Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
The South slave owners with there free slave labor and free
child labor by birth was gaining in wealth like the North who did not want equallity.
The Wealthy in the North wanted to free the Southern slaves so they would
flee to the North and give the wealthy and rich cheaper labor
In factories and the labor force.
Fred Southern slaves would work for less money than the white people in the North.
That way they would slow down the production of the South
and increase the Norths economey.
The North did not care about African Slaves, or the white poor either ! ! !
All they wanted was cheap labor, and domination of America just like today ! ! !
It was actually very expensive to get into the "plantation business" and by some accounts to profit. One diarist wrote that before the civil war the system was ran for the benefit of northern merchants and the "negroes”
To clothe, feed, house, provide medical care how ever meager was costly not to mention many slaves like the very old and infirmed as well as the young were not productive. One slave economist said that even when cotton was king you still kept most of your plantation in corn. You had to feed livestock and slaves this staple which was always priced very high because no one wanted to run out of it.
Plantation owners were the fortune 500 of the day. Consider that the price of one slave might be equal to over five years of military pay for a soldier fighting in the Civil War. Owning 500-1000 slaves was not uncommon. It was risky business indeed. In some areas of the south plantation owners using "free labor" found that it was more profitable. What ended slavery is when the federal government started buying up all the slave property.
Last edited by thriftylefty; 09-27-2013 at 03:16 PM..
Every empire in the world was built by some kind of slave labor.....from the Romans, Egyptians, Chinese dynasties, British, French, Spanish and the list goes on........even the Indians and African tribes practiced slavery and some still do.
It was how civilizations were built in those times.
Sure it would have. For slavery was actually becoming unprofitable. Given the increase in mechanization in agriculture, we would have reached a point where slaves would have been standing around with nothing to do.
To clothe, feed, house, provide medical care how ever meager was costly mot to mention many slaves like the very old and infirmed as well as the young were not productive. One slave economist said that even when cotton was king you still kept most of your plantation in corn.
To cloth a slave was very cheap, they did not wear suits and ties,
and dresses like the rich and wealthy.
Go look at some of the old pictures of real slaves and you will see
it did not cost an arm and a leg to cloth ore feed them.
Feeding a slave was cheap, because they raised there own crops, and were given
left over guts, feet, hearts, livers, lungs, blood, heads, brains, tails, ribcages,
and everything else a Slave owner did not want after a hog was slaughtered,
same with a cow, all throw away cheap meat. Chickes cost almost nothing.
Houses were old shacks which were used family after family,
with large numbers of children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty
You had to feed livestock and slaves this staple which was always priced very high because no one wanted to run out of it.
Livestock feed was cheap, and the stock produced and made
the owner more money than they he could sell feed for.
Feeding slaves was cheap because you could not sell it and make more money
just like livestock feeding today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty
Plantation owners were the fortune 500 of the day. Consider that the price of one slave might be equal to over five years of military pay for a soldier fighting in the Civil War.
You buy one male slave and 10 - 25 female slaves, and you have a
mulitiplying heard of slaves having children every year which would be put to work
in the field at a very young age, or sold to another slave owner for large profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty
Owning 500-1000 slaves was not uncommon. It was risky business indeed. In some areas of the south plantation owners using "free labor" found that it was more profitable.
It's common scince the more slave the more money to be made,
just like a heard of cattle, horses, hogs, goats, sheep, etc. ! ! !
Slave trade was big money for the Slave owners, just like today.
Sure it would have. For slavery was actually becoming unprofitable. Given the increase in mechanization in agriculture, we would have reached a point where slaves would have been standing around with nothing to do.
Look around you today it's the same thing more workers than there are jobs.
It's all supply and demand ! ! !
Today America does not need or have use for the workers ! ! !
You still have a high demand for migrant workers all over the country today.
Slavery would have been short-lived whethere the Civil War was fought or not; it was on the wane everywhere in the civilized world and ironically, the last vestiges of the "legitimized" slave trade were bertween East Africa and the Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf. Anti-slavery societies flourished in Great Britain simultaneously with the push for the expansion of Parliamentary Democracy, and enlightened movements such as this always found an audience on the other side of the Atlanic.
So slavery would have died out, admittedly later than just about everywhere else, regardless. But the need for labor to hold down the lowest positions in the pecking order would have not. And in 1870, whether in the North or South. the overwhelming majority of this drudgery was still perfomed on small subsistence farms, by family members, in return for security and the basics, rather than monetary compensation.
Most of what I see in this thread is the same old whine by recently-overeducated young people who, like all the rest of us, have yet to come to grips with the fact that most existence after college is dull and repetitive, and that most people who were prpeared to be chiefs will have to learn to be braves, at least until such time as it's too late in the game to matter; Sic Transit Gloria!
It is impossible to know when or if slavery would have been eliminated without the Civil War. It seems unlikely, given that the slave-owning states were willing to commit treason and take up arms against the country in order to preserve it, but I don't claim to know for a fact that it would not have ended eventually.
What I find abhorrent, though, is the view implicit in this claim that it would have been morally justified to force the millions of enslaved people already living under slavery, and untold numbers of generations who would have followed them, to continue to suffer under slavery until their owners found it convenient to free them.
Slavery was an unmitigated evil, and the Confederate apologists who argue that the slaves should have been happy to wait for its end have a grotesquely twisted sense of morality.
What is that in today's dollars?
$800 in 1860 is equal to $20,147.95 in 2012. Each. The Inflation Calculator
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
