There you sit in front of the greatest library in all human history and you post half baked stupid crap. Unbelievable.
From the inception of the nation, the banks and investment firms controlling most of the investment capital in the United States have been located in the northeastern states. First in Boston and then later in New York where they remain to this day.
One of the great tragedies of the after Civil War period was the assassination of Abraham Lincoln whose policy was “with malice toward none and charity for all.” He wanted to rebuild the southern economy without slavery and bring the southern states back into the Union quickly. When Lincoln died the Radical Republicans ensured the south would be punished through military occupation for 10 years. In addition, the northeastern states withheld capital from the devestated southern economy.
If you look at the period from 1865, to 1900, when the US economy enjoyed the greatest boom in its history, the south languished while investment poured into the midwestern and western states. Instead of building factories in the devastated south, where newly freed slaves and poor white laborers could be employed, the northern investors built factories in the midwestern and western states. Millions of poor immigrants were imported from Italy, Ireland, Poland, and other European countries to provide labor for the new factories of the north and for the farms being developed on the Great Plains.
Meanwhile the south, starved for investment and hard currency, essentially reinvented slavery in the form of the sharecropper system. Freed slaves became serfs to white farming landowners. Jim Crow laws were passed making blacks second class citizens without the rights promised citizens by the Constitution.
Consider what could have been. Investment poured into the south to provide agricultural and industrial jobs to employ the vast numbers of unemployed and rebuild the economy. Restricting immigration to ensure the jobs go to the American poor instead of imported European poor. Investment in education for the newly freed slaves. which with factory jobs, would have given them a route to the middle class and stake in the economy. A booming economy in the south, and increasingly literate freed slave population would have done away with the competition of poor whites and freed slaves for limited jobs in a broken economy. In addition there would have been no economic incentive for Jim Crow segregation laws.
Rinse and repeat. A little over 100 years later, in the 1990’s, northeastern investment capital was steered toward building new factories in China and other Asian companies instead of replacing the aging and less productive US factories built after WWII in the 1950’s and 1960’s. American jobs were lost to foreigners by the millions but this time investment dollars went overseas instead of being spent in a different region of the United States. The middle class is dying, the nation is bankrupt, and racial strife is returning to all time highs.
Get your flame suit on.
Not that I necessarily think much of your theory, but anything suggesting Yankees didn’t fight solely to free people they knew virtually nothing about will be shot down.
Similarly, just because someone opposes abortion does not mean that they have to be able and eager to adopt unwanted children. Yet many who are pro-Life do in fact support and even adopt otherwise unwanted children. Similarly, after the Civil War, the North supported newly freed slaves in many ways.
Unfortunately, Darwin's "scientific racism" relegated Blacks to an inferior status and gradually dissolved the North's determination to protect the newly freed slaves. The, gradually, the fundamental American principles of freedom, equality, and fair treatment reasserted themselves through legal and political demands for civil rights.
And, to make the larger point clear, as bad as Black Lives Matter is, it is fueled by the profound misrule that Black Americans suffer from due to liberalism. Conservatives have spent decades proposing reforms. We should now put forward an urban reform agenda that smashes education bureaucracies in favor of vouchers and charter schools and liberates small business from excessive regulation.
The GOP should also reclaim its historic purpose as the advocate for reforms that make Americans more free and our country a better place to live and prosper in accord with our great principles.
Let me try to summarize with this oversimplification:
It’s complicated, but largely based on the fact that slavery is immoral and not only hypocritical to the constitution as it was laid out, but also unchristian. The abolitionists existed even before the declaration of independence and there were fractures amidst the political class over the issue of slavery at our country’s foundation. Keeping slavery legal was a compromise between the northern states and southern states to form the union that could resist the British military.
Now why did the North support abolition while the south condemn it? Economics.
The North was industrializing and New York was the primary landing point of immigrants from the old world (there were other ports of call too, but NYC was really the nexus from which immigrants landed and spread throughout the North). Immigrants would mostly stay in the city’s immigrant friendly boroughs, work for low wages, long hours, and generally wouldn’t complain, so factories had the perfect labor resource to operate with. Slaves were more costly in that you had to pay a fairly expensive rate to buy one, then you had the upkeep costs in food, clothing, housing, and security that you didn’t have to pay to manage the immigrant workforce. Slaves were also seen by many at the time to be a lessor race and it was viewed that white immigrants were more productive than black slaves in factory work.
