[DiogenesLamp]

Of course there was an existential threat to the survival of the union. The south set itself up not only to be direct competitors for the resources of the continent but hostile competitors vowed to cheat, steal, and murder to get their way.

Did someone mention Hyperbole earlier? Yes, i'm sure the 22 wealthy and powerful Union states were gravely threatened by the doings of the 11 poorer and weaker states.

[rockrr]

The southern plantation states held the greatest concentration of wealth in the United States at the inception of the War Between The states.

[angryoldfatman]

So far I’ve found three FR posters with bees in their bonnets about Southern slavery.

The argument I had with the first one about a month ago was interesting, in that he thought Wilberforce was absolutely wonderful for outlawing slavery peacefully, but THE SOUTH was HORRIBLE for perpetuating it.

Something that never crossed his little leftist-poisoned mind: his heroes in the North didn’t outlaw it. They let it continue when they COULD have simply made slavery illegal and retained that superb piece of moral high ground that leftists and South-haters love to prattle on about so much.

Why didn’t the North do it, like Britain had done it?

Money, plain and simple. They were making too much money off of the 6% of Americans who owned slaves, ON TOP OF the sugar cane business in the slave Caribbean Isles. Politicians and money, forever and ever and always.

Moral high ground? More like high horse.