Started By
Message
re: The economic viability of slavery and it's eventual abolition
Posted on 9/30/14 at 7:02 am to deltaland
Posted on 9/30/14 at 7:02 am to deltaland
I don't know how soon it would have ended, but I think you're right that it would have ended eventually if for nothing but economic reasons. I've also read that there was a small but growing abolitionist movement even among southerners pre-civil war.
0
Posted on 9/30/14 at 7:03 am to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:
Ok, care to explain your comparison of a slave to a private jet?
Both noisy and like to get high
Just spit out my coffee
Posted on 9/30/14 at 7:31 am to Stonehog
quote:
So you're saying slave owners in the South were kind of like the 1 percenters?
Pretty much.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 7:41 am to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:I just started watching it but it says 1% of America if you include everyone.
So you're saying slave owners in the South were kind of like the 1 percenters?
In the video I posted it says 6%
Posted on 9/30/14 at 7:57 am to deltaland
1850 was the height of the cotton boom. the value/ price of slaves was directly tied to the price of cotton.
$2000 was about right, that's about $40,000 in today's dollars.
This had nothing to do with the demise of slavery, though. even if the war had never happened, the cost of slavery would have exceeded its profit some time in the 1880's. keep in mind the industrial revolution was rapidly changing farming as well as industry.
you are also wrong about slavery not being the reason the war was fought. if I am wrong, how can you explain why the csa's constitution was pretty much word for word as the usa's constitution (except for a provision that guaranteed slavery) after the csa seceded.
$2000 was about right, that's about $40,000 in today's dollars.
This had nothing to do with the demise of slavery, though. even if the war had never happened, the cost of slavery would have exceeded its profit some time in the 1880's. keep in mind the industrial revolution was rapidly changing farming as well as industry.
you are also wrong about slavery not being the reason the war was fought. if I am wrong, how can you explain why the csa's constitution was pretty much word for word as the usa's constitution (except for a provision that guaranteed slavery) after the csa seceded.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 8:29 am to deltaland
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/30/14 at 8:30 am
Posted on 9/30/14 at 9:06 am to deltaland
quote:
So you're saying slave owners in the South were kind of like the 1 percenters?
Pretty much.
So they were super rich with a lot of political influence...
Posted on 9/30/14 at 9:36 am to VanCleef
quote:
1850 was the height of the cotton boom. the value/ price of slaves was directly tied to the price of cotton.
$2000 was about right, that's about $40,000 in today's dollars.
This had nothing to do with the demise of slavery, though. even if the war had never happened, the cost of slavery would have exceeded its profit some time in the 1880's. keep in mind the industrial revolution was rapidly changing farming as well as industry.
you are also wrong about slavery not being the reason the war was fought. if I am wrong, how can you explain why the csa's constitution was pretty much word for word as the usa's constitution (except for a provision that guaranteed slavery) after the csa seceded.
Slavery was definitely a key lightning rod issue that many felt emotional about in the south, but obviously it didn't affect the lives of the majority of southerners. Aside from the super rich 6%, there was a long gap before you hit the vast majority of poor farmers/sharecroppers. The south didn't sustain too much of a middle class.
What did affect a lot of the southern farmers were tariffs put in place by a congress dominated by the populated north on agricultural goods. A lot of taxes began to be placed on cotton, sugar, tobacco, and other cash crops grown predominantly in the southern states. The US at the time was VERY divided economically, basically two different countries by 1850.
People don't realize that the southern secessionist movement wasn't even the first in the nation. The New England states nearly seceded over Jefferson (a southern president) self imposing an embargo that killed the north eastern mfg. goods and shipping trade. It's all economics.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 9:40 am to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:
Ok, care to explain your comparison of a slave to a private jet?
quote:
Both noisy and like to get high
I
which reminds me I'm a bad person but frick it Posted on 9/30/14 at 9:41 am to deltaland
quote:
Just find it interesting how money drives evil
You don't say
Posted on 9/30/14 at 9:43 am to Stonehog
quote:
If slaves were so much more expensive, the South wouldn't have seceded to keep them.
You aren't an educated person.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 11:01 am to BillyBobPorkin
The only people who say the war wasn't about slavery are dumb racists.
You should just post as Pigfeet, btw. It's pretty obvious.
You should just post as Pigfeet, btw. It's pretty obvious.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 2:27 pm to cokebottleag
about 33% of southern whites owned slaves when the war started (not all were large planters, many just had one on a small farm) I'm not sure where you get 6% from.
so, while it is true most white southerners in 1860 didn't own slaves, were poor (most had a diet, life expectancy, and work life similar to a slave) they still benefited from the slave economy, the social hierarchy and had something to fight for, even though it was the rich planter politicians who made the treasonous act to split the country.
so, while it is true most white southerners in 1860 didn't own slaves, were poor (most had a diet, life expectancy, and work life similar to a slave) they still benefited from the slave economy, the social hierarchy and had something to fight for, even though it was the rich planter politicians who made the treasonous act to split the country.
This post was edited on 9/30/14 at 4:16 pm
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News