The South had generations of slave labor at their disposal and actually made a living in trading slaves as well as producing agricultural goods. The South also had a more insular culture that was not as immigrant friendly as the North, which discouraged migration. This locked the South into the tradition of slavery and didn’t allow them to start moving away from it.
The Republican party was founded from the collapse of the Wig party and some members of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party based solely on the principle of abolishing slavery. When Lincoln was named their candidate for president, the South threatened to succeed from the union since they understood that their institution of slavery would be in the balance.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Now as a Republican, I sincerely hope this changes your perception of “No one caring about the slaves” as it was exactly our caring about slaves and the injustice of their condition that made us create our party and stand with them. Many of us still stand with all Americans today and believe in preserving their individual liberty at all cost. The Democrats and radical left simple project their own totalitarian faith upon us and try to paint us as uncaring greedy capitalists. The fact that Capitalist actually means “individual” as independent of the collective and directly refers to liberty, I for one am very greedy for all the liberty I can get. But, I still care about you regardless. Just don’t touch my liberty or else!
Wrong ! Try again.
A hundred years ago, the people of the North fought an epic war to free the slaves. Now, they’re all fleeing to the suburbs to get away from them.”
You have the economics backwards. Slavery stymied industrialization, economic diversification, innovation, and productivity growth. Limited to producing unfinished agricultural commodities, the slave South was stuck as a de fact colony of Northern and European industry and finance.
Except for sugar, slave-based production was rarely profitable; most of the slave-owning magnates were neck deep in debt, mostly to Northern and British financial interests. Those interests were not aligned with ending slavery.
For the same reason they outlawed it in their own territories to begin with: Because it was evil.
I think we can agree that it had nothing to do with caring about the slaves.
Uh, no, I don't think we can.
I was thinking that 4 million sudden extra bodies in the poor southern economy would have the same effect as high immigration, keeping the wages of the poorest workers suppressed and it would keep the South from developing economically, while the North would benefit from their ownership of Southern industries.
Sudden extra bodies? Those bodies were already there. How much in wages were the slaves paid? The whole point of slavery was to have forced involuntary labor you didn't have to pay one cent to for their work. That obviously drives down and even eliminates the concept of a labor market and wages. Your comments literally contradict themselves.
And slavery made the South poorer and kept it from developing economically - greatly reduced commerce, stifled innovation. Slavery by definition is not free market and certainly don't provide for a labor market. The North vastly outproduced the South on everything including agriculture - innovation in technology and paid workers greatly increased economic activity and tax bases. One of the big reasons the North won the war. Common sense.
“I think we can agree that it had nothing to do with caring about the slaves.“
.... You would be wrong in that assumption..”. There was a large Abolitionist/anti-slavery movement involving Members of the newly-formed Republican Party, including people like Abraham Lincoln. You might have heard of him. The other motivation was the fact that the South was able to hold undue Political sway in the Congress by way of representation based on slave ownership. A totally inequitable and unfair balance of political power Relying on slave ownership.
Because of the Second Great Awakening in the 19th century. The abolitionist movement was very much a church movement. It was a step up from the First Great Awakening 100 years prior in the 18th century in which the average white Joe was successful in freeing himself and close to but not quite to freeing the blacks. And even that was after a few generations of English speaking Protestants got the Bible translated into their common language, English, in the 17th century. And one of the reasons they pressed for it to happen was because in the 16th century the Anglos embraced the Protestant movement, which includes belief in Sola Scriptura (that all truth about God comes from the Bible).
Believe it or not, there was a time in which our culture was slowly advancing instead of rapidly declining. But now that we've embraced Darwin's Origin of Species: the Preservation of Favored Races, since the mid 20th century we've been in decline.
you’re wrong
Yes you are wrong
There had been growing movement against slavery in Western Europe for a long time. France and England had both outlawed the practice. England would sink any slave ship it found on the high seas
Slavery while practiced was still recognized as as evil in a free society.
I could go on but slavery held the south back economically and that is why they lost the war.
Lincoln wanted slavery preserved in the Constitution.
From Lincoln's inaugural speech:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
The war between the states was about slavery, in the same way that the American Revolution was about tea.
I think that was one factor.
Republicans are the party of Abolition dumbass.
I don’t know for sure, but I’m glad it was done.