Opinion of Reconstruction

[Deus Naturae]

It really screwed over the South for 150 years and counting. Surely there was a better way.

Seceding from the union screwed over the south much more

And the Republican agenda of protectionism would have screwed the South over if they'd stayed. The landowning elites may have primarily concerned with slavery, but ordinary, non-slaveholding Southerners had good reason to want out of a Union that was willing to plunder their economy for the benefit of Northern industrial interests.

[Deus Naturae]

It really screwed over the South for 150 years and counting. Surely there was a better way.

Seceding from the union screwed over the south much more

And the Republican agenda of protectionism would have screwed the South over if they'd stayed. The landowning elites may have primarily concerned with slavery, but ordinary, non-slaveholding Southerners had good reason to want out of a Union that was willing to plunder their economy for the benefit of Northern industrial interests.

That is ironic because beginning in the 1880's is when the iron and steel of Alabama was developed courtesy of northern investment and over the next decade or more is when the textile mills began to move South as well. Development that was hindered by the dominance of slavery and the effect it had of diverting investment capital and hindering the developments of industry, technology, and transportation in the region, not to mention population growth and job creation. Its hard to paint the south as the victims of Northern protectionists trying to save themselves from tarrifs when they are by extension of their act further preserving a gov't propped up insitution of Slavery that was doing far more to hinder the economy and deprive those non slaveownders of jobs.

It's absolutely true that slavery was a massive retardant of economic development, you certainly won't get any argument from me on that point. But, the fate of slavery in the Southern States wasn't particularly relevant to Southern secession (with regard to slavery, the issue was its expansion into new Territories and States, which was primarily a concern of the wealthy slaveholders). So, non-slaveholding Southerners who supported secession likely had little concern for slavery, and a lot more concern for Republican-backed tariff hikes that would've significantly increased the prices of vital goods like clothing and machinery. At the very least, it is hardly fair to suggest that non-slaveholding Southerners "got what they deserved" for supporting secession (as SWE implied).

[Deus Naturae]

Wouldn't you also say the emense gov't support required to prop up slavery was a form of protectionism? Not to mention also the violation of freedom caused by the fact that poor white farmers were practically conscripted to catch runaways and/or would be called upon as part of the militia in the event of a slave revolt. A slave society is by definition a police state by necessity of the fear of slave revolts. It was a crime to advocate against slavery in many Southern states as well as you get closer to the Civil War on that very basis as well.

I agree. The slave system had similar effects to protectionism, too, with the Southern economy becoming highly undiversified and reliant on the export of a small number of agricultural commodities (which is why the average Southerner would've been hurt so badly by the Republican tariff hikes). In addition, the wealthy slaveholders were similar to the rent-seeking businessmen in the North who sought higher tariffs to protect their industries. Both groups benefitted from the profits their distortionary systems provided, but the North and South as a whole were both poorer as a result of their respective activities. As you noted before, slavery was really not beneficial to the average Southerner, which is another reason why it isn't fair to imply that ordinary Southerners "got what was coming to them."