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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
There are too many books on the economics of slavery to list them. If you search for economics of slavery you will no doubt get dozens of books on the subject which leads one to at least infer that is it not such a cut and dried assumption that if you have slaves you are making a profit. Slave owners who were planting cotton were part of a global market place, just like today.
"Ask a historian, or a political scientist, or a politician the question,
“Who benefited from North American slavery?” and the answer
you will probably get is, “The slaveholders, of course.” The
slaveholders got to work their slaves hard, pay them little, sell
what they made for healthy prices, and get rich.
We economists have a different view"
"But slaveholders who bought their slaves later on,
after the magnitude of the demand by factories for cotton was wellknown, and who entered the cotton-growing business late—well,
they probably profited little if any more than they would have had
they invested their money in transatlantic commerce or New
England factories or Midwestern land speculation. With the supply
of slaves fixed, the excess profits produced—I won’t say
earned—by driving your slaves hard were already incorporated in
the prices you paid for slaves. If they were not, why would
anybody sell slaves?"
I believe it would have ended but much later. And to be sure there were other issues in the Civil War but near its end the only way the public supported it was a moral cause to end slavery. And some of the freed slaves had to fight for the privilege of taking up arms.
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.
really? Last time I look it was the North invading the South not the other way around. I didn't know it was treason for residents of the South to defend their land from federal troops with the main purpose to destroy the economy, infrastructure and private property and humiliate the south.
I don't know what is worse, slavery of a small % of the population that would have ended eventually or invading the south and having the bloodiest war in our history that many civilians died that had nothing to do with slavery and the economy destroyed........to me the latter was much worse......but hey that's my opinion.
The Civil War almost destroyed our country..........again there were other ways to end slavery or let it run out than going to war. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war…. President Abraham Lincoln did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war.
really? Last time I look it was the North invading the South not the other way around. I didn't know it was treason for residents of the South to defend their land from federal troops with the main purpose to destroy the economy, infrastructure and private property and humiliate the south.
You need to look again. The U.S. government didn't invade the southern states until rebellious forces fired upon a U.S. military installation, illegally seized U.S. government property and raised an army in rebellion against the legitimate government of the United States.
As for the destruction of the southern economy, infrastructure, and private property... well when those items are used in the furtherance of a rebellion against the legitimate government of the United States why would one be surprised that those resources were destroyed during the prosecution of such a rebellion.
See Article I Section 8 enumerated power #15
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
You need to look again. The U.S. government didn't invade the southern states until rebellious forces fired upon a U.S. military installation, illegally seized U.S. government property and raised an army in rebellion against the legitimate government of the United States.
As for the destruction of the southern economy, infrastructure, and private property... well when those items are used in the furtherance of a rebellion against the legitimate government of the United States why would one be surprised that those resources were destroyed during the prosecution of such a rebellion.
See Article I Section 8 enumerated power #15
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Absolutely right. It's sometimes hard to tell whether these guys actually believe the confederate propaganda they parrot.
Last edited by jackmccullough; 09-27-2013 at 09:52 PM..
You need to look again. The U.S. government didn't invade the southern states until rebellious forces fired upon a U.S. military installation, illegally seized U.S. government property and raised an army in rebellion against the legitimate government of the United States.
As for the destruction of the southern economy, infrastructure, and private property... well when those items are used in the furtherance of a rebellion against the legitimate government of the United States why would one be surprised that those resources were destroyed during the prosecution of such a rebellion.
See Article I Section 8 enumerated power #15
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
did Lincoln sent troops to the southern states because of FT. Sumter or because the south seceded from the Union?
So you admit that Lincoln didn't fight the civil war over slavery but to preserve federal property?....lol
Yes,but it might have happened in the same way it did in Haiti...unfortunately for the southern whites.
It would have been a violent,bloody overthrow.
Btw,the Brazillian system was much,much better than the American system(according to what I've read anyway).
That's the reason why it ended so late.
One of the most important reasons why it wasn't as oppressive as the Usa?
They(the slave owners) were Catholics.
Not sure why,I will google that.
like the north didn't have their propaganda..............or you view every war in black and white...the good guys vs bad guys?
You may not have been around here long enough to see many of these discussions, so I'll give you a quick tip: the Confederate apologists always get around to talking about racism in the North. What they, like you, don't seem to understand is that talking about the character of the people in the North has no bearing on the fact that the motivation of the Confederates in starting the war was to preserve their ability to own human beings. You may have noticed that my point said nothing about the degree to which someone today would consider the American forces the "good guys". Your point is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
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.
