- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why did the South think an economy based on slave labor be sustainable?
Posted on 7/15/19 at 3:39 pm to Teufelhunden
Posted on 7/15/19 at 3:39 pm to Teufelhunden
quote:The war didn't become explicitly about slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect in January 1863. The primary reason Lincoln did that was to keep the European powers (England & France) from recognizing or supporting the Confederate cause. Since slavery had already been outlawed by those two countries, they could not/would not support a country trying to establish itself with legalized slavery.
The US fought to preserve the Union. The Confederacy fought for independence. The root cause was slavery, but Union soldiers didn't sign up in 1861 to free slaves.
Read the proclamation and you will see that it only "frees" the slaves in the states of the Confederacy, not the states like Maryland and Delaware that remained in the union, but were still slave states. True abolition didn't occur until the 13th Amendment was ratified. After his first inauguration, Lincoln had actually sent the Corwin Amendment (passed by Congress and signed by Buchannan) to all state governors to begin ratification. This amendment would have forbade the federal government from being able to abolish slavery. Lincoln himself said in his inaugural address that he had no objection to it being made "express and irrevocable."
quote:The same reason farmers now spend tens of thousands of dollars on tractors and combines...you purchase a capital asset to make your farm more efficient. This is also why poor treatment of slaves, while it did happen, wasn't own the grand scale that it is made out to be today. You wouldn't spend $70,000 on a new tractor and not change the oil, keep up the maintenance, and run it into the ground. You want to maintain it so it continues to do the work you need it to do. Same goes for chattel slavery. Why would you purposely beat a capital asset tot the point that it couldn't work? You are then not getting any return for the investment in that asset.
I never got it. A slave cost around 4-5 years of a workers entire salary. Plus you had to feed and house.
2
Posted on 7/15/19 at 3:53 pm to Napoleon
quote:. Breeding privileges. Any offspring produced by your slaves was your property.
Plus you had to feed and house.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 3:57 pm to PetroBabich
“How old? 100? At what point do you just admit the Republican party is the party of old, racist, white people and own it”
Bwaaaaaa hahahahahahahaaaaaaa
Bwaaaaaa hahahahahahahaaaaaaa
Posted on 7/15/19 at 3:59 pm to TaTa Toothy
Few people ever think macro.
If people did, the trump tax cut would not have passed.
Slaves were common the world over.
If people did, the trump tax cut would not have passed.
Slaves were common the world over.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 4:15 pm to OweO
quote:
It doesn't matter if people are from Europe, Asia, or Antartica, if there is a demand for something illegal, there will be people willing to supply it and when it comes to... Back then.. Alcohol... Today.. Drugs, it will create an environment for violence.
Homogeneous European societies are more peaceful societies in the modern world. Look at the Scandinavian countries
Posted on 7/15/19 at 4:17 pm to TaTa Toothy
quote:
Why did the South think an economy based on slave labor be sustainable?
Because in 1860 Natchez Ms had more millionaires per capita than any city in history.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 4:17 pm to PJinAtl
quote:China is making it work.
Why did the South think an economy based on slave labor be sustainable?
Posted on 7/15/19 at 4:17 pm to TaTa Toothy
Posted on 7/15/19 at 4:18 pm to TaTa Toothy
Because it was over 150 years ago, and that's what they pretty much knew.. 
Posted on 7/15/19 at 4:35 pm to 50_Tiger
quote:
The cotton gin helped efficiency and ergo enough profit to keep slave owners in business at a reduced population though.
No no no no no this is wrong
Eli Whitney THOUGHT the cotton gin would decrease or even end slavery because it made removing seeds from cotton so efficient. Instead it made it possible for plantations to greatly increase the amount of cotton they could produce, which led to much larger cotton fields and a huge INCREASE in slavery
Posted on 7/15/19 at 5:18 pm to PJinAtl
quote:
This is also why poor treatment of slaves, while it did happen, wasn't own the grand scale that it is made out to be today. You wouldn't spend $70,000 on a new tractor and not change the oil, keep up the maintenance, and run it into the ground. You want to maintain it so it continues to do the work you need it to do. Same goes for chattel slavery. Why would you purposely beat a capital asset tot the point that it couldn't work? You are then not getting any return for the investment in that asset.
And when your property committed a crime and was sentenced to death or expulsion from your state or commonwealth, you could request compensation from the state government. Crimes that may or may not rely on shaky witness testimony and were not determined by a jury of their peers. Then, the state government could determine if there was money in shipping the convicted slaves to the major slave auctions to recuperate some of the compensation payment. Both the individual and state governments were heavily involved in protecting assets of its taxpaying citizens, and I don't know how that process stops in a twenty year timeframe.
I get that importation of enslaved people via the Middle Passage had drastically reduced by the time of the Civil War. However, I don't understand how people argue that slavery would have ended in no more than 20-30 years from the 1860's. With westward expansion and improved transportation options I could foresee an option where Southern slaveowners create a new market for chattel slavery and keep it solely inside the borders of the US.
Posted on 7/16/19 at 2:46 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Homogeneous European societies are more peaceful societies in the modern world. Look at the Scandinavian countries
Move there then.
Posted on 7/16/19 at 3:05 pm to KK
you're one K away from being a racist, bubba
This post was edited on 7/16/19 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 7/16/19 at 3:15 pm to OweO
quote:
he idea of buying human beings, forcing them to do labor for free and treating them less than equals is something that I can't understand,
Go to Popeyes in port allen.
We should have brought in Indians. They assimilate and 99% of the time are good people.
Posted on 7/16/19 at 3:23 pm to TaTa Toothy
Did the African hierarchy think selling their fellow black countrymen to outsiders was sustainable? Because without that there is no slavery.
Posted on 7/16/19 at 3:27 pm to JETigER
So they were both run by short-sighted stupid asses? Point taken.
Posted on 7/16/19 at 3:40 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Homogeneous European societies are more peaceful societies in the modern world. Look at the Scandinavian countries
So you think the odds of someone committing a crime is simply based on their race?
So if you take a black person and a white person who grew up equally. Both from an upper class family, both went to very good schools, both were good students, etc.. You think the black person is more likely to commit a crime than the white person because there is something in a black person's DNA that makes them more violent?
If so, does it not matter what areas the black person's family tree came from? If someone has Italian in them, are they more likely to do some crime because of the Italian mob?
Posted on 7/16/19 at 3:45 pm to TaTa Toothy
Why aren't some democrats looking for reparations from the African countries that profited from selling slaves?
Posted on 7/16/19 at 4:12 pm to TaTa Toothy
You do know that slavery wasn't exclusive to the united states, right? In fact even after the civil war ended, and all the slaves in the US were "freed", Slavery economy was still going on in other countries around the globe? Also, the United States was only a drop in the slavery bucket of the 10.7 million slaves that survived the voyage to the new world only 388,000 went to the US, the bulk went to South america, mostly to Brazil. In addition to holding more slaves, slavery was legal in Brazil until 1888. so I guess they thought it was sustainable as long as it was still going on elsewhere, particularly in places that competed with the US south with the same crops. Sugar cane for one.
Posted on 7/16/19 at 4:14 pm to TaTa Toothy
We wuz kangz that's why.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News