I note first that average net income in the richest states now is about double the average net income in the poorest states.
I haven't seen the data on average net wealth, but if the difference was greater in the 1850s than it is now, that's significant.
Maybe when slaves were taken into account the difference wasn't so great, but slaves weren't taken into account.
Secondly, if the wealth differential wasn't a big thing, that does a lot to discredit the idea that Northerners wanted war to take away that big pile of Southern money.
And if it was a big thing, would it confirm Northerners wanted war to take away that big pile of Southern money?
My good friend Brother Joe, who introduced the book, didn't exactly say it was a big thing . . . he simply said the “disparity is striking.”
My point about today's wealth multiples was serious, if somewhat irreverent. IF a 3X wealth disparity was a disqualifier then, what would today's wealth disparity nationwide, and worldwide, require?
I'm avoiding saying anything directly about the book's contents because I don't know anything about it.