Replies

I finished my trust taxes and dropped them in the mailbox at 4 PM this afternoon.

Another good one [book] is Huston, "Calculating the Value of the Union," who argues that value in slave PROPERTY dominated the debate (not slave labor) and that slave property was worth more than all the textiles and railroads in the north put together. Not surprising Rebs would be reluctant to give up that kind of financial investment-—even if it was immoral and an investment in human trafficking.

Thanks for the reference to Huston. I'll probably get it, but I've put a temporary hold on purchasing books until I decide whether to get a Kindle, a Nook, or an iPad. With those I can search a book for a word or phrase, making it easier to find what I want.

The value of slaves was something like 3 or 3.5 billion dollars in 1860, so Huston was correct that it dwarfed the vale of the textiles and railroads in the North. Slavery was the basis of the Southern economy, and pledges to end slavery such as those in the Helper book endorsed by the majority of Republican Congressmen foretold the destruction of that Southern economy.

Another elephant in the room was the enormous value of land in the territories. There were millions of acres available to the public from $1.25 or 2.50 an acre at the time of the war. For example, the Louisiana Purchase alone added over 500 million acres to the country. The value of that land far exceeded the value of the forts and public buildings in the South formerly owned by the Federal government. It is no wonder that the North refused Southern offers to negotiate a fair apportionment of the public debt and a division of all property held by the US Government. To balance accounts fairly, the North would have had to give to the South a huge tract of land, much of it paid for with Southern money and Southern blood.

Absolutely right on territories---but Huston's point is that the reason the fight was always over the territories, and not the states where slavery existed itself was one of property rights. If you could establish the principle of slave property rights in the territories, it would not be long before using property law you would have to reintroduce it to the north. His evidence on what the southerners were already saying about the PROPERTY (not labor!) element of slaves is extremely strong.

Slavery was the basis of the Southern economy, and pledges to end slavery such as those in the Helper book endorsed by the majority of Republican Congressmen foretold the destruction of that Southern economy

Hey, look, rustbucket, you can't go around talking like that. Non-Sequitur has done tole us that there was NO Yankee oppression of the South, and that the South's prospects were virginal and glittering with promise, if only the retrograde, regressive, genetically recessive Southerners had continued in the Union.

It's their racism, you see. Explains everything, drives everything, accounts for everything. Vote Democratic, it's cleaner. You'll feel better. And no, Non-Sequitur is not a seminar poster or a DU troll. Never think of it.

</sarc>