did end up producing more but the fact is that their industry took a massive blow from the initial US invasion. They themselves were in a very dire strait and if the battles of Kursk and Stalingrad had turned it's very unclear where that would've left them. It is a historical fact that US aid did help them at a time of need. So again you're making an argument on historical outcome (that the Soviets outproduced Germany later in the War) while ignoring that that was possible because the US provided aid at a critical junction. Also ignoring that fact that Germany's production later in the war was greatly hampered because allies including the US were heavily bombing them. Regarding Lend Lease yes that was widely supported and so was much of FDR"s platform (he wouldn't have been elected multiple times if not). What you're pointing out is that even without FDR his policies still might've been implemented anyway since most Americans supported them. Again all of that is highly speculative. What we know for a fact is that the UK and other European allies were severely beaten back and the UK was in danger of being defeated until the US stepped into the war. We know that in Asia Japan was also had a large advantage with weak resistance until the US entered the war. Even with the US entering the war it still took a long time to finally push back Germany and Japan. So again if the Axis were inevitably going to lose why didn't we see any battles tilt against them until the US entered the war? There was and there were many attempts at compromise including from Lincoln that the southern states rejected. You're making my point. The Confederates fired first. For that matter if they didn't want war why did they secede? They could've kept slavery and stayed in the Union. You're putting all of the onus on Lincoln in the Union yet admit it was the Confederates that not only precipitated the war by seceding and firing on Fort Sumpter. The Confederacy is similar to Brazil but there is a reason why it's called the "Civil War" The comparison is with the whole country of the US.
That is why I said it was possible, and not this is definitely what would have happened. It's a good thing the United States has the most powerful Navy in the world. I am not arguing against what actually happened. We are both speculating about what would have happened if there was a change in history (in this case no President Roosevelt). I am drawing from the facts that existed that were not dependent on Roosevelt. Maybe things would have gone the way I say, maybe it would be the way you say. The Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk didn't go against them though, and that didn't really rely much on the US. It isn't like the Soviets were driving thousands of M4 tanks against the Nazis at Kursk (they didn't receive Lend-Lease Shermans until a year after Kursk. The Germans were outproduced throughout the war and had their most productive year in 1944 and 1945 was on pace to be more productive than 1943, but the war ended May 8th. So the Soviets I am sure were greatful for US aid, but they were outproducing Germany the whole time. In the whole war, Germany built around 13,000 Panzer IVs. The Soviets built 15,700 T-34s in just 1943. Yes, we could very well have Lend Lease without the less desirable Roosevelt policies, especially from his earlier terms. The Germans were never able to invade the British Isles. They took the Channel Islands at the beginning of the war and never got troops to England. They could not overcome the Royal Navy nor the RAF. In danger of being defeated is every country at war, I suppose, but it isn't as though there were stormtroopers on the outskirts of London. You were the one that said the Civil War was necessary for this issue, not me. Lincoln knew that resupplying Fort Sumpter would lead to war. He did not want to allow the succession. The Confederates wanted out, they were happy to be out without the War. Lincoln didn't want them out. There was nothing in the Constitution forbidding secession. In fact, the arguments for the Constitutionality of secession are stronger. Constitutionality of Secession. Why the states have the “right” and… | by Daniel Goldman | Politicoid | Medium But if the question is would slavery have ended on its own without the Civil War, that would imply that the Confederacy would exist as a separate country and thus Brazil is a fine comparison. Not taking the Confederacy as a separate country actually makes abolition more likely, because abolition happened when the United States was whole. Moreover, the CSA knew abolition was coming, as that was the point of secession.
