Why did it take so long for the US to abolish Slavery in relation

>>925144
Because unlike Europe, the U.S didn't industrialize and when it did, only the North did.

>>925144
US was way more reliant on it I think

>>925144
Because other Europeans only used slaves in their colonies, so it wasn't that economically detrimental to outlaw it.

On the other hand a large part of the home American economy relied on slave labor.

Too much dosh.

>>925144
In relation to what countries? Brazil allowed slavery until 1888.

>>925144
Did it take so long? Britain abolished slavery in 1833, only 3 decades before the US. Latin American countries abolished slavery around a decade before the US. Russia abolished slavery a few years before the US. Portugal and Brazil did it after the US. I don't think it took so long.

>>925165
Also abolishment of slavery kind of had holes. BIG holes.

With the exception of sugar cane fields in Louisiana, slavery in the United States was like a stay in the hotel compared with the Caribbean and most of South America.

>>925144
US had slavery for a shorter period of time than every other country

>>925358
So yellow fever and malarial South Carolina/Georgia rice fields or anyplace that broke up families, raped girls and malnourished them everywhere else is like super easy?

>>925144
Much of the economy was based on slave-labour and trade. To get rid of it near the beginning of the country would have been a financial disaster. The north was able to subsidize their dependency on it much faster than the south was, which is why they held out on it so long.

Mississippi before the Civil War was the richest state in the union. Today it's the poorest. Their economy was literally nothing but plantations.

>>925144
Because the cotton and tobacco industries were uniquely well suited to slave labor.

>>925144
The south was very much dependent on slave labor and the whole 'state rights' vs 'federal power' debate just added an extra layer of complication to the slavery question.

>>925144
Slavery was a very efficient economic system.

>>925157
Only very select parts of "Europe" industrialized too.

>>925358
>slavery in the United States was like a stay in the hotel compared with the Caribbean and most of South America.
and living in North Korea is like a stay in a hotel compared to the Nazi death camps. so what? comparisons are only relevant when you bother to make comparisons that are relevant.

>>925358
>hey at least he's not as bad as Hitler!
>at least it's not Detroit!
That's what you sound like.

>>925144 The South will rise again! Bunch of F'n Yankees!

>>925144

It's really not any secret that the US government was completely dominated by it's slaver class until they got eviscerated by the war and industrialization. The state was, after all, was designed by and for them.

>>925695
those are both valid statements.

>>925144
Slavery was abolished in the US around the same time as the rest of the Americas.

>>925837
being better than the lowest common denominator is a pretty meaningless statement.

>>925866
No it's not.

>>925144
They had a large peasant population to do the slave labor.

>>925801
Stay forever hot and uncomfortably moist

>>925866
literally everything exists on a continuum

>>925144
Slaveholders were much more powerful, and slave labor was a bigger part of our economy

>>925337
Both cities, of course, being much safer now than they were in 1860.

Modern issues with black people have much more to do with 20th century legislation than with slavery.

>>926083
>being much safer now than they were in 1860.
I don't think crime rates were being measured in those cities in 1860. And if they were, the standards were probably different.

>>925174

Brazil was the only major country that abolished after the US...

>>925337
That not what I meant retard also the majority of whites in the South were just as uneducated and dumb.

>>925144
>In relation to other countries
Saudi Arabia dropped it in 1960's

>>925144
Because in America you could literally just go to the auction and buy 3/5 of a vote.

>>925144
>implying it wasn't legal in many yurop colonies
The fucking economic powerhouse that was cotton would be the main reason though, yurop imported a great deal from the south.

File: grain pays.jpg (71KB, 780x510px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 780x510px

>>925144
In relation to where? Europe? Because Europe didn't have a suitable climate for large-scale cash-crop plantation agriculture as the basis of an economy. If slavery had only been used for domestic help, etc., it wouldn't have existed as long. And where Europe did tend towards cash-crop plantation agriculture (e.g. wheat in early modern Poland) it did tend towards slavery/serfdom.

File: grain doesn't pay.jpg (66KB, 750x499px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 750x499px

>>926303
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Economy

>>926300
It wasn't by the 19th Century.

The Belgians and Germans did invent Tax Schemes to force their colonized Africans into forced labor. Albeit that had wages so that still doesn't count.

>>925406
>muh worst case scenario is only scenario argument
Try harder

>>926318
Every African colony employed coerced labour and/or forced labour in some manner.
It's not slavery but it's was pretty shitty as fuck and a way to by pass the use of slaves.

>>926346
Eritrea and Somali areas being an exception because the former would cause huge colony conflict and the latter it was very late in the colonial period.

The first anti-slavery abolitionist society in the ENTIRE WORLD was founded in America shortly after independence so shut the fuck up.

>people talking shit about the US and slavery
>ignoring serfdom in Russia
ok

I think it was because America was largely split between the southern states and northern states. The states that wanted to succed would split of maryland which contained the capitol would greatly weaken the us. Additionally slavery was extremely profitable and there were no other buisnesses in the south. In order to keep the nation together, Abraham Lincoln dicided to remove slavery because it was splitting the nation. It wasn't just about rights for slaves, although I do imagine it was a perk.

>>925144
Because slavery wasn't as profitable in those countries. If you could grow tobacco in Germany you bet they'd have done it too.