Started By
Message
The economic viability of slavery and it's eventual abolition
Posted on 9/29/14 at 10:51 pm
Posted on 9/29/14 at 10:51 pm
I felt like doing some historical research and found some interