I feel like stirring the pot this morning.. If the Civil War was never fought...

No.

 

Low wages?

 

It would have taken a long time. I have never bought into the argument that the South would have freed their slaves shortly after winning the Civil War. The landowners had too much money tied up in the slaves. The idea that they "didn't need the slaves to farm anymore" or whatever, misses the point that the slaves, to those who owned them, were capital. Slaves becoming obsolete equals the majority of the slave owner's wealth becoming obsolete. This was the wealth they borrowed against, etc. And who is to say slavery would only work on a farm? There were plenty of slaves doing non-farm work before the civil war, and could have been used in factory work post Civil War.

The end of slavery would only have come after enough states joined the union to amend the Constitution to outlaw slavery (and the South might have still left anyway, which gets us back where we started) or when the laws changed in the North such that a combination of legal and economic pressure would have forced a change (i.e. stop returning runaway slaves and boycott products made by anyone associated with slave labor). Slavery was losing every time the nation expanded; it didn't travel well. Time was not on the South's side as far as that went.

The most creative ending to slavery I've ever heard would have involved the federal government using eminent domain to confiscate the slaves from the South. The landowners gripe but probably take the money and the slaves are free. That might have worked.

To answer the OP's question, I'll predict early 20th century.

 

NFL

 

Human trafficking.

 

Name them then.

 

Not up for a fight.
If you like it as a source of commentary, more power to you.

 

I'm not fighting.

People use Slate as a punch line here.

I'm interested to hear the particular criticisms of the commentary of writers like Lithwick, Dickerson, and Yglesias, and why it reflects poorly on one to read Slate.

 

I'm guessing it happens around World War II (assuming WWII still happens). The demands on man power during that time for the war effort may have forced slaves either into the service or into the north to work in factories. Plantation owners would have eventually figured out how to farm without slaves, especially with automobile advances that happened in the early part of the 20th century. With more and more slaves going free, laws probably would have been passed to outlaw the practice and would have been met with less resistance.

 

Tonally, Slate is all over the place- I find that aggravating.
People don't like being delivered sermons on the mount from an online journal that can't even decide what the hell it wants to be.

 

That's fair.

I do think, in isolation, some of their pieces - particularly by the people I named, or by movie critic Dana Stevens or some of their sports writers - are very good.

As in, I wouldn't dismiss a piece just because it came from Slate. I think their commentary, overall, is stronger than the New York Times's op-ed regulars.

 

I guess I just don't see the need to seek out opinion writing anymore.
Are you really likely to change your mind?
Calls into question the entire point of this as well- message-boarding.
Good thing I don't take it very seriously.