Hacker News Reader

I feel like there may be a misunderstanding.

I was not saying that oil was an historic reason for the civil war. I was trying to say that—for the sake of argument—oil and slaves are fungible with regard to the impetus for succession.

View on HN

I think there isn't really a misunderstanding, I was being snide about the comparison because there's so much material that makes it clear enough that slavery was not ancillary to secession.

I mean, I didn't time travel and get Mississippi to create a resolution saying Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.

So try this as a thought experiment; the slaves have no economic benefit, they add nothing to sustaining the only mode of existence the south had thus far, in fact they are only a direct drain on a crop farming ecosystem. Do you still see the south seceding? I mean are you saying that they just loved having slaves no matter what it did to their bottomline?

Slavery was not an end unto itself; it was a means to an end... namely prosperity. Nobody loves oil for oil's sake--you understand that, right?

I lack the mental capacity to separate the slavery based economy and way of life from the slavery.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com