TheSecretSix
Corporal
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
You state in your OP:
for none of those people wanted to go under minority rule, none of them wish to give up their political power in their own state to a group of freed slaves who were being convinced that their freedom had come from the northern invasion rather than from where it had truly come from; the South seceding from the union in the first instance, and condemning slavery as an art form in North America forever.
---------------------------------
Are you stating that slaves owe their freedom from the South seceding from the Union & not from the Union armies destroying the CSA armies & that the South was "condemning slavery as an art form (what ever that means) in North America for ever?
This just baffles my mind…the CSA was primarily formed to keep the slave system in place. I thought I had heard it all.
What is Southern Heritage? I would say it's rebuilding its infrastructure - Jim Crow laws - & in recent years being very successful in reestablishing it's economy & working hard to accept blacks as equal members of Southern society.
Everyone knows that seceding from the Union cost the South the institution of Slavery. The North had to be an active participant in the practice in order to return runaway slaves, or the thing would not work. It is like with children who run away; up to a certain age, they also must be returned to their parents. But with this protection missing from the equation, the Northern states were no longer legally a part of slavery, at all, and would be a possible haven for runaways. Or, at least it would be seen as a possible destination before they were sent on into Canada.
The slaves were always told that it was 'father Abraham' who had made it all possible for them. That would greatly upset the balance of political power in the South, and give this new group of people a controlling interest in politics (the slaves would now be voting with the minority class of Unionists and former Cotton Whigs for a centralized federal government), why you would have a terrible unrest and revolution within the South. It is true of any new group, whether the Chinese coming into California, or any groups of Mexicans fleeing French intervention (May 5, 1862)... these people can not be made into automatic citizens, can not have a vote against the settled order, and even the freed blacks would not want former slaves coming into the job market, and reducing wages across the board.
The CSA was also built to stop unfavorable legislation against Southern interests. The South had been a milch cow for a good many years, but 'abolition' would proceed to conquer the Southern states. Abolition did not consider the needs of the slave owners, nor the 94% number of civilians in that area who would now have to compete for jobs and live in a radically changed nation. It legislated against Southern interests on every point.
The slaves were the South's problem, and they should have been considered as to what to do about them. The North was torn between tariffs and abolition, and neither benefitted the South in any way. None of that money was ever slated for compensated emancipation for those just wishing to liquidate their debts and willingly downsize, The 1860's were apparently not the best times to own slaves, economically, as the slaves were beginning to outnumber the work needing to be done, by some accounts. Because of this, banks would let you borrow less on your property than previously, due to this inflation. Plantation owners borrowed against their ownings every year, and placed a risky bet upon a good crop.
Last edited: