- 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 7/17/19 at 1:07 pm to TaTa Toothy
Posted on 7/17/19 at 1:07 pm to TaTa Toothy
The civil war wasn’t about slavery, that’s just what they want you to believe. Slavery was just a small part of it.
0
Posted on 7/17/19 at 1:55 pm to Salviati
quote:
There was no dispute about who owned Fort Sumter.
Err no
There was obviously a dispute.
Posted on 7/17/19 at 2:03 pm to Salviati
quote:
South Carolina did not believe it was their property and thus fought to take it. They just wanted to take it. They had no legal right to it.
A good analogy would be if Cuba shelled Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. Cuba knows that the US has a legal right to be there. They would be attempting to take it by force . . . just like the insurgents in South Carolina
At the time might made right.
You can argue all the legal points of order, but at the end of the day armies fought each other not lawyers.
And if Cuba believed they were strong enough and they could weather the political consequences; they would invade Guantanamo tomorrow. Do you believe a treaty signed decades ago is stopping them?
Posted on 7/17/19 at 3:53 pm to doubleb
quote:Holy shite.
At the time might made right.
You can argue all the legal points of order, but at the end of the day armies fought each other not lawyers.
And if Cuba believed they were strong enough and they could weather the political consequences; they would invade Guantanamo tomorrow. Do you believe a treaty signed decades ago is stopping them?
So I guess you concede:
(1) South Carolina had no legal right to Fort Sumter.
(2) South Carolina took Fort Sumter by force of arms.
Posted on 7/17/19 at 4:02 pm to TaTa Toothy
Short answers:
In the beginning: malaria.
By the 1800s: ideology.
In the beginning: malaria.
By the 1800s: ideology.
Posted on 7/17/19 at 4:11 pm to TxTiger82
Longer answers:
Even way back in the 1600s, slaves were 4x or 5x more expensive than indentured servants. Why then, did the southern planters prefer slave labor? The answer is that Africans were immune to malaria whereas Europeans were not. Native Americans were definitely fricking not. So it became clear that Africans made up the best labor force in the malaria-ridden American South because basically everyone else died in high numbers. Now, the planters could have made indentured servants out of Africans, true. But you have to account for (a) the fact that Africans weren't willing participants, (b) Africa's culture of slavery, and (c) an emerging logic of racism, the explanation becomes a bit clearer.
By the 1800s, the economics weren't there anymore, but the slaveholding ideology had firmly taken hold. Slavery wasn't dying out. It was more entrenched than ever. And it was hurting most white people in the region, too.
Even way back in the 1600s, slaves were 4x or 5x more expensive than indentured servants. Why then, did the southern planters prefer slave labor? The answer is that Africans were immune to malaria whereas Europeans were not. Native Americans were definitely fricking not. So it became clear that Africans made up the best labor force in the malaria-ridden American South because basically everyone else died in high numbers. Now, the planters could have made indentured servants out of Africans, true. But you have to account for (a) the fact that Africans weren't willing participants, (b) Africa's culture of slavery, and (c) an emerging logic of racism, the explanation becomes a bit clearer.
By the 1800s, the economics weren't there anymore, but the slaveholding ideology had firmly taken hold. Slavery wasn't dying out. It was more entrenched than ever. And it was hurting most white people in the region, too.
This post was edited on 7/17/19 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 7/17/19 at 4:11 pm to doubleb
quote:Your argument is all over the place
Err no
There was obviously a dispute.
If I kill someone and take their car, that doesnt mean their car was actually mine
It means I used force to take something that was legally someone elses. Which is what South Carolina was doing with Ft. Sumter
Posted on 7/17/19 at 4:29 pm to Salviati
quote:
(1) South Carolina had no legal right to Fort Sumter.
Who gives a crap whether SC had a legal right or not? What court was going to make SC give Sumpter back to the Union if the South had won the war? None.
Did a court make George Washington give back facilities to the English? Was it legal for the US to take English property? I don’t know and it doesn’t matter.
Might makes right.
quote:
(2) South Carolina took Fort Sumter by force of arms.
Sure they did and the North took it back through force of arms.
As a side note, Lincoln freed the spaces in the Southern states via force of arms? Was that legal? Does it matter? No, because might made it right. Lincoln did it because militarily and politically he could.
Posted on 7/17/19 at 4:31 pm to lsupride87
quote:
If I kill someone and take their car, that doesnt mean their car was actually mine
It means I used force to take something that was legally someone elses. Which is what South Carolina was doing with Ft. Sumter
Apples and oranges
Posted on 7/17/19 at 5:43 pm to doubleb
Hour later and still on front page with no new post? Wow.
Posted on 7/17/19 at 5:47 pm to TaTa Toothy
It wasn't "post". it was during.
Posted on 7/17/19 at 6:13 pm to Napoleon
quote:
I never got it. A slave cost around 4-5 years of a workers entire salary. Plus you had to feed and house
Probably already been said. But what about the kids they have?
Hate saying this, but buying a slave was like buying a horse or anything else like that. You bought them with the expectation they could also produce more for you.
This post was edited on 7/17/19 at 6:14 pm
Posted on 7/17/19 at 6:17 pm to TaTa Toothy
It would have died either way.
But back when it was a big deal cotton was our biggest export and was definitely integral to the initial economic growth of this country. You could also use slaves as collateral to get loans and other shite like that.
But I don't prescribe to the whole, slaves built this country. lots of things have happened to get to where we are and continuos work had to happen and will have to happen.
But back when it was a big deal cotton was our biggest export and was definitely integral to the initial economic growth of this country. You could also use slaves as collateral to get loans and other shite like that.
But I don't prescribe to the whole, slaves built this country. lots of things have happened to get to where we are and continuos work had to happen and will have to happen.
This post was edited on 7/17/19 at 6:23 pm
Posted on 7/17/19 at 6:22 pm to gthog61
"The Industrial Revolution, now also known as the First Industrial Revolution, was the transition to new manufacturing processes in Europe and the United States, in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840." From wikipedia.
Posted on 7/17/19 at 6:24 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Slavery would have gradually ended over next 20 years or so
But the yankees decided we needed to fight a war and have millions die over it.
If you and your children had been slaves, would you have been thinking: "The economy and technology will probably result in slavery becoming infeasible in 20 years or so, and then we'll be free. Sure do hope nobody starts any trouble to try to free us earlier. Wouldn't want anybody to get hurt. The kids and I will just ride out this slavery thing and hope for the best."
This post was edited on 7/17/19 at 6:26 pm
Posted on 7/17/19 at 7:22 pm to Twenty 49
The South was Right!
If the South had won we wouldn 't have the crap going on today that we now have.
Damn Yanks!
If the South had won we wouldn 't have the crap going on today that we now have.
Damn Yanks!
Posted on 7/17/19 at 10:31 pm to Bayou
South wins, what happens next?
Blacks actually outnumbered whites in some states. Start thinking about that.
Blacks actually outnumbered whites in some states. Start thinking about that.
Posted on 7/18/19 at 12:18 am to Rougarou4lsu
quote:
subjugation of an entire race of people- I wouldn't go all the way to 'entire'. You'd be surprised how many free people of color lived in New Orleans during the 1815 Slave Revolt. Many helped quell the revolt before it reached the city..
Very good point. Not entire, not even majority. I think it is a low point in our history but it was called the "Slave Trade" not Slave take and I have a real hard time believing the minority population traded away the majority for money. If that did happen it would've been a much more unique moment in history.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News