Remember the North at that time was importing hordes of the poor from Europe and putting them up in atrocious tenement housing with almost zero public sanitation so they could work in horrendously unsafe factories....no OSHA, no child labor laws, no tort law, etc. If/when they died or got mangled in industrial accidents, well tough crap for them and there were plenty more European serfs coming over to take their place. The prospect of being able to eventually gather up a few nickels to rub together and go obtain land via homesteading (land ownership...the impossible dream in Europe) would keep drawing them over the Atlantic no matter how bad conditions were back in the East.
The North hardly treated its own wage slaves any better at the time.
Don’t even begin to besmirch the Old South by comparing with modern democrats!
Actually, today’s Democrats reveal their true intentions align with those of lying, murder, and treason.
Every blue collar job is “back breaking”.
was that in your best southern accent?
I believe that many in the South thought that the North was evil for it’s use of immigrants as wage-slaves in factories. No one looked out for those wage-slaves. If things didn’t go well for them, no one cared.
I believe that many in the North thought that the South was evil for it’s use of Negroes as chattel slavery. Being owned as property was wrong, but it can at least be said that the owner did have a strong incentive to provide a level of care for his property.
After the Civil War, the wage-slavery of the immigrants continued, and the chattel slavery of the Negroes was replaced by Sharecropping in which agricultural workers were tied to the land, worked for starvation wages, and no one looked out for those workers. If things didn’t go well for them, no one cared.
Things have always been tough all over.
It is a Chicken and egg conundrum.
There surely are machines available, which can replace most of that grueling work. But they are expensive.
Cheap immigrants are more price effective right now.
But, if the immigrants are removed, then the farmers will have to invest. And guess what?
We will have our stuff, probably cheaper in long run, without taking care about immigrant welfare!
I dont know about modern day comparisons to the civil war.
Today, we have a welfare state funded by borrowed money. It will end, probably sooner rather than later.
At that point any pre-conceived notions of what people will or will not do to survive in terms of work are meaningless.
There are jobs that people wont do today because its easier and more profitable not to work.
That doesnt mean that those jobs will not be done in the future when it is not more profitable not to work.
There wont be a return to slavery or uncontrolled immigration. It may seem like it to layabouts who are forced to work in order to eat, but thats another issue entirely.
I read recently the “slave” business in America began when a black man sued a black “indentured” servant and won, which gave him the right to “own” the black man. I also read a black man was the most prominent slave owner in Louisiana.
Is Crockett hoping these “immigrants” will turn us into slaves?
The Confederates made it clear on two occasions that they were willing — even eager — to give up slavery in return for being rid of Lincoln.
In February of 1861 (two months before the attack on Ft Sumter), US Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio proposed a constitutional amendment to protect slavery from congressional interference. The bill passed both houses by supermajority and was signed by President James Buchanan on his way out of the White House.
Ohio and Maryland voted to ratify the amendment but no Confederate state so much as put it up for a vote, despite the fact that it might lave led to constitutional protection for their “peculiar institution.”
Then in January of 1865, President Jefferson Davis sent Louisiana representative Duncan F Kenner to Europe as an envoy to solicit formal recognition of the Confederate States from the French and the British. Kenner probably was the largest slaveholder in the Confederacy and it was he who had approached Davis with the idea of courting the Europeans for their support in return for their pledge to end slavery.
Kenner first met with Emperor Napoleon III of France (nephew of Bonaparte), who agreed to Kenner’s terms, probably thinking that once freed from the war against the USA, the CSA could assist him in keeping the struggling Emperor Maximilian propped up in Mexico. Plus he thought the CSA could protect French Mexico from any intentions the USA might have had from continuing their expansion southward. But his support came with one proviso. France only would recognize the CSA if the British did as well.
After the Battle of Antietam there had been rumblings in Whitehall that they needed to intervene in the War Between the States for fear that the havoc it was wreaking on North America’s infrastructure could come to damage the European economy as well. This was reinforced after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation because they viewed it as the act of a desperate man, a sign he must fear he’s losing the war.
So when Kenner traveled to England in March of 1845, he probably held out hope, which was dashed when British Prime Minister Henry John Temple Lord Palmerston refused to even meet with Kenner and his delegation. At the time there was much conjecture as to why but the truth finally came out in 1914 when a review of Palmerston’s personal letters found that he felt both the cabinet and the voting populace would take it badly if he moved to support the “slave-holding” Confederacy.
And thus fell the Confederate States of America, which hated Lincoln more than it loved slavery.
So I take it you think opposition to the Confederacy is a modern loyalty test that is required to participate in government?
Have you thought this through, beyond the level of slogans?
I mean, even your alias? Confederates were the original libloathers.