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.
And this was more efficient than free labor provided by slaves???
You still have to provide food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare to slaves. Think of prison labor, they are basically slaves, but the cost for each prisoner is $40K. It's much cheaper to just pay $5/$7 an hour on an as needed basis. Plus, there is the fact that even with min wage and migrant workers farmers choose to automate and invest in capital equipment.
First of all prisons today provide way better conditions than slave owners,
That's debatable and depends on the state/country you have the slave in. If a prisoner dies it is no big deal, but if a slave dies the owner is held responsible. Again, the jurisdiction matters as some states/countries had rules on treatment and others did not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
second free labor or labor for food and shelter is still cheaper than hired hands.
No it isn't. Housing alone is going to be $700/month. Food is going to run $2-$300/month. Then you need to add in guards to restrict the slaves.
First of all prisons today provide way better conditions than slave owners, second free labor or labor for food and shelter is still cheaper than hired hands.
Better conditions than some slave owners.
And second, no. McDonalds would much prefer to pay minimum wage, than provide food, shelter, clothing, and every other staple of life, as well as paying for guards, dogs, and guns to keep their workers confined.
Last edited by DC at the Ridge; 10-06-2014 at 11:09 AM..
No one is talking about ending the practice ad absolutum. No one says slavery wouldn't have taken decades to have been driven out. It would have taken decades, unless the government stepped in and agreed to compensate slave owners for the loss of slaves. Not an unprecedented idea, since Great Britain had done exactly that with its colonies.
And the Industrial Revolution was just building up steam at this point, so its impact on slavery hadn't begun.
And industrialization didn't mean the same thing for North and South, as the economies of the two regions were fundamentally different.
You're the one who claimed industrialization was pushing slavery out, I was just responding to that assertion with a rebuttal.
It might have impacted slavery eventually, but not in 1860 or anywhere near it. Slavery was too entrenched in the economic models that employed it to abandon it totally. I do believe industrialization would have lessened it, but never eradicated it completely.
You're the one who claimed industrialization was pushing slavery out, I was just responding to that assertion with a rebuttal.
It might have impacted slavery eventually, but not in 1860 or anywhere near it. Slavery was too entrenched in the economic models that employed it to abandon it totally. I do believe industrialization would have lessened it, but never eradicated it completely.
Actually, I didn't say that industrialization was pushing slavery out. I said that industrialization would have eventually pushed slavery out. You're the one stuck on the year 1860, and some absurd concept of ending slavery "absolutem".
Actually, I didn't say that industrialization was pushing slavery out. I said that industrialization would have eventually pushed slavery out. You're the one stuck on the year 1860, and some absurd concept of ending slavery "absolutem".
I posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Now, as far as slavery on its way out...LMAO. Really? Given the investment slave owners had racked up in their held slaves, and how freeing them would not only simply void every dime invested in a slave to that point, but would wreck the future profit margin they were in no mood to reorganize under a paid labor model? No no, slavery wasn't going anywhere in the 1860s, and the Southern states economic model was too entrenched with slavery to just go weak kneed and end it. No southern politician alive at the time would have been elected, reelected or even made it home alive had they been abolitionists. The equivalent to saying the southern states would have ended slavery voluntarily would be like saying North Carolina and Virginia are trying desperately to ban tobacco, and Florida wants to ban the interstate sales of fruit. It's pure nonsense to think the Confederacy was going to give up on slaves without being forced to, because Occam's Razor says it makes not one shred of economic or financial sense.
To which you replied (and quoted me in doing so):
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
As invested in slavery as the Confederacy was, it doesn't change the fact that slavery was economically unsustainable as new inventions came along as the result of the Industrial Revolution, and as the farming practices of that era were also unsustainable.
Which I took as a rebuttal, with "slavery was economically unsustainable" being the assertion that it was on its way out in the 1860s. Is that not what the above quote was intended to be?
And the reason I am "stuck in 1860" is because that was the year South Carolina decided to secede, so it's rather germaine to the point on the causes of the Civil War, don't you think? The status of slavery's importance in the year 1860 is appropriate, and not really some fixation of mine.
But by all means, clear it up for me...was slavery on its way out in 1860, or wasn't it? I am of the firm belief, given historical facts, that it was not on its way out anyway, and would have remained in place for quite some time, industrialization or not. Feel free to either directly agree or disagree with that statement, since I made it in conjunction with the original post and theme of the thread, which is common untruths told about the US Civil War.
Can you disprove the fact that black soldiers fought for the confederacy?
Why are you intent on rewriting history?
It is not a rewriting of history to say blacks did not fight for the South, it is however a lie to claim they did, and since you make that claim then you have to prove it.
Which I took as a rebuttal, with "slavery was economically unsustainable" being the assertion that it was on its way out in the 1860s. Is that not what the above quote was intended to be?
And the reason I am "stuck in 1860" is because that was the year South Carolina decided to secede, so it's rather germaine to the point on the causes of the Civil War, don't you think? The status of slavery's importance in the year 1860 is appropriate, and not really some fixation of mine.
But by all means, clear it up for me...was slavery on its way out in 1860, or wasn't it? I am of the firm belief, given historical facts, that it was not on its way out anyway, and would have remained in place for quite some time, industrialization or not. Feel free to either directly agree or disagree with that statement, since I made it in conjunction with the original post and theme of the thread, which is common untruths told about the US Civil War.
Actually, if you read "slavery was economically unsustainable" as being an assertion that it was on its way out in the 1860, you have a reading comprehension problem.
Slave owners appeared to be doing well. But, like most farmers, they were up to their eyeballs in debt. That's why slaves were used as collateral for loans. Loans from Northern bankers. The South had an agrarian economy. They were land rich, but capital poor. The North's economy was land poor, but capital rich. Each year when they sold their crops, they paid back their loans, and spent their profits. When it came time to plant, they borrowed the money to do so. Poor land management practices were already leading to lower crop yields.
And then as slavery was waning, the cotton gin came along & reignited the profitability of cotton. There was absolutely an ebb & flow in terms of profitability for Southern plantation owners.
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.
