Posted on 12/16/2023 9:27:14 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
1/ Within the next several days, barring intervention from Congress, the Biden Regime, in violation of the law, will remove the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, commissioned to celebrate the reconciliation of North and South.
@blueandgray1864 @oilfieldRando
2/ The memorial is considered the masterwork of the renowned Jewish-American sculptor Sir Moses Ezekiel (a former Confederate soldier who was described by his biographer as “adamantly opposed to slavery") who is buried at its base.
3/ Ezekiel, knighted by the King of Italy, was so dedicated to North-South reconciliation that he would later host commanding Union General Ulysses S. Grant at his studio.
4/ Yet in the wake of the George Floyd moral panic, this memorial was scheduled for removal, though its removal is being done in violation of several federal laws and the clear text of the legislation, which excludes graves.
5/ As former Democrat Senator and Navy Secretary Jim Webb said:
“What was it that Union Army veteran McKinley understood about the Confederate soldiers who opposed him on the battlefield that eludes today’s monument smashers and ad hominem destroyers of historical reputations?”
6/ In fact, at the time it was constructed, some major Confederate groups opposed it because they opposed the reconciliation it symbolized.
7/ Webb, a Vietnam Veteran, has spoken about taking groups of North and South Vietnamese to the monument to show how the U.S. reconciled successfully after a bitter civil war
8/ 44 House Republicans have signed a letter opposing the removal but every Republican should be on record as opposing this lawless action
9/ But of course, this is never *really* about the Confederacy or “Confederate Statues”. The same spirit animated the recent removal of the statue of Thomas Jefferson from the New York City Council, where it had stood for 187 years.
The population of New Mexico Territory in 1850 was 61,000, and most of the people there were Indians or Spaniards. American settlement hadn't even really begun. The idea that slaves can be forced to do all kinds of labor is true. That potential just wasn't given time to develop.
But do you know why it was important to convince everyone that slavery "expansion" was a serious problem? Because they might elect members of congress that would support the Southern states and not the Northern ones.
What would make the new states support the South rather than the North? The biggest reason would be because there were slaveowners and slaves living there. Make slavery legal, and you have slaves and slaveowning, and it becomes harder for free citizens to compete with the slaveowners.
The Northern states had control of congress, and used it to enact all sorts of legislation favorable to themselves.
No. The Senate was evenly split between free and slave states. Add in the Democrat senators from Northern States and the South dominated US politics through the 1830s and 1840s. That was changing in the 1850s. Southern concern wasn't about always being excluded or oppressed. It was about losing the power that they had held for so long.
Now you might think the "Free Soil Party" would be headquartered in Kansas, so that it could be close to the land in question, or perhaps even Chicago, so it wouldn't be too far away, but it was in fact headquartered in New York, over a thousand miles away from the land it was supposedly concerned about.
So you are still repeating that? You haven't provided any evidence that the party had a headquarters or that it was in New York. The Free Soil Party was founded in Western New York State for several reasons.
First of all, people had settled there not so long ago, and their children were settling in Wisconsin and other western states and territories, so they were concerned about slavery in the territories. Second, the region, "The Burnt Over District," had been the site of many religious revivals and then of reform movements. It was a hotbed of movements like the Free Soilers. Third, the New York Democratic Party was split, so there was an opportunity to pick up Democrat, as well as Whig and abolitionist voters, in what was then the largest state in the country.
I'm getting tired of repeating this. You don't think people in Virginia or South Carolina worried about whether there was slavery in the territories? Slaveowners in Mississippi and Missouri certainly did. Was that concern legitimate in the way that Northerners worries about the expansion of slavery wasn't?
Very interesting post. The salient word, for me, in your comment is "will". Both sides, no surprise, wanted power in the territories; and the South's power during peacetime was centered in slave labor. The territories were the future both sides wanted to dominate.
Agree with your comments. The territories were the future; and both sides, whether moral/immoral or honest/dishonest wanted their systems to dominate there.
No. By 1858 there were 17 states that did not allow slavery vs 15 that did. The South's concern was in no longer being able to stop economic legislation that favored the North and which harmed the South even more than the legislation passed by the federal government already had. Everybody remembered the Tariff of Abominations.
I'm getting tired of repeating this. You don't think people in Virginia or South Carolina worried about whether there was slavery in the territories? Slaveowners in Mississippi and Missouri certainly did. Was that concern legitimate in the way that Northerners worries about the expansion of slavery wasn't?
Southerners were only concerned about the spread of slavery to the territories in the West so long as they were concerned about seats in the US Senate. As has already been demonstrated, there were not more than about a dozen slaves in the Arizona territory and no, slavery had not proven economically profitable for anything but labor intensive crops that could yield a high value. As states industrialized, the percentage of Blacks who were slaves steadily decreased and slavey gradually went extinct.
Yes both sides wanted to dominate the western territories (at least so long as the Southern states were in). Both sides were engaged in a long power struggle and the western territories were all about political power within the US. The Southern states weren't interested in expanding slavery into the western territories for the economic possibilities - there were none or at least none that were viable - for slave labor in the West. What the South was really concerned with were votes in the US Senate - their last holdout against sectional partisan legislation that would really hurt their economic interests.
If this were not the case....if they really were interested in the western territory for the economic possibilities...why secede? Why only claim their own sovereign land and make no claim to the Western territories of the US? Why would anybody adopt a "solution" that required him to give up the very thing he was supposedly so motivated to keep that he would be willing to fight over it?
the only answer that makes sense is the South no longer needed those votes in the US Senate. That was THE whole reason they had been interested in the western territories to begin with.
Corwin, a last ditch effort to avoid war, failed to keep Dixie in the Union due to a lack of guarantees for slavery in the territories. Obtaining the gold, silver, livestock etc. resources of the West was compatible with the South's massive supply of very affordable labor. The South had no reason to remain in a system that excluded their prime source of labor from harvesting these treasures.
I have not denied that your view as to the possibility of Northern systematic greed being a factor in the disaster is a consideration. But I will not concede that the possibility of the South's inhumane use of slave labor as a carefully crafted advantage to gain control of American enterprise is also a consideration.
Just think of the powerful draw for some to the prospect of breeding an unlimited source of mostly compliant, almost free labor to serve at one's feet; and I might add occasionally for one's pleasure. It's good to be a slavemaster, if one can deal with conscience.
It’s early...”also” = “not” in the last sentence of the second paragraph above...
.
No, that's false. The Southern states' only interest in the territories was protecting themselves economically - not protecting slavery which was not threatened in the US. The Corwin Amendment failed because it offered to protect slavery rather than the Southern states' real concern - their economic interests.
Obtaining the gold, silver, livestock etc. resources of the West was compatible with the South's massive supply of very affordable labor. The South had no reason to remain in a system that excluded their prime source of labor from harvesting these treasures.
Slavery was not a system shown to work for mining gold, raising livestock, etc. The Southern states' interest in the West was not for any riches in the West. It was to protect their own economic interest against further northern aggrandizement.
I have not denied that your view as to the possibility of Northern systematic greed being a factor in the disaster is a consideration. But I will not concede that the possibility of the South's inhumane use of slave labor as a carefully crafted advantage to gain control of American enterprise is also a consideration.
The South was not interested in and was not in a position to dominate the North or its economic enterprise. From the very founding of the Republic until the mid 19th century the South had been by far the richest part of the country. The North started to catch up as it became further industrialized and as its industrialization was boosted by massive money flows from South to North effectuated by the federal government. All the Southern states needed to do in order to be far wealthier than they were in 1860 was go independent - thus cutting off that huge money drain from their pockets. They didn't need the West. They didn't need to control the North.
Just think of the powerful draw for some to the prospect of breeding an unlimited source of mostly compliant, almost free labor to serve at one's feet; and I might add occasionally for one's pleasure. It's good to be a slavemaster, if one can deal with conscience.
You make the mistake of thinking slavery is "free" (of cost). No it isn't. The owner must provide food, clothing and shelter not to mention medical care if he wants his slaves to live and be healthy and productive. He also must provide (or the whole society must provide) for the security costs to prevent slaves from escaping. And surprise surprise, you'll be just shocked to learn its always the most economically productive slaves - ie fit young strong ones - who seek to escape. Its never the infants or the elderly or crippled who are a net drain on finances.
there is a reason why as states became more industrialized, the number of slaves decreased. The percentage of families owning slaves decreased. The percentage of blacks who were freedmen increased, etc etc. This happened in state after state in the North prior to slavery's extinction there. It was happening as industrialization crept further southward every passing year. By 1860, 50% of Blacks in Maryland were freedmen. 25% of Blacks in Virginia were freedmen. Chattel Slavery is not economically compatible with industrialization just as its not compatible with mining, raising livestock, etc.
LOL...Drat...so once again, my explications have been found wanting. Well, I'll just have to live with it. I'm not a Libertarian, so I can bear disagreement. For the record, I must point out that "almost free" and not "free" was used in my post.
I feel the usefulness, once again speaking only for myself, is at an end in our discussion. I understand your points, and I think mine have been clearly expressed. The fact that we see things differently has not deterred me from gaining insights into the positions held by those with your opinions. And I thank you for that...Happy Holidays
Did I not say, "That was changing in the 1850s"? I did say exactly that. My point was that the South was not the bottom dog getting kicked around in antebellum America. Southerners were very much in charge in the 1840s and got what they wanted in terms of low tariffs in the Polk years and afterwards.
The South's concern was in no longer being able to stop economic legislation that favored the North and which harmed the South even more than the legislation passed by the federal government already had.
They were much more concerned about federal actions that could affect slavery. That was what all the uproar was about in the 1850s. A smarter South would have been able to appeal to the urban Democrat voters and farmers of the North and West to shore up its economic position. That was what the South was able to do for much of American history. The slavery issue would make that impossible.
Southerners were only concerned about the spread of slavery to the territories in the West so long as they were concerned about seats in the US Senate.
First of all, why is that a legitmate concern, while Northerners concern about more slave states in the Senate isn't? Secondly, it's not true. It's one of those backformations that people came up with after the war. Before the war, there were articles like "Kansas a Slave State" which argued, rightly or wrongly, that good soil and abundant water meant that Kansas could be a profitable slave state. DeBow's Review also argued for a transcontinental railroad, built by slave labor that would ultimately make the western territories slave states.
As has already been demonstrated, there were not more than about a dozen slaves in the Arizona territory and no, slavery had not proven economically profitable for anything but labor intensive crops that could yield a high value.
Slaves did all kinds of things in the South, in ancient times, and around the world. Before the Europeans, Indians practiced slavery in the Southwest. Slaves have long been used in mining around the world, and with adequate irrigation, could have been used in agriculture in the Southwest.
As states industrialized, the percentage of Blacks who were slaves steadily decreased and slavey gradually went extinct.
And yet, DeBow's which was passionate about slavery expansion, also advocated industrialization in the South. They believed slavery and industry were fully compatible. What seems logical and natural to us now, didn't back then.
That's my take. I was thoroughly gobsmacked when I first read a statement reportedly made by Jeff Davis in 1864 to the effect the South was fighting for independence, not slavery. This is, in my view, is an outstanding example of a twisted mind.
Despite the political power they did have, I would disagree with this. The South very much did get a raw deal economically. At first it was vastly richer and was willing to subsidize things like restrictions on shipping to only domestic (ie Northern) shipping to maintain that industry for national security. It was also willing to subsidize some mining and manufacturing (again overwhelmingly in the North) as well as infrastructure. But time went on the North only ever clamored for even more money. They tariff of abominations was hugely harmful. Even the "lower" tariff you refer to was 17%. That was considerably higher than what the South wanted. The Confederate Constitution would have limited tariffs to 10% maximum.
They were much more concerned about federal actions that could affect slavery. That was what all the uproar was about in the 1850s. A smarter South would have been able to appeal to the urban Democrat voters and farmers of the North and West to shore up its economic position. That was what the South was able to do for much of American history. The slavery issue would make that impossible.
I disagree. They were more concerned about their economic interests. Slavery was used as a "wedge issue" by Northern industrialists precisely to prevent Midwestern farmers from aligning with the South. Several including Robert Barnwell Rhett openly said this.
First of all, why is that a legitmate concern, while Northerners concern about more slave states in the Senate isn't?
Why is the South's concern about not being plundered further by partisan economic legislation intended to benefit the North at their expense legitimate? Uhh, if that's not legitimate, what is? People always lobby/fight for their economic interests.
Secondly, it's not true. It's one of those backformations that people came up with after the war.,/p>
Secondly, the denial is not true. Its something they fought about for decades - loudly and bitterly. I've provided numerous quotes from politicians of that time before and even after secession as well as foreign sources saying that that's exactly what the power struggle was about - not slavery.
Before the war, there were articles like "Kansas a Slave State" which argued, rightly or wrongly, that good soil and abundant water meant that Kansas could be a profitable slave state. DeBow's Review also argued for a transcontinental railroad, built by slave labor that would ultimately make the western territories slave states.
I don't doubt that some argued along the lines you suggest. Most Southerners though knew that the west was not suitable for chattel slavery and were far more concerned with protecting their economic interests than anything else. They knew the Senate was the key to that. Once they realized they could no longer halt a return of the economically devastating high tariffs they experienced a generation before, they decided to secede.
Slaves did all kinds of things in the South, in ancient times, and around the world. Before the Europeans, Indians practiced slavery in the Southwest. Slaves have long been used in mining around the world, and with adequate irrigation, could have been used in agriculture in the Southwest.
Why did this ancient institution that goes back as far as recorded time itself suddenly die out everywhere in the Western world over the course of about 75 years in the 19th century? Don't tell me you can possibly be so naive as to think there was some kind of grand moral awakening as to its evils happening all over the West in just a few generations. It died because it is incompatible with industrialization. That's the same thing that killed it off in the Northern states and was starting to kill it off in the Upper South. Chattel slavery was not suited to the West.
And yet, DeBow's which was passionate about slavery expansion, also advocated industrialization in the South. They believed slavery and industry were fully compatible. What seems logical and natural to us now, didn't back then.
Most people realized industrialization killed off slavery. They saw it happen in the Northern states. They saw it happen in the British Empire. They saw it happening in other Western countries. Many of the more educated saw it happening in the Upper South already by 1860. Sure there were fire eaters here or there who disagreed but most understood Chattel Slavery's days were numbered not because of any abolitionist movement on the part of Northerners but because of economic developments.
What's twisted about that. That's exactly what he believed. He said so multiple times.
“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861
Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).
Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some Confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Jefferson Davis officially recommended that slaves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be freed. Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate generals favored emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army. In fact, Lee had long favored the abolition of slavery and had called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war (Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003, reprint, pp. 231-232). By late 1864, Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the South and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the Confederate House of Representatives, strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions, and then sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary so as to ensure he could make the proposal to the British and French governments and that it would be taken seriously.
“[Our situation] illustrates the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.” Jefferson Davis
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“[Our situation] illustrates the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them..."
And, LOL, that's just what Unconditional S. Grant, Uncle Billy Sherman and their pals did to the unrecognized, breakaway CSA....Thank goodness. On second thought, goodness might not have been the right choice of words.
Why? I've provided quotes and sources to back up everything I've said.
But, what the heck, Jeff Davis comments are a hoot, e.g.: “[Our situation] illustrates the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them..."
That was the same thing expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Do you find Thomas Jefferson to be a hoot as well? By the way, Jefferson Davis was not the only one to point out that the federal government no longer had the consent of the people in the Southern States.
“The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history... the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.” HL Mencken
As I said earlier, Lincoln overthrew the original constitution and converted the US from being a voluntary union based on consent to an empire based on force, threats and violence. It changed the very nature of the union.
“If the Northerners on ascertaining the resolution of the South, had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg. There was not, in fact, a single argument advanced in defense of the war against the South which might not have been advanced with exactly the same force for the subjugation of Hungary or Poland. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” Times of London September 1862
That is because you pick quotes that relate to economics and ignore those that relate to slavery. Far more Southerners were concerned about the possibility of slave rebellions than about tariffs or maritime law — and that went much further up and down the social scale. For Southerners of the day, and even for the political elites who wanted secession, “King Cotton” and the “Southern Way of Life” were far more threatened by fears of slave rebellion, emancipation, or abolitionist agitation than by economic measures.
What issues aren’t “wedge issues,” and are they somehow invalid concerns? Issues that allied Northern workers and Western farmers with Southern planters were also “wedge issues”? Were the “wedge issues” that made Democrats vote for Nixon or Reagan less legitimate than the issues that would have had them vote for McGovern or Mondale?
The South was not being plundered. It got fortresses built, and rivers and harbors dredged. It benefited from the same postal service, courts, and military as other states, perhaps more so. Northern manufacturers wanted some tariff protection. So did Southern manufacturers. So did Southern hemp and sugar cane growers. So did some ordinary Southerners.
The Tariff of Abominations was repealed 5 years after it was passed, and by 1860 tariffs were about as low as they had ever been. If Southerners feared higher tariffs the way to do so was to split the Democratic Party and let the Republicans into office — which Southern political elites did.
Foreigners, mostly elite Englishmen, were keen to see tariffs as the cause of the war because that was what affected them most economically. Ordinary Englishmen realized the importance of slavery and acted accordingly.
If slavery is inconsistent with industrialism, how to explain the role of slave labor in China’s economy? Moreover, Southern planters wanted an agricultural, resource-providing economy. Slavery was fully consistent with that, as it was with mining, as we see now in the Congo.
I suppose slavery is incompatible with large-scale manufacturing. Paid workers would be more competent and more industrious. The number of overseers required to keep the slaves producing goods might also be prohibitive. And once slaves saw how many they were and how few the masters were in the factories, and in the cities that would spring up around them, they were likely to rebel.
Some Southerners saw this at the time, but that led many to reject not slavery, but industrialization. Senator Wigfall’s comment about not wanting factories and cities has become well-known. Let Britain have its factories and let the South remain agrarian, rural, and resource-providing.
Whites in the cotton belt were among the richest Americans in the country in the 1850s. Most of the affluent did not forsee anything changing that (though with hindsight they should have — cotton prices weren’t going to stay high forever). Given that DeBow’s could be at once militantly pro-slavery and in favor of industrialization, it’s also clear that, rightly or wrongly, not everyone saw a contradiction between slaveholding and industrialization.
One thing I hear over and over again here is that the western territories were not suitable for slavery because you couldn’t grow cotton there. Many didn’t think that way. With irrigation one could grow cotton in the Southwest as Indians had for generations, and if the political will to establish and maintain slavery was there, slaves would be put to other uses as well.
But maybe it wasn’t just industrialization that killed off slavery in the Northern states. Maybe one big reason was that the climate was unsuitable for growing cotton or for plantation agriculture in general. Maybe Northern and Southern mentalities, which many have commented on here, also discouraged slaveholding in the North and made it easier to abolish.
And you do the opposite. I disagree with your claim that more Southerners were worried about slave rebellions than pocketbook issues which affected them directly. Slave rebellions were quite rare. The money being drained from their pockets affected them daily.
What issues aren’t “wedge issues,” and are they somehow invalid concerns? Issues that allied Northern workers and Western farmers with Southern planters were also “wedge issues”? Were the “wedge issues” that made Democrats vote for Nixon or Reagan less legitimate than the issues that would have had them vote for McGovern or Mondale?
I'm not the first to notice this. It was noticed at the time.
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett
The South was not being plundered. It got fortresses built, and rivers and harbors dredged. It benefited from the same postal service, courts, and military as other states, perhaps more so. Northern manufacturers wanted some tariff protection. So did Southern manufacturers. So did Southern hemp and sugar cane growers. So did some ordinary Southerners.
Wrong. The federal government spent vastly more on infrastructure projects in the North, in corporate subsidies to Northern corporations, in subsidies to Northern fishing fleets and even in coastal installations. The South was paying the overwhelming majority of the tariffs and the money raised by the tariffs was being spent by the federal government overwhelmingly in the North.
The Tariff of Abominations was repealed 5 years after it was passed, and by 1860 tariffs were about as low as they had ever been. If Southerners feared higher tariffs the way to do so was to split the Democratic Party and let the Republicans into office — which Southern political elites did.
As low as they'd ever been ie 17% was almost twice what the Confederate Constitution allowed as a MAXIMUM. "As low as they'd ever been" was still far higher than the Southern states wanted or needed with their export based economy.
Foreigners, mostly elite Englishmen, were keen to see tariffs as the cause of the war because that was what affected them most economically. Ordinary Englishmen realized the importance of slavery and acted accordingly.
So the English were keen to see tariffs as the cause of the war but Northerners were not equally keen to avoid seeing tariffs as the cause of the war? They too had an incentive to somehow not see it. Northern Newspapers were quite clear about why the North should go to war. Here's a hint: it wasn't about slavery.
If slavery is inconsistent with industrialism, how to explain the role of slave labor in China’s economy?
That's not chattel slavery. That's state slavery. The difference is without an individual owner who has made a financial investment in and has a financial stake in a slave, the state has no real incentive to keep them healthy and alive. There's plenty more of where that came from. For several dictatorships like the Nazis and Commies, the death of the slaves was the goal. That would never be the goal of an individual slave owner. The incentives are completely different.
Moreover, Southern planters wanted an agricultural, resource-providing economy. Slavery was fully consistent with that, as it was with mining, as we see now in the Congo.
It wasn't consistent with mining. That was a very dangerous job and slaves were expensive. Some Southerners did not want to industrialize but the fact is industrialization was happening in the Upper South and was moving further southward every passing year. The laws of economics worked in the Southern states too. There was no stopping industrialization.
You've brought up Wigfall before. He was an aberration. Most saw industrialization as inevitable. There may well have been some who didn't see the connection between industrialization and the extinction of slavery but they were in a small minority among the educated and the upper classes. People could see actual examples of this be it the British Empire or the Northern states.
Slavery wasn't compatible with the West. Had it been, there would have been far more than a dozen slaves in the Arizona territory. It was the fact that they could not be used profitably there that kept their numbers so low.
Slavery wasn't as large in scale in the Northern states because they didn't have the climate and soil for it. Tobacco and Cotton and Sugar could not be grown there. Because those crops could not be grown there, the Northern states turned more toward industrialization to make a living. This work too is incompatible with slavery so when the Northern states adopt gradual emancipation schemes which gave Northern slave owners ample time to sell their slaves out of state and not suffer any financial loss, there was little opposition.
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.