- Jul 2012
Feel free to provide evidence that the North oppressed the South.The "north" did oppress the "south" and "south" did oppress the blacks.
Black people certainly didn't approve of the way they were treated by southern bigots, nor the way their mistreatment was ignored by northern bigots, but none of them considered the end of slavery to be a "Faustian bargain".And more. The north also "oppressed" the blacks, and the "north" also "freed" the blacks in a way that killed at least 20% of them, and denied the rest of them what every other group had - their own territory. The Puritans had Massachusetts, the Quakers got Pennsylvania and the blacks got bupkis. And worse. After the war, the blacks were economically trapped on lands with white people who not only felt politically superior, but prompted by 15 years of the Yankee lash on their southern butts, could now justify vengeance.
It's like a Faustian bargain that the southern blacks didn't agree to.
Here is the 1860 Republican Party platform. They opposed slavery in the territories, the LeCompton Constitution, and the African slave trade; but nowhere did they call for destroying the South.You look at the Republican Convention of 1860. They are talking about destroying the South.
The "rivers of blood and catastrophic property damage" happened because the Confederate President ordered Confederate troops to attack United States troops in a United States fort on United States soil. Compensated emancipation probably would have been cheaper, but the Confederacy chose war.The "north" spent $6 billion (?) destroying the south. The "north" could have bought the slaves and given them a homeland for a lot less, and without rivers of blood and catastrophic property damage.