Not sure the relevance especially considering the Xingjiang is very far inland on the PRC. Except Lend Lease was very dependent on FDR. If you're looking for a President that wouldn't have gotten us into the war it's likely they wouldn't have engaged in Lend Lease as that would involve us in the war. Yes the Soviets won those battles and Lend Lease wasn't just about arms. Most of what was sent to Russia was basic transportation which the Soviets sorely needed as they had converted their manufacturing to weapons. As such without basic transportation they would've had a hard time getting supplies to the front. In 1941 the the Soviets had received around 361,000 tons of aid and in 1942 about 2.5 million tons so Lend Lease was already making a difference by the battles of Stalingrad and Kursks. Further defeating the Axis also required a successful offensive against them and according to Kruschev and Zhukov those couldn't have happened without the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union "I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.[42]" Nikita Kruschev I am curious what are the metrics for the German productivity at the last two years of the war. Many of their industrial cites had been heavily bombed and they were running out of resources, notably oil. Again that is very speculative as given that the Republican opposition to FDR was isolationists and any other Democrat might've still done things similar to FDR. So a non-FDR president might not have the New Deal programs but also might not have gotten the US involved in the war including Lend Lease. Even if the Germans hadn't been able to invade the British Isles the British likely couldn't mount a counter attack and with most of their trading partners cut off might be compelled to diplomatically cede most of Europe to Germany and leave themselves still independent but essentially unable to do much. That isn't outright defeat but it isn't victory. Yes and to explain why. In the 19th C the Confederacy wasn't the only possible secession movement as there was agitations regarding New England and even NYC to secede for reasons other than slavery. As you have noted the issue of secession wasn't answered in the Constitution, nor were the issue of individual rights in regard to the states. Without resolving those it's still possible Civil War happens for other reasons or the US falls apart and we're left with a fragmented North America with no continent spanning US. With the secession that did happen we know it was because of slavery and it was formented over the expansion of slavery. Even if the Union let the Confederates secede there still would've been conflict because the CSA likely wouldn't just sit back and allow the US to take over the West of the continent. Eventually the CSA and USA would eventually come back into conflict. And the Confederates knew that seceding would lead to war which preceded the supply of Fort Sumpter. They also still fired first. Let me ask you do you believe the Confederates have any responsibility for the war? As stated above I agree there was a Constitutional argument for secession as it wasn't Constitutionally clear at all but this is where you have to consider the totality of the situation. If you think states having the right to come and go in the Union is more important or whether you think having the US grow into a continent wide superpower was more important will color your view. Leaving aside what your view is whether good or bad the US becoming a continent wide superpower is very significant historically is very likely not possible without Lincoln. You're making my point that war was inevitable.
Not that it's super relevant to your overall point... but are we not counting Belgium and Leopold II?
Pdf of ranking https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-presidential-rankings-place-obama-top-10-reagan-trump-below-biden A new ranking of presidents by a group of self-styled experts determined that Abraham Lincoln is America's greatest president, while Donald Trump ranks last. Lincoln topped the list of presidents in the 2024 Presidential Greatness Project expert survey for the third time, following his top spot in the rankings in the 2015 and 2018 versions of the survey. According to a release from the Presidential Greatness Project, which touts itself as the "foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics," the 154 respondents to the survey included "current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association…as well as scholars who have recently published peer-reviewed academic research in key related scholarly journals or academic presses." … Trump was ranked in last place in the survey, being ranked worse than James Buchanan at 44, Andrew Johnson at 43, Franklin Peirce at 42, and William Henry Harrison at 41. … Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Trump were more likely to be ranked higher by conservatives or Republicans, with Reagan being ranked an average of 5th by Republicans respondents, Bush 19th and Trump 41st. Among Democrat respondents, Reagan was rated an average of 18th, Bush 33rd and Trump 45th. A similar partisan divide was noticeable for Barack Obama and President Biden, who ranked an average of 6th and 13th, respectively, among Democrat respondents, and 15th and 30th by Republicans. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was ranked higher by Republican respondents (10th) than he was by Democrats (12th). The divide resulted in an overall ranking of 7th for Obama, 12th for Clinton, 14th for Biden, 16th for Reagan and 32nd for Bush.
