[Christian_Capitalist]

They would have hired back freed blacks at a higher wage? And they were already losing economically to the North who employed their own version of slave labor? I don’t think this would have worked. The slave-like labor conditions of the North are very little discussed, because the Left wants to hold that region up as some sort of moral hotbed. But the fact of the matter is that many Northern industrialists wanted to destroy their Southern competition through the slavery issue. The South could not have followed the route you outlines because they would have failed economically even faster than under their slave system.

Respectfully -- that's an absurd contention, completely at odds with the historical facts.

The Post-War South did survive economically (albeit just barely) with an utterly wrecked infrastructure and very little monetary Capital with which to pay wages to freedman black Labor after the war; a No-War South which was flush with money from Compensated Emancipation, and with its infrastructure still intact, could certainly have better afforded to offer more jobs and higher wages to freedman blacks, than the economically-devastated Post-War South was able to offer.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

You can’t call someone’s argument “absurd” and pretend to be respectful when you do so.

Your study of history sounds like the typical, government-school version of history.

Of course the South survived after the CW. But the South was reduced to abject poverty and was just barely propped up by Reconstruction and only so they would cause a minimal economic drain.

The “absurdity” is in believing that had the North purchased the slaves from the South, all would have worked out well without a CW. The fact of the matter is that slavery, the economic imbalance, and state sovereignty were each a partial issue that contributed to the CW. But the long-held contentions between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists since the days of debating the US Constitution ran so deeply that the CW was unavoidable even if only any of these three issues would have served as the spark.

Again, the North employed its version of slave-labor. The South was spending less on labor and the North hated that and were determined to end the imbalance. They were also determined to have a strong, central government dictate to the sovereign states what was acceptable.

Slavery could have been ended peacefully because it was in fact failing economically. The best way to end slavery would have been the wait-it-out approach. But the North and those who favored a strong federal government would not allow such a good “crisis” to pass without taking advantage of it. Does this sound at all familiar? The ideological roots are one-and-the same with those who are currently creating “crises” for exploitative purposes.

So, even though you insult me and call my position “absurd,” and criticize my knowledge of history having no clue whatsoever how much I have and continue to study, you have only countered my argument with your own position and opinion and “history” that has been served by propagandists.

You may want to read “The Real Lincoln,” “The Politically Incorrect Guide to US History,” and “A Patriot’s History of the US,” to help undo some of that government-school history you are citing.