Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, because it's a false premise.
Why? The Soviet Union industrialized in part because of slave labour used to build the industrial capacity of the nation. Do we not discount this when we measure the economic performance of the USSR or do we whitewash it and say it doesn't matter?
That's true but it misses the point. This isn't about racism or voting. It's about the economy. In 1860, the South's economy was based upon agriculture, which was reliant almost entirely on slave labour. The north was industrializing, which was dependent upon wage labour. The vast majority of labour in the North at the time of the Civil War was based on wages.
I took a full year honours course in economic history of North America in college 20+ years ago, and I recall that the standard of living in the South as not being anywhere near the standards of living as the North. However, I cannot find my old textbook so I can't confirm that. So I might be wrong. However, I did find this from Gavin Wright entitled Slavery and American Economic Development
"Contrary to depictions off the slave South as a propserous economy devastated by war and abolition, these essays locate the root of postebellum regional backwardness firmly in the antebellum era. That era was indeed propserous for the slaveowners. But if we evaluate regional performance using a consistent measuring rod appropriate for a free society, such as the value of nonslave wealth per capita, we find levels in the South just over half those of in the free states."
Also, the idea that an agrarian society was generally wealthier than an industrialized society contradicts economic history to this day. The progress of economic history throughout the world has followed a similar pattern:
agriculture --> manufacturing --> knowledge base.
Agriculture generally is subsumed by manufacturing because manufacturing is higher value-added, which requires higher productivity, which means higher wages. Historically, workers flock from the farm to the city to work in manufacturing because they can earn a better living. This happened in Europe and the UK, it happened in America, it happened in the Asian Tigers, and is happening in China today. That the South was somehow immune from this pattern and different smacks more of historical revisionism designed to reinforce confirmation bias of those in the South.
It also reinforces the Marxist argument that American capitalism was built on slave labour. In fact, our understanding of economic progress and the critical importance of productivity in the development of capitalism contradicts the argument that the South was a richer society, or at least would remain so. Economic wealth is driven primarily by productivity growth, not by slave labour as the Marxists claim. We empirically know that productivity is the driver of higher wages and returns on capital, and thus drives economic growth. Slavery reinforces the discredited Marxist theory of The Surplus Value of Labour. It's odd that self-proclaimed libertarians cling to this notion of the Confederacy being richer than an industrializing society.
But again, maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to show that I am.
I think we're getting hung on on the phrase "richer than".
It is my understanding that yes the plantation owning economy (in aggregate) was very very wealthy.
The fact that the South paid the lions share (I have read it was about 80%) of all tariffs is a pretty good indicator of the enormous wealth (but NOT the distribution of same) in the anti-bellum South.
But the South's wealth as it regards CAPITALIZATION (wealth invested in means of production) was vested in HUMAN FLESH.
So, if the south's CAPITALIZATON was in human flesh, and the value of that AS CAPITALIZABLE wealth was threatened when slavery itself was threatened?
Then the wealth of the South depended entirely on SLAVERY being legal and EXPORTABLE, too.
By exportable, I mean migrating and taking your propetry (your capitalization, i.e., your slaves) our of the current slave states.
THIS is what was threatened by Abolition...about 75 % of the economy of the South
THIS is why the SOUTH went to war against the Republic. That is why had the Republic let them go, they're have stiull be war sooner rather than later.
They know perfectly well their continued wealth depended on slavery and its expansion, too.
Thge CSA planned on expanding from sea to shioning sea no less than the Republic did.
The CSA had to be crushed.
Ending slavery was the most effective way to do that.
No, because it's a false premise.
Why? The Soviet Union industrialized in part because of slave labour used to build the industrial capacity of the nation. Do we not discount this when we measure the economic performance of the USSR or do we whitewash it and say it doesn't matter?
That's true but it misses the point. This isn't about racism or voting. It's about the economy. In 1860, the South's economy was based upon agriculture, which was reliant almost entirely on slave labour. The north was industrializing, which was dependent upon wage labour. The vast majority of labour in the North at the time of the Civil War was based on wages.
I took a full year honours course in economic history of North America in college 20+ years ago, and I recall that the standard of living in the South as not being anywhere near the standards of living as the North. However, I cannot find my old textbook so I can't confirm that. So I might be wrong. However, I did find this from Gavin Wright entitled Slavery and American Economic Development
"Contrary to depictions off the slave South as a propserous economy devastated by war and abolition, these essays locate the root of postebellum regional backwardness firmly in the antebellum era. That era was indeed propserous for the slaveowners. But if we evaluate regional performance using a consistent measuring rod appropriate for a free society, such as the value of nonslave wealth per capita, we find levels in the South just over half those of in the free states."
