|
The Republicans have none.
Winners write history. The North won. So History says that the South supported slavery and the North virtuously opposed it. Not so fast. The entire southern economy was based on slavery, and abolishing it would destroy the economic structure of the south. That's fine, it should have been done, anyway.
But the North still profitted from slavery. Taxes for export of cotton helped the nation as a whole, especially when combined with the protectionist methods the North used to force the South to buy its products. The wealth of the south made the north richer, too. Foreign ships that bought cotton brought over goods to trade with the North as well as the South, and the constant trade boosted the dollar, which helped northern industry.
The North never seriously offered to financially assist in abolition. They wanted to keep the profits, and make the south bear all the costs. This would have economically destroyed the South. So the North went to war in the South, invading, wiping out the entire land system, and destroying the economy. This ended slavery, but it also made the South poor beyond reason for a century. Much of the poverty has never been eradicated. And this poverty is much of the reason southern whites are the way they are.
Both sides were dirty, both had economic interests in slavery, and neither side wanted to bear the cost of ending it, until one side finally destroyed the other and reaped the profit.
Like racism, slavery was a national, not a regional, sin.
|