Posted on 08/12/2013 9:35:39 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Sure it was.
What economic exploitation of the south by the north?
Southern products for export were not taxed.
Tariffs in 1860 were at historic low levels, and could not have been raised without the concurrance of the south.
Not only that, but freedmen created corporations, and the corporations bought slaves, often the families of the stock owners.
Attempts were made to deny the corporations the right to purchase slaves, land or to operate the land in competition with white farmers. The corporations won in court.
Laws in Virginia (and other states) were passed to force freedmen to displace from the state, as freedmen were considered a disruptive influence on the bondsman. Slaves owned by a corporation were not subject to the restrictions on freedmen.
For the United States it had nothing to do with slavery.
For the south, they began their insurrection to protect and extend the institution of human slavery.
The Jews spent 440 years in Egyptian Slavery while African Blacks spent about 200-years as American slaves.
The descendants of Jewish slaves from Egypt who believe Cleopatra was one of their own, should be entitled to reparations from the American Blacks .
Look it up.
I did and couldn't find a name.
Who was it?
How did they measure his cruelty against that of the other slave owners?
And how do we know that White slave owners didn't just decide to say that a Black man was the cruelest master?
The vast majority of "black slaveholders" were in Louisiana. This was the result of the French influence, which made acknowledging your children by the slave women, educating them and letting them inherit much more acceptable than it was in the English colonies. This created the Creole class, and after generations, they might have very little black blood--quadroons, octaroons and so on--but they are still counted as black in the binary laws of the time.
and he was a cruel man to his slaves according to the book “Black Masters”
The insurrection was started by the southern slave holding states to further and extend the institution of human slavery.
As I was talking about Creoles in Louisiana and "Black Masters" is about the Ellison family in South Carolina, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but what "Black Masters" does say is that "Although the rumor that Ellison was a cruel master is plausible, there is no evidence to confirm it." (page 135)
"Black Masters" is an interesting book, though. Ellison was a mulatto and the book mainly concerns the difficulty of navigating the antebellum world with that "in between" status. He had to be very careful in all his dealings, simultaneously asserting himself and his free status, but not pissing people off. There are interesting details about how difficult he found it, for example, to get some of the white planters for whom he'd built cotton gins (his primary business) to pay up.
The rumors of cruelty, the author believes, are plausible because Ellison would have needed to make a show of them to cement his status. "A reputation for harshness was less dangerous than a reputation for indulgence." (ibid)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.