On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:48:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

I agree but that was really an economic question for the plantation
owners and if the civilized world customers simply refused to buy
"slave" cotton, they would have an incentive to free the slaves and
hire them back for a salary that would cost them a similar amount
since they would be relieved of the obligation of room and board.
How much do you figure the income was for a freed slave in 1870
Mississippi? Was it much better 50 years later? What were you
protesting 100 years after they "won" their freedom in the war?

On 4/19/16 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:48:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

I agree but that was really an economic question for the plantation
owners and if the civilized world customers simply refused to buy
"slave" cotton, they would have an incentive to free the slaves and
hire them back for a salary that would cost them a similar amount
since they would be relieved of the obligation of room and board.
How much do you figure the income was for a freed slave in 1870
Mississippi? Was it much better 50 years later? What were you
protesting 100 years after they "won" their freedom in the war?


Perhaps you don't fully understand the horrors of slavery perpetrated
against the blacks.

As for what "civilized world" customers might have done, well, they
didn't do it.

As I have stated previously, I would have preferred far more draconian
treatment of the former slave owners after the south surrendered.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:10:48 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/19/16 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:48:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

I agree but that was really an economic question for the plantation
owners and if the civilized world customers simply refused to buy
"slave" cotton, they would have an incentive to free the slaves and
hire them back for a salary that would cost them a similar amount
since they would be relieved of the obligation of room and board.
How much do you figure the income was for a freed slave in 1870
Mississippi? Was it much better 50 years later? What were you
protesting 100 years after they "won" their freedom in the war?


Perhaps you don't fully understand the horrors of slavery perpetrated
against the blacks.

As for what "civilized world" customers might have done, well, they
didn't do it.

As I have stated previously, I would have preferred far more draconian
treatment of the former slave owners after the south surrendered.

How much more draconian could it have been. Their homes were burned,
property taken away from them, sons killed in the war and women raped
by union soldiers. They were left with scorched earth and a total
destruction of their economy and an occupying force that prevented
things from getting much better for over a decade.