Also, the idea that an agrarian society was generally wealthier than an industrialized society contradicts economic history to this day. The progress of economic history throughout the world has followed a similar pattern:
agriculture --> manufacturing --> knowledge base.
Agriculture generally is subsumed by manufacturing because manufacturing is higher value-added, which requires higher productivity, which means higher wages. Historically, workers flock from the farm to the city to work in manufacturing because they can earn a better living. This happened in Europe and the UK, it happened in America, it happened in the Asian Tigers, and is happening in China today. That the South was somehow immune from this pattern and different smacks more of historical revisionism designed to reinforce confirmation bias of those in the South.
It also reinforces the Marxist argument that American capitalism was built on slave labour. In fact, our understanding of economic progress and the critical importance of productivity in the development of capitalism contradicts the argument that the South was a richer society, or at least would remain so. Economic wealth is driven primarily by productivity growth, not by slave labour as the Marxists claim. We empirically know that productivity is the driver of higher wages and returns on capital, and thus drives economic growth. Slavery reinforces the discredited Marxist theory of The Surplus Value of Labour. It's odd that self-proclaimed libertarians cling to this notion of the Confederacy being richer than an industrializing society.
But again, maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to show that I am.
I think we're getting hung on on the phrase "richer than".
It is my understanding that yes the plantation owning economy (in aggregate) was very very wealthy.
The fact that the South paid the lions share (I have read it was about 80%) of all tariffs is a pretty good indicator of the enormous wealth (but NOT the distribution of same) in the anti-bellum South.
But the South's wealth as it regards CAPITALIZATION (wealth invested in means of production) was vested in HUMAN FLESH.
So, if the south's CAPITALIZATON was in human flesh, and the value of that AS CAPITALIZABLE wealth was threatened when slavery itself was threatened?
Then the wealth of the South depended entirely on SLAVERY being legal and EXPORTABLE, too.
By exportable, I mean migrating and taking your propetry (your capitalization, i.e., your slaves) our of the current slave states.
THIS is what was threatened by Abolition...about 75 % of the economy of the South
THIS is why the SOUTH went to war against the Republic. That is why had the Republic let them go, they're have stiull be war sooner rather than later.
They know perfectly well their continued wealth depended on slavery and its expansion, too.
Thge CSA planned on expanding from sea to shioning sea no less than the Republic did.
The CSA had to be crushed.
Ending slavery was the most effective way to do that.
It is important to remember that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery. It was fought to prevent the South from seceding from the Union. So let's keep slavery in its proper context in the discussion.
But it is precisely because I believe world opinion would have put pressure on the new "Southland" re slavery that those of conscience would have ended it fairly shortly after emancipation of the country. The slave owners simply would not have had sufficient clout to overrule the other 3/4ths of the country and, with no war to polarize Southland and create deep resentments, even hatred, of the North, I doubt there would have been long lived tensions between the two country.
The northern textile manufacturers would so covet Southern cotton and other other products that don't grow well north of the Mason Dixon line, and the South would so covet manufactured goods from the North, that would have taken care of any punative tariffs. The two countries would need each other as much as the various states need each other now.
And because the issue of slavery would no longer exist, and the North would have incentive to want the South with its warm water ports long growing season and rich oil fields, I'm pretty sure the two countries would have worked out any other states rights issues and would have agreed to remerge within a few decades of secession or sooner.
It is if there was no reunification that is the fascinating concept to speculate on though. And I'm pretty sure if that had happened, Mexico would have become much more heavily involved.
It was about slavery. The separated because Lincoln a known abolitionist was nominated.
Lincoln did believe slavery was morally wrong, but he was not an abolitionist. He made it clear in his campaign speeches that his goal was not to abolish slavery. He respected the Constitution that supported the concept of slavery.
Lincoln thought slavery should end and black people should be be free, but he didnt believe blacks should have the same rights as whites as he made clear in the Lincoln/Douglas debates. In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln said: I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,. . . . In the same debate he opposed blacks having the right to vote, serve on juries, hold elected office, or marry whites. But he did believe black people should have he same right as white people to be free, to be happy, and to improve their condition in life. He was definitely a product of his culture.
Lincoln supported the notion of colonization or returning the majority of black people to Africa or send them to Central America. Like Jefferson and Henry Clay, he saw colonization for black people as the solution to the slave problem and a way for black people to have a new start.
