But John turned out to be an outstanding citizen anyway so what's the big deal?
View attachment 2677996
1) That is true, and I would think a person (I said person, so Wudingo excuded) whose state's borders were shaped by said states rights back room deals would know this. But again, Johnny Boy gonna John.
It is also true to say that the principal right of states to decide of the day was slavery. But it was about a lot more than slavery.
The way I like to explain it is this:
Imagine it is 2017 and President Trump has passed an EO & Legislation that removed the ability of states to legalize marijuana in any way, after AG Sessions has been doing federal busts and raids. In response, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, and New York decide to secede and we have ACW II. You could say "the second american civil war was over the ability to legalize marijuana", and while that's the CAUSE, that's not the REASON.
2) This is true
on a relative scale. Or I guess its about 90% true. In the American South, slaves were warehoused argicultural labor. The purchase price of a slave was on the level of really nice tractor, and if you want to run a successful farm, you don't just start crashing your tractor into ever hard surface. Field slaves were kept ready for planting but ESPECIALLY harvesting.
Now, slave conditions were not great. They were warehoused as cheaply as possible in the times they weren't needed, which is why soul food uses a lot of cast off food stuffs and/or things that grow readily. Housing was built cheaply, food was as cheap as they could make it, and slaves were expected to raise a lot of their own subsistence.
However, when you look at conditions in American South vs. The Carribean, latin america or especially brazil, the American South was preferred destination. OF an estimated 11 million Slaves shipped to the americas between 1700 and 1850 (vs a constant slave population of 30 million for the ottoman empire during every year of that same eriod) only about 130,000 were sent to the US. The delta in the US black population over that is all domestic births. The other 10 million slaves were sent to other parts of the americas where they died in huge numbers.
The Carribean, and especially Brazil, did not have much in the way domestic slave births because the life expectancy of a slave in brazil was somewhere around 5 years iirc. With a longer, year-round growing season and harsher environment, slaves were simply worked to death, and they were priced accordingly - much cheaper, because the trip to brazil from Africa was significantly shorter.
Going back to the US, There are no reports of slaves dying of starvation. There are reports of a few tens of thousands of whites dying of starvation during that period. When you were a slave, there was someone with a vested interest in feeding and ensuring your fitness for work. There was no such universal concern for poor whites.
The Atlantic crossing is estimated to have had about a 20-30% mortality rate for slaves. The ottomans fed their need for argicultural slaves via overland routes estimated to have had 60-70% mortality rates. They also castrated, and often full esmasculated, male slaves from Africa.
So, compared to other destinations for African slaves, and in comparison to the lowest rungs of the outside free population, slaves in the US were treated well.
The other thing to remember, especially when you look at non-cash crop duties, is what was required of the average 'free' person. Basically there was a lot of (by modern standards) back-braking labor expected of slaves - hauling water, tending gardens & food crops, chopping wood, maintaining fences, etc. But that labor was needed to be done by anyone who didn't have someone to do it for them. That was the labor required to live at the time, and alot of CRT zealots helpfully leave that part off.
In closing, as I always like to remind people:
Movies about slavery are about 90% cotton harvesting. But how long goes the cotton harvest actually go on in the south? THE ANSWER MAY SHOCK YOU.
3) This one is the least true. Between mechanized labor and a restriction of supply, slave agriculture would have eventually become unprofitable and ended, but slavery had not been abolished it would have continued as a servant class for the elite. You'd just have a smaller, boutique slave caste.
Remember the Northern industries ran on European immigrant labor that worked people harder than a southern overseer for a lot longer than two weeks a year, and was not sustainable. It needed that inflow of immigrants to keep the machine running. It was nearly as brutal as Brazil's slavery machine.
That said, it was better for everyone that slavery ended sooner rather than later. Slavery, or any sort of caste system with no hope for elevating ones status, is very bad for a society. You do not need to make moral arguments here, it is a historically demonstrable fact.
The only mistake was they didn't ship all the freed slaves back home.
