The world did indeed progress socially during the nineteenth century on the issue of slavery. But progress is not inevitable. There is no reason to think the ageless institution of slavery would have fizzled out anyway, if the battle had not been fought. Indeed, without the battle, it is very easy to envision a very different kind of world.
That was my only point.
I agree with almost everything you wrote in this post. I would add, that although a southerner, I do not agree with the view that places the plight of the Irish in 19th century American on par with negro slaves. Chattel slavery was codified into law in the slave states, respected in all states through the full faith and credit clause. The only way out of chattel slavery was either through legal manumission or immigration to a non slave holding nation, whether Europe, Canada, or a friendly Indian nation. Even if a slave obtained manumission or freedom, in most of the slave states, it was exceedingly difficult to extend free status to full enfranchisement.
In Virginia, perhaps a fifth of the negro population was free. Nevertheless, their right to assemble, vote, transact business, stand for office, obtain public emoluments, serve on juries, marry, leave property by will, were all severely circumscribed by operation of law.
While the Irish labored against severe prejudice, so did negroes. The difference was that with enough money, or luck the Irish could (and did) establish enclaves against that prejudice and inroads into society at large. Even if a negro were fortunate enough to establish an estate of his own, he was then confronted with a legal framework that was aimed at him particularly. The slave holders understood that if free negroes were not restricted, they would use their economic progress to undermine slavery. There was a very poignant account written about ten years ago about black women in the 19th century who married white men. The price these families paid was basically to have their universe restricted to the houses and farms where they lived.
Would slavery have died out on its own? Yes, Mechanization and competing agricultural productivity from the northwest and midwest would have driven it toward economic extinction eventually, probably by 1900. I do not think that it would ever have lost its race-specific nature, however. Indians simply refused to be enslaved, and it is important not to view Mexico anachronistically. In the 19th Century, attempts to enslave Mexicans would have been punished by Mexico severely. At the time, Mexico had a far more developed infrastructure in the southwest than the US, and probably the finest cavalry next to the British Empire’s. Without northern assistance, Texas would have burned. Plus, the racial distinctions we perceive as important today were not necessarilly shared by earlier Americans. Southern Americans did not see the Mexicans as a hostile race (like some anti immigration advocates now) but, at least at the top of society, kindred spirits. Many southerners immigrated to Mexico after Appomattox.
Interesting ideas, sorry to go on at length. I guess the point is that under either the old definition of right and left, enshrining status by law is hallmark of the right. Under the new definition, it is anti individual rights and left. Lee and Jackson would have been surprised, to say the least, at being labelled leftists, even though the terms existed at the time in European political discourse. It seems to my thinking that the redefinition of right - left along individual rights lines is just the same as saying “less repressive/repressive.” As the French Revolution, and subsequent history shows, either aristocrats or democrats can be repressive.