Freeing the slaves in the rebel states was mostly a military strategy:
As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didnt see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nations 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didnt have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.
But the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the five slave states that did not rebel against the Union.
5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation ? History in the Headlines
The South would have maintained slavery into the 20th century and Jim Crow indefinitely.
Their agrarian economy would have folded from competition from India and they would be like Mexico today trying to sneak into he north
It was about slavery. The separated because Lincoln a known abolitionist was nominated.
Lincoln did believe slavery was morally wrong, but he was not an abolitionist. He made it clear in his campaign speeches that his goal was not to abolish slavery. He respected the Constitution that supported the concept of slavery.
Lincoln thought slavery should end and black people should be be free, but he didnt believe blacks should have the same rights as whites as he made clear in the Lincoln/Douglas debates. In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln said: I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,. . . . In the same debate he opposed blacks having the right to vote, serve on juries, hold elected office, or marry whites. But he did believe black people should have he same right as white people to be free, to be happy, and to improve their condition in life. He was definitely a product of his culture.
Lincoln supported the notion of colonization or returning the majority of black people to Africa or send them to Central America. Like Jefferson and Henry Clay, he saw colonization for black people as the solution to the slave problem and a way for black people to have a new start.
Freeing the slaves in the rebel states was mostly a military strategy:
As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didnt see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nations 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didnt have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.
But the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the five slave states that did not rebel against the Union.
5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation ? History in the Headlines
If you're going to discuss these things you need to read up on history to know what the hell you're talking about. As for fighting against a tyrannical government? It was so tyrannical a government that it freed a entire race of people that was held in bondage by the very people you are holding up as honorable freedom fighters. If they didn't want war then they shouldn't have attacked hey Union base
If you're going to discuss these things you need to read up on history to know what the hell you're talking about. As for fighting against a tyrannical government? It was so tyrannical a government that it freed a entire race of people that was held in bondage by the very people you are holding up as honorable freedom fighters. If they didn't want war then they shouldn't have attacked hey Union base
If you're going to discuss these things you need to read up on history to know what the hell you're talking about. As for fighting against a tyrannical government? It was so tyrannical a government that it freed a entire race of people that was held in bondage by the very people you are holding up as honorable freedom fighters. If they didn't want war then they shouldn't have attacked hey Union base
In fairness, Fox isn't saying that they were honorable freedom fighters.
If you're going to discuss these things you need to read up on history to know what the hell you're talking about. As for fighting against a tyrannical government? It was so tyrannical a government that it freed a entire race of people that was held in bondage by the very people you are holding up as honorable freedom fighters. If they didn't want war then they shouldn't have attacked hey Union base
In fairness, Fox isn't saying that they were honorable freedom fighters.
However, I've always been puzzled by self-proclaimed libertarians who defend the Confederacy.
In fairness, Fox isn't saying that they were honorable freedom fighters.
However, I've always been puzzled by self-proclaimed libertarians who defend the Confederacy.
I am not defending the Confederacy at all. I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history. Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority. But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two. And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate. It's just the honest truth. And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist. It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach. But it is the truth just the same.
Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South. Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.
And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
However, I've always been puzzled by self-proclaimed libertarians who defend the Confederacy.
I am not defending the Confederacy at all. I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history. Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority. But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two. And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate. It's just the honest truth. And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist. It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach. But it is the truth just the same.
Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South. Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.
And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
FYI My libertarian comment wasn't directed at you, Fox. There are others here to whom that applies, though.
I agree with your characterization that all Southerners aren't evil. It's many shades of gray and not black and white. And I also respect you for being impartial and objective.
However, it is a very deep human need to want to believe that we are good. So when we do something bad, we try to whitewash and rationalize it away. Everyone does it. All nations do it. When nations commit horrendous crimes or engage in actions that we deem morally reprehensible today, there is a very strong tendency to erase it from our collective memory. We think clearer when those crimes are committed by others outside our group. But when our group does it, there is an inherent reaction against judging ourselves in the same manner.
That goes on in the South with slavery IMHO. That doesn't mean that Southerners are 100% wrong and Northerners 100% right. Far from it. Southerners had legitimate beefs. But many Southerners and supporters of the Confederacy today attempt to minimize slavery and it's horrors, or downplay its significance in society.
Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.
However, I've always been puzzled by self-proclaimed libertarians who defend the Confederacy.
I am not defending the Confederacy at all. I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history. Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority. But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two. And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate. It's just the honest truth. And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist. It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach. But it is the truth just the same.
Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South. Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.
And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
FYI My libertarian comment wasn't directed at you, Fox. There are others here to whom that applies, though.
I agree with your characterization that all Southerners aren't evil. It's many shades of gray and not black and white. And I also respect you for being impartial and objective.
However, it is a very deep human need to want to believe that we are good. So when we do something bad, we try to whitewash and rationalize it away. Everyone does it. All nations do it. When nations commit horrendous crimes or engage in actions that we deem morally reprehensible today, there is a very strong tendency to erase it from our collective memory. We think clearer when those crimes are committed by others outside our group. But when our group does it, there is an inherent reaction against judging ourselves in the same manner.
That goes on in the South with slavery IMHO. That doesn't mean that Southerners are 100% wrong and Northerners 100% right. Far from it. Southerners had legitimate beefs. But many Southerners and supporters of the Confederacy today attempt to minimize slavery and it's horrors, or downplay its significance in society.
I am not defending the Confederacy at all. I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history. Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority. But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two. And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate. It's just the honest truth. And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist. It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach. But it is the truth just the same.
Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South. Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.
And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
FYI My libertarian comment wasn't directed at you, Fox. There are others here to whom that applies, though.
I agree with your characterization that all Southerners aren't evil. It's many shades of gray and not black and white. And I also respect you for being impartial and objective.
However, it is a very deep human need to want to believe that we are good. So when we do something bad, we try to whitewash and rationalize it away. Everyone does it. All nations do it. When nations commit horrendous crimes or engage in actions that we deem morally reprehensible today, there is a very strong tendency to erase it from our collective memory. We think clearer when those crimes are committed by others outside our group. But when our group does it, there is an inherent reaction against judging ourselves in the same manner.
That goes on in the South with slavery IMHO. That doesn't mean that Southerners are 100% wrong and Northerners 100% right. Far from it. Southerners had legitimate beefs. But many Southerners and supporters of the Confederacy today attempt to minimize slavery and it's horrors, or downplay its significance in society.
Again I don't think a soul here--at least I HOPE not a soul here--is condoning slavery or sees it as anything other than an abominable evil. It is because the people of former generations, without the hindsight of history that we have, came to that same conclusion and slavery was ended or was never allowed to be law in their respective states or societies.
But once you wrench the subject away from the political correctness crowd and see the legacy for what it is, there are some interesting dynamics and perspectives.
There are at least hundreds if not many thousands of thoughtful black people living today that are actually grateful that somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships. That horrendous and unjustifiable unfortunate situation for their ancesters has not been unfortunate for them. They were born as free citizens into a country that has given them infinite liberty, opportunity, and prosperity that likely would never have been available to them had their ancesters not been American slaves.
There are many others with the intellect and intellectual honesty to be grateful for the white men who risked or gave all his blood and treasure to fight a war resulting in liberation of the slaves rather than harboring resentment toward white men because some owned slaves. There are those who appreciate the political risk many took to make the worst of racism illegal rather than harbor grudges because it once existed.
There is also the truth that Lincoln freed the slaves in an effort to keep more black people from fleeing to the North as many in the North didn't want the black people or the problem of dealing with them. Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the states that did not secede.
And finally, there is simply no reason to think that the same ethic that rejected slavery in the North would not have eventually prevailed in the South. Certainly the black people would have then left their cruel masters, and their numbers were legion. But history also informs us that voluntarily freed slaves often stayed with kind 'masters' but as paid employees instead of slaves.
There are all kinds of prisms through which to see history, even the hypothetical history as suggested in the OP.
I am not defending the Confederacy at all. I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history. Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority. But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two. And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate. It's just the honest truth. And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist. It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach. But it is the truth just the same.
Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South. Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.
And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
FYI My libertarian comment wasn't directed at you, Fox. There are others here to whom that applies, though.
I agree with your characterization that all Southerners aren't evil. It's many shades of gray and not black and white. And I also respect you for being impartial and objective.
However, it is a very deep human need to want to believe that we are good. So when we do something bad, we try to whitewash and rationalize it away. Everyone does it. All nations do it. When nations commit horrendous crimes or engage in actions that we deem morally reprehensible today, there is a very strong tendency to erase it from our collective memory. We think clearer when those crimes are committed by others outside our group. But when our group does it, there is an inherent reaction against judging ourselves in the same manner.
That goes on in the South with slavery IMHO. That doesn't mean that Southerners are 100% wrong and Northerners 100% right. Far from it. Southerners had legitimate beefs. But many Southerners and supporters of the Confederacy today attempt to minimize slavery and it's horrors, or downplay its significance in society.
