Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

If the Southern states won the civil war, would you have supported slavery?

I'm only asking for a paper I'm doing

29 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Why? It had nothing to do with slavery

  • 1 month ago

    Nope, I would have been an abolitionist

  • garry
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    whats worse , slavery or poverty ! atleast in slavery they where fed , no in poverty , and america is so rich , does something for the illegals but wont lift a finger for poverty ..

  • 2 months ago

    It is important to understand that while the South started the war to preserve slavery, the North's purpose in opposing the South was to preserve the Union.  Evidence of that is found in the fact that four slave states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) remained in the Union.  So, support or opposition to slavery is not necessarily tied to support or opposition to the preservation of the Union.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2 months ago

    Highly unlikely.  Even if the South had won the Civil War, they would not have continued slavery much longer.  Certainly it would have been over before the 20th Century.  It really isn't economical, most Southerners didn't own slaves.  The North had had slavery too, but they abolished it state by state.  The same would have happened in the South.  

    I know how eager people were to end slavery, and quite understandably.  But maybe it would have worked out better if the South had done it state by state like the North.  There was no KKK in the North, nor any frantic terrorist tactics to keep Black citizens from voting. 

    But we can only speculate about what might have been.

  • 2 months ago

    I had relatives in the Union army, at least one of whom was wounded, loosing his left arm at the Battle of Chickamauga, so certainly would not support anything the rebels stood for.

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    No, I would not. Slavery is a very bad thing and also it is hypocritical, because nobody wants to be a slave (unless you are into SM).

  • 2 months ago

    I'd like to think not.  But honestly, no one can tell for sure.  Who you are is largely impacted by the environment you grew up in.  If you grew up being told that slavery was the natural order and blah blah, even as grotesque as it sounds to us today, it's a fairly small number of people who can really break that early-life brainwashing.

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    The US was the only country to war over slavery because the south over reacted. The issue fixed itself w/ time everywhere else. 

    As a lib, I champion the equality side on controversial issues.

    There were 60 proposed amendments that included slavery. One was on Lincoln's desk. Lincoln stated he had no intention to conflict w/ the issue as he considered it Constitutional. The south didn't believe him ... sound familiar? 

    Cynicism is rampant in America again. It develops reactionary people who think their opinion supersedes the facts. Pragmatic people learn the facts and hold people accountable for behavior. And therein lies a contrast to today's wings. 

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Many People in the south never supported Slavery even Lee said it was Dying out in the south

    But Not in the Union states, Grant still had a slave 12 Months after the war

    the South winning they would have traded with the British who would have encouraged the south to Ban slavery

    in 1866 the Last Union state Ratified the 13 amendment Banning slavery in the Union states

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.