How might the blues be different if slavery had never existed?
If the first Blacks had arrived in the US on the same terms as other immigrants, they would have had the same educational opportunities, and many of them who were interested in music would have learned to read from stave and probably studied traditional harmonic theory. This means their music would have been more complex (reading music lets you write more complex pieces) and would probably have been more harmonically sophisticated (as Black composers got access to the musical discoveries of Bach, Haydn, and Quantz). As it was, Blacks were poor and uneducated - so their music stayed simple, mainly improvised, and made up for its harmonic poverty with rhythmic sophistication. Or it did so at first. After the Civil War and Emancipation, Blacks did begin to get access to proper musical education. The immediate result was Ragtime (a sophisticated and harmonically complex form), followed soon after by Jazz. So if Blacks had been granted civil rights earlier - Ragtime and Jazz would have evolved alongside Blues much earlier too. But neither Ragtime nor Jazz killed off the Blues (Hollywood Musicals and Tin Pan Alley never killed off Country Music either) - so it is probable that the Blues would have evolved in approximately its modern form in any case. It wouldn't have been the main Black music for so long, but it would probably have stayed around the poor people - whatever you threw at it. If Blacks had never been oppressed, Blues would probably have become a niche music (as Country and Western has). Blues is a World Music. Country and Western is pretty much local to the US. Without slavery, the Blues might have been as marginalised as Taylor Swift.
If slavery never existed, is it likely the American Civil War would have happened anyway?
No. States occasionally mention the “succession” even today when they have a gripe, BUT…History teaches us an important lesson; it is seen not only in the United States (in which a national sense of patriotism has generally held us together), but in much less stable Unions as Canada — which barely holds onto Quebec — and the United Kingdom, which barely held onto Scotland.What happens in such situations is that the province, country, or state that feels mistreated makes demands, and the federal union in each case will make enough concessions that the unhappy province is finally convinced to stay.In the case of the United States in the 19th Century, the tolerance and even support of slavery was a HUGE concession made to the South. But although Northern politicians (including most of the first 15 presidents) felt they had to keep making huge concessions to slavery, abolitionist fervor was growing among the people in the North.Abraham Lincoln was a president who — it was hoped by his party — would be satsifactory to the abolitionists because he felt that slavery was wrong in general, but also be accepted by the South, because he did not seek to abolish slavery where it was, only restrict its adoption by new states. In other words, in the beginning, Lincoln respected states rights enough to let the deep South settle the “slavery question” within its own borders.So in the beginning, Lincoln was actually a compromise candidate, of sorts.However, the South did not accept Lincoln, because feelings ran so strong in 1861.And so my point is… other issues, such as tarrifs, etc., could always be settled through compromise and negotiation. The slavery issue was the one issue in which feelings ran so strong that compromise failed.Barring the slavery issue, national patriotism was high in the United States even in the 19th Century. Consider that the 13 original colonies had banded together to defeat the greatest military power in the world at that time (the British Empire), and much pride in a common Union came as a result. This is what Lincoln referred to in his First Inagural as the “mystic chords of memory…” than stretched from “every battlefield.”
What would today be like without slavery?
I am going to sound savage, aristocratic and in human. Slavery was needed until the advent of industrialization. Think about it the invention of the cotton jenny was just as crucial as ending slavery as the battle a Gettysburg. It meant the economy was not bent on man power. There was a CBC documentary on Democracy, the most stable democracies are were strong industrial economies are in today's world, America, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Israel....need I say more. Also in the days of the copper through iron ages, I think it was (re-check the stats I so no want to steer you wrong, 100 slave or indentured labourers to free up one metal worker. Think about it, one man needs to be fed, clothed, sheltered back in the days of no prefabrication (everything done or made by hand). And metal meant military might for the warlords, who ever had the best weapons won the wars for power. Also up until the age of industrialization it was an agrarian feudal society. Democracy for the common man in its very embryonic state was in france, then Britain. Read Rousseau and Mill as to political thought of the time as to the rights of man came out of this age and affected the English and French political thought of the rights of man at this time in history. So slavery was needed to move to the next stage of industrialization, then when machines freed all ot the work force, mind you it would take another 200 yrs to be just labour laws for workers.
If slavery were reinstated today, would you buy a slave?
Sadly, I think my answer would have to be yes. Before you cast me out as someone evil, bear with me for a moment.If someone just turned slavery back on, then no one would have a slave. The US would immediately repeal it due to our democratic nature and ideals. We would then impose economic sanctions or military action on other countries to make them change. Places like the United Arab Emirates do still have slavery but were China or Russia to adopt slavery then the US would almost certainly resist. (Trump might not go after Russia militarily but we would still issue sanctions.) Therefore, in order for slavery to get reinstated then either the world reverses their ideals about equality or slavery never gets abolished.If everyone else suddenly changed to believing in slavery I would keep my head down and go with it. I do not own a gun, I am not a powerful leader. If others would revolt then they would do so without me. I would probably buy a slave so as not to stand out but I would treat him or her well.In the other world I might not be so kind. During slaveholding times only a small number of people had slaves but the rest were very cruel to them. This was because we thought of them as less than human, much like what had happened during WWII with the Holocaust. I do not think that I am inherently a better person then 90% of the humans who came before me. I would most likely fall victim to the same biases and hatred that consumed those before me and acquire a slave and mistreat them.EDIT: I had thought that during the height of US slavery, everyone owned slaves. I was wrong, it was only around 10% or so. I would also like to point out that this is a bad thing. People SHOULD fight back against injustice, even if they have to fight back alone. I’m just wise enough to know that I am not better then the billions of people who sat in complacency while this happened.
If slavery and underage sex was OK in the Bible, does that mean that morals are relative?
Blazin Frizzard, my morals aren't ambiguous If you define rape as sex without consent, then what about statutory rape? You do know that Christian Americans married girls as young as 7 0r 10 in quite recent years? As an atheist I find that deplorable.