Trapper John wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:The civil war wasn’t just about abolishing slavery, it was about distributing the southern wealth. There was so much more politics involved than the slavery argument. But it’s more romantic for Americans to kid themselves that it was only about emancipation.
On the contrary it's not ordinary Americans who do that, it is the liberal elite and social warriors who call the civil war the war to end slavery, they shout down anyone who suggests otherwise, like they do.
Right. So when the Republican Party say "We freed the slaves, aren't we great!" the answer is "no." When the Democrats proclaim "We are the party of emancipation, aren't we great" the answer is...also "no". Why because the slave trade was exactly that,
a trade. What flows from trade? Money and power.
As you have helpfully pointed out the freed slaves were mostly left to fend from themselves in a hostile environment (topical no?) die in poverty and from disease. Were they ever compensated for the labour that had been extracted from them through force and brutalisation? No. It was the former slave owners who were compensated.
So, we have one group and community who benefited greatly (white slave holders) from the trade of treating other people (black slaves) as property. The white group accrued all the benefits that accrued at that time and over the course of time from that staggering economic boost. The black group were never rewarded for their labour or the disadvantageous position they suffered.
I don't think an apology suffices in that situation. I think some sort of reparations might do though. Now, it would clearly prove unworkable to have a direct compensation scheme for the ancestors of freed slaves and loss may be considered too remote. So what to do?
I know. Maybe some sort of affirmative action might help.
Thanks for helping to make the case for BLM so well TJ!