wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:22:28 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

I have. It was a way to placate the South's slaveowners.

That is revisionist bull****
The interesting thing about that is there was never an election that
broke down on north/south lines until 1860 so the founder's plan
seemed to work fairly well until then, It also shows those "southern
slave owners" did not get much political power from the EC.
Then you have the simple fact, the majority of southerners did not own
any slaves.


Slavery was almost done in the US. Was not financially viable. And then
the Cotton Gin was invented. Made slavery very profitable. If a
mechanical Cotton picker had been invented, then slavery would have died a
natural death, and no Civil War.

Guys like Harry ignore the fact that the cotton industry thrived after
the civil war and the economics didn't really change that much, nor
did the overall cost of labor nor the actual living conditions of the
black field workers. They were "free" but they also became responsible
for their living expenses that their wages barely covered. The main
difference is they had the opportunity to move north and be exploited
by northern racists in slave wage sweatshops.


There are suppositions that the Underground Railroad was partly financed by
northern industrialists, to get cheap labor.