Again I don't think a soul here--at least I HOPE not a soul here--is condoning slavery or sees it as anything other than an abominable evil. It is because the people of former generations, without the hindsight of history that we have, came to that same conclusion and slavery was ended or was never allowed to be law in their respective states or societies.
But once you wrench the subject away from the political correctness crowd and see the legacy for what it is, there are some interesting dynamics and perspectives.
There are at least hundreds if not many thousands of thoughtful black people living today that are actually grateful that somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships. That horrendous and unjustifiable unfortunate situation for their ancesters has not been unfortunate for them. They were born as free citizens into a country that has given them infinite liberty, opportunity, and prosperity that likely would never have been available to them had their ancesters not been American slaves.
There are many others with the intellect and intellectual honesty to be grateful for the white men who risked or gave all his blood and treasure to fight a war resulting in liberation of the slaves rather than harboring resentment toward white men because some owned slaves. There are those who appreciate the political risk many took to make the worst of racism illegal rather than harbor grudges because it once existed.
There is also the truth that Lincoln freed the slaves in an effort to keep more black people from fleeing to the North as many in the North didn't want the black people or the problem of dealing with them. Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the states that did not secede.
And finally, there is simply no reason to think that the same ethic that rejected slavery in the North would not have eventually prevailed in the South. Certainly the black people would have then left their cruel masters, and their numbers were legion. But history also informs us that voluntarily freed slaves often stayed with kind 'masters' but as paid employees instead of slaves.
There are all kinds of prisms through which to see history, even the hypothetical history as suggested in the OP.
FYI My libertarian comment wasn't directed at you, Fox. There are others here to whom that applies, though.
I agree with your characterization that all Southerners aren't evil. It's many shades of gray and not black and white. And I also respect you for being impartial and objective.
However, it is a very deep human need to want to believe that we are good. So when we do something bad, we try to whitewash and rationalize it away. Everyone does it. All nations do it. When nations commit horrendous crimes or engage in actions that we deem morally reprehensible today, there is a very strong tendency to erase it from our collective memory. We think clearer when those crimes are committed by others outside our group. But when our group does it, there is an inherent reaction against judging ourselves in the same manner.
That goes on in the South with slavery IMHO. That doesn't mean that Southerners are 100% wrong and Northerners 100% right. Far from it. Southerners had legitimate beefs. But many Southerners and supporters of the Confederacy today attempt to minimize slavery and it's horrors, or downplay its significance in society.
Again I don't think a soul here--at least I HOPE not a soul here--is condoning slavery or sees it as anything other than an abominable evil. It is because the people of former generations, without the hindsight of history that we have, came to that same conclusion and slavery was ended or was never allowed to be law in their respective states or societies.
But once you wrench the subject away from the political correctness crowd and see the legacy for what it is, there are some interesting dynamics and perspectives.
There are at least hundreds if not many thousands of thoughtful black people living today that are actually grateful that somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships. That horrendous and unjustifiable unfortunate situation for their ancesters has not been unfortunate for them. They were born as free citizens into a country that has given them infinite liberty, opportunity, and prosperity that likely would never have been available to them had their ancesters not been American slaves.
There are many others with the intellect and intellectual honesty to be grateful for the white men who risked or gave all his blood and treasure to fight a war resulting in liberation of the slaves rather than harboring resentment toward white men because some owned slaves. There are those who appreciate the political risk many took to make the worst of racism illegal rather than harbor grudges because it once existed.
There is also the truth that Lincoln freed the slaves in an effort to keep more black people from fleeing to the North as many in the North didn't want the black people or the problem of dealing with them. Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the states that did not secede.
And finally, there is simply no reason to think that the same ethic that rejected slavery in the North would not have eventually prevailed in the South. Certainly the black people would have then left their cruel masters, and their numbers were legion. But history also informs us that voluntarily freed slaves often stayed with kind 'masters' but as paid employees instead of slaves.
There are all kinds of prisms through which to see history, even the hypothetical history as suggested in the OP.
There was a practical problem. The South had around 9 million whites, 6% of whom actually owned slaves, but there were around 3.5 million slaves, or around 40% of the total population.
Confederate States of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And Lincoln initially considered sending them to Liberia, but that was impractical, and though perhaps not at the time, it was a barbaric thought.
Still, what to do when 40% of the population is illieterate and unskilled? How to you assimilate that? The seeds of a problem.
