Moreover, you've gotten far from what you originally said, which is that Southerners seceded because the North wasn't letting them industrialize. It's one thing to say that the Confederates recognized that they needed industry to win the war and become a viable country and something quite different to say that the reason for secession was to industrialize the South. There is no evidence for that.
You "think" most Southerners understood that cotton wouldn't be king forever. It looks like you don't have much grasp of psychology. Oil isn't going to be king for ever, but for most people the day when it isn't is far in the future, not something we think about or concern ourselves with. I suppose in 1860 many Southerners thought slavery wouldn't be around forever either, but ending it wasn't something that most thought about or wanted to do, or could contemplate without shivers.
And you mention oil, saying that OPEC was warned that it wouldn't last forever. If they didn't listen or understand, why are you so convinced that the cotton kings were anything different? That's another contradiction in your argument.
And no, Southerners did not deny that the war was about slavery from the beginning. Look at what they were actually saying at the time. Many of them clearly stated that their cause - the cause of civilization as they saw it - was intimately tied up with slavery. To deny that is to be a revisionist.
Because if you don’t make that assumption, if you recognize the reality that there were often multiple slave owners in one family, then the percentage of families who owned slaves falls dramatically.
If a man and woman who owned slaves married, the slaves become the property of the head of the household, right? And if a father gives a plantation and slaves to his son, his place becomes a new household and he becomes a head of family. I guess if your maiden aunt lived with you and owned a slave it might skew the results a bit, but not much.
Anyway, you are probably not going to be convinced by anything anybody says to you. And you probably aren't going to learn better formatting skills to make your posts readable, so I don't really need to keep pursuing this subject with you.
You are assuming that people thought and knew things that they didn’t say at the time. You are working deductively, saying people must have thought that way, rather than inductively, looking at what they actually said and did.
Wrong. They knew what was happening in the world around them. They knew what was going on with their primary customer Great Britain.
Moreover, you’ve gotten far from what you originally said, which is that Southerners seceded because the North wasn’t letting them industrialize.
That’s not what I said. I said they seceded because the economic policies set by the federal government drained a lot of money out of their pockets and enriched Northern business interests.
It’s one thing to say that the Confederates recognized that they needed industry to win the war and become a viable country and something quite different to say that the reason for secession was to industrialize the South. There is no evidence for that.
Yeah....because that’s not what I said. I noted that their industrialization was slowed down because of all the money that was drained out of their pockets to pay for the North’s industrialization, but I was very clear it was the partisan sectional legislation itself that drove them to secede.
You “think” most Southerners understood that cotton wouldn’t be king forever. It looks like you don’t have much grasp of psychology.
You’re basing your argument on the notion that they had no idea what was going on in the world around them. There were plenty who understood the rest of the western world quite well.
Oil isn’t going to be king for ever, but for most people the day when it isn’t is far in the future, not something we think about or concern ourselves with. I suppose in 1860 many Southerners thought slavery wouldn’t be around forever either, but ending it wasn’t something that most thought about or wanted to do, or could contemplate without shivers.
I think most well understood its days were numbered. They had seen most Northern states get rid of it in the last generation and they had seen the British Empire get rid of it in 1838.
And you mention oil, saying that OPEC was warned that it wouldn’t last forever. If they didn’t listen or understand, why are you so convinced that the cotton kings were anything different? That’s another contradiction in your argument.
Huh? I think many DID understand that it wouldn’t last forever - at least not as the major source of profit it was at that time. The only constant in the world is change. There is no contradiction in what I said.
And no, Southerners did not deny that the war was about slavery from the beginning. Look at what they were actually saying at the time. Many of them clearly stated that their cause - the cause of civilization as they saw it - was intimately tied up with slavery. To deny that is to be a revisionist.
Yes they did. Your claim is patently false. Not only did they expressly deny that’s what they were fighting for, they did so from the start. They turned down the North’s offer of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
If a man and woman who owned slaves married, the slaves become the property of the head of the household, right? And if a father gives a plantation and slaves to his son, his place becomes a new household and he becomes a head of family. I guess if your maiden aunt lived with you and owned a slave it might skew the results a bit, but not much.
Not necessarily. Lee’s wife inherited slaves. Grant’s wife inherited slaves. Adult children of families with a lot of slaves would often be given slaves as a coming of age gift or as a wedding gift, etc. Of the families which did own slaves, there were plenty in which there were multiple slave owners.
Anyway, you are probably not going to be convinced by anything anybody says to you. And you probably aren’t going to learn better formatting skills to make your posts readable, so I don’t really need to keep pursuing this subject with you.
I’d say you are immune to facts and reasons and will just blindly keep clinging to your Leftist PC Revisionist dogma on this issue judging from your pattern.