[DiogenesLamp]

Did it? A lot of it ended up here ..

Yes it did, and I have little doubt the old Southern Aristocracy prompted quite a lot of envy and hatred just from being so well off on the backs of their slaves.

It offends the human sense of fairness that some should have so much without really working for it.

But they acquired that wealth legally according to the laws of that time frame, and so people had to accept that it was unfair, but not illegal.

This still doesn't make it reasonable to rig the laws against them, just because they had money.

[x]

But they acquired that wealth legally according to the laws of that time frame, and so people had to accept that it was unfair, but not illegal.

Leaving aside the legitimacy of plantation wealth for a minute, that was also something that could be said of New York merchants and bankers back then.

They made their money legally. They benefited from slavery but weren't anywhere near as guilty as the planters or slave traders, yet you continually rant against them and advocate what is a major change in the laws -- breaking up the country -- in order to take money away from them.

Inconsistent much?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It offends the human sense of fairness that some should have so much without really working for it.
But they acquired that wealth legally according to the laws of that time frame, and so people had to accept that it was unfair, but not illegal.
This still doesn't make it reasonable to rig the laws against them, just because they had money."

Your endless protestations notwithstanding, Federal laws from 1800 until 1861 were made by Southerners for Southerners.
They had no legitimate reasons to complain.