View single post by ole
 Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 05:35 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Posts: 2031

  back to top

Somewhere, somehow, I missed reading this thread. Guess it was hiding under a newer one. (That'll learn me to open the forum rather than the newest thread.)

No way, no how, would a winning Confederacy remain a nation. One of the underlying principles it fought for in the first place was to keep the status quo: a relatively wealthy, isolated, ruling aristocracy. The demise of slavery would lead to an end of that "superior" class.

One of the truisms I buy into is "that which does not grow, dies." The leaders of secession and the subsequent Confederacy were committed to not growing. Very nearly all the capital in the south was invested in slavery and land. Profits were plowed into more land and more slaves -- very little went into establishing a factory or building a railroad or even carving a decent road to open a market. Would that mind-set have changed with a Confederate victory? Doubtful.

A favored fact is that the south had about 50,000 factory workers....the north had about 50,000 factories.(Yeah, it's beside the point, but I never get tired of repeating that particular statistic.)

As to quarreling over the territories, it would happen solely because of it's symbolism. (It's mine! No it ain't.) Not because of their actual value. There was no future for the planter class in the territories. It's been said that slaves could mine with the best of the laboring immigrants. That's likely true, given that skilled slaves could do anything an Irishman could do and, according to some accounts, better. What I don't see here is the given that the ruling, planter class was quite fixated on planting and not the least bit interested in digging.

Just a thought.


 Close Window