RE: [DL] Freeing the Slaves

["Mark Chiddicks" <Mark.Chiddicks@descisys.com>]

Slavery was very definitely economical. It was easy for the South to ban the importation of slaves, because by 1861 very few slaves were imported, they were simply bred.

Cotton picking is extremely dull and labour intensive, and the cotton gin created a need for LOTS of cotton to be picked. If you have a vast pool of labour with no rights who can be made to work from dawn to dusk every day for just the cost of food and lodging, and you have the legal right to sell their children, then its a very economical system!

I think that its a mistake to believe that the Southern soldier was fighting to preserve slavery, but its equally a mistake to claim slavery was not the cause of the war. Southern soldiers fought because the North invaded. The north invaded because the South seceded. The South seceded because Lincoln was elected and he was seen as sympathetic to abolitionists.

The Southern soldier fought to resist an invasion which had been brought about by the desire of the Southern politicians and landowners to preserve a way of life that relied on slavery.

IMHO (as ever)

-----Original Message-----
From: J T [mailto:jtsmailinglists@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2002 10:51 a.m.
To: deadlands@gamerz.net
Subject: Re: [DL] Freeing the Slaves



--- Jay <jaygilham@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> I have read quite a few historical account from
> former slaves where they 
> state that a large number of the exslaves and slaves
> (at the time) were 
> very loyal to their masters and the Confederacy.  
>

Lemme just say that what follows is not only my
possibly misinformed opinion, it could get some folks
very riled (in a piss for you brits).  After all this
is a VERY sensitive issue.  However, I am interested
on people's own take on this situation, so I will
gamely put it out there.

My take on it is the slave owners had to broaden the
scope of the North's abolishment of slavery.  Luckily
for them, they held most of the political power in the
south.  So they exagerated thier 'outrage' at the
North's attack on state's rights.  By doing so they
were able to get alot of people who really had little
to nothing to gain from upholding slavery buy into a
cause.

That is not to say that state's rights is not worth
getting riled about, or that the North did not attack
state's rights - they most certainly did.  However, it
is obvious (with 20/20 hindsight) that the North was
RIGHT.  Federal power does at times need to override
the rights of states.  (Thats tough coming from a
staunch Libertarian here.)

Admittedly it is not all of the story, but it does
explain why so many people - even slaves themselves -
died for what looked like to outsiders a war over
slavery.  They bought what the politicians were
selling.

> 
> Also slavery was begining to not be cost effective 
> anymore.

Quick question - was it ever economical?  I find it
hard to believe that slavery - particularly the kind
where people are imported such great distances - is
ever economical for the slave master.




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
	unsubscribe deadlands@gamerz.net
as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.