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.
"Gavin Wright (1978) called attention as well to the difference between the short run and the long run. He noted that slaves accounted for a very large proportion of most masters’ portfolios of assets. Although slavery might have seemed an efficient means of production at a point in time, it tied masters to a certain system of labor which might not have adapted quickly to changed economic circumstances. This argument has some merit. Although the South’s growth rate compared favorably with that of the North in the antebellum period, a considerable portion of wealth was held in the hands of planters. Consequently, commercial and service industries lagged in the South. The region also had far less rail transportation than the North. Yet many plantations used the most advanced technologies of the day, and certain innovative commercial and insurance practices appeared first in transactions involving slaves. What is more, although the South fell behind the North and Great Britain in its level of manufacturing, it compared favorably to other advanced countries of the time. In sum, no clear consensus emerges as to whether the antebellum South created a standard of living comparable to that of the North or, if it did, whether it could have sustained it.
Ultimately, the South’s system of law, politics, business, and social customs strengthened the shackles of slavery and reinforced racial stereotyping. As such, it was undeniably evil. Yet, because slaves constituted valuable property, their masters had ample incentives to take care of them. And, by protecting the property rights of masters, slave law necessarily sheltered the persons embodied within. In a sense, the apologists for slavery were right: slaves sometimes fared better than free persons because powerful people had a stake in their well-being." (emphasis is mine)
btw: whatever profits that were made in the South, the North also enjoyed --- that was one part of the (grievances addressed) problem, central - decentralized government and the sharing of economic wealth, between the States.
Exactly. They never would have been able to afford or physically maintain their "gone with the wind" life style without unpaid, forced labor.
When I started thinking about certain things, I found a bit of irony. Most of the persons I saw flying the Confederate flag, or wearing Confederate flag shirts, they didn't look like the kind of people who came from the Southern nobility. It was mainly.........
1) Individuals who fit the "redneck" stereotype.
2) Individuals who lived in working class neighborhoods (or on occasion, individuals who came from working poor backgrounds).
This was the rule, at least where I lived. I hardly ever saw middle upper class Whites sport any kind of Confederate cloth. I don't say this to disparage anyone who comes from working class or working poor backgrounds. I am just giving an account of what I grew up seeing around me, and wondering about why that was.
When I started thinking about certain things, I found a bit of irony. Most of the persons I saw flying the Confederate flag, or wearing Confederate flag shirts, they didn't look like the kind of people who came from the Southern nobility. It was mainly.........
1) Individuals who fit the "redneck" stereotype.
2) Individuals who lived in working class neighborhoods (or on occasion, individuals who came from working poor backgrounds).
This was the rule, at least where I lived. I hardly ever saw middle upper class Whites sport any kind of Confederate cloth. I don't say this to disparage anyone who comes from working class or working poor backgrounds. I am just giving an account of what I grew up seeing around me, and wondering about why that was.
Could be because it isn't about Southern Nobility --- Royalty doesn't rebel, they just keep raking in more money and can't be bothered by a cloth or what it might represent.
Who is your favorite general, Napoleon? Lee was very good. My teachers said the same thing.
And yet he was a traitor who fought for the Confederate cause to preserve the institution of slavery. This was not a noble cause. He is no hero and should not be honored in our public spaces.
And yet he was a traitor who fought for the Confederate cause to preserve the institution of slavery. This was not a noble cause. He is no hero and should not be honored in our public spaces.
The confederacy lost, so I agree.
But keep in mind 90% of white southerners weren't slave owners, they were fighting for independence, as was Lee.
But keep in mind 90% of white southerners weren't slave owners, they were fighting for independence, as was Lee.
Slavery was just a consequence of that.
Slavery was still the primary reason they seceded from the union. The topic is about confederate monuments and why they should be removed.
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.
