No, that was indeed a point I was trying very hard to make. Perhaps my eloquence was insufficient to convey the idea, but yes, that's what I meant.
The primary investments of southerners for 60 years had been in slaves. Their value was almost equal to all other wealth in the South combined. 48% of all wealth.
Yes, they basically got Anal raped financially, and the North's position is "It serves the Evil Slave Holders right to be left holding the bag when we changed the rules!"
Robbed of four score and seven years worth of Wealth Accumulation and murdered in sufficient quantities as necessary to quiet any dissent, and you more or less have their perspective on the events in discussion.
How do you think it might have reacted to 48%? With the additional fact that the value of much of the land itself was based on a labor force.
Nowadays? People would die by the millions. Back then they were made of hardier stuff and could squeak by surviving.
Oh, pity the poor slave owner.