Point 3 and Point 5 are just ridiculous. Poor whites across the South didn’t go to bad at nite with dreams of owning slaves. Most of them just were happy to have a meal on the table at supper time and a bed to sleep in. Obvious since he doesn’t provide even anecdotal evidence to support his claim. To say that there was no secessionist sentiment due to the perception of the North imposing it’s will on the South is ridiculous.
The cotton gin and other mechanical implements would have taken slavery down fast. Slaves may have been free labor, but they weren’t free to buy, house, or feed. Peak agricultural employment in America was 1900, I would expect mostly from the fact we we still expanding as a nation. In established areas farmers were already mechanizing and people were already starting to move to factories. There was already unrest in the late 1800’s due to overproduction, squeezed profits, and falling ag wages.
Like all things, the Civil War and the reasons behind it were complex. The stated meaning didn’t mean there were ulterior motives. This guy doesn’t want to admit that to fit his agenda, and with his little did about the Bush tax cuts, I think you can tell where that agenda lies.
“The cotton gin and other mechanical implements would have taken slavery down fast.”
What do you mean by slavery would have been taken down fast?
By fast do you mean the next day, the next month, the next year, next decade or next century?
And if were you and your family held in slavery, how has would you want to be emancipated?
The next day, the next month, the next year, next decade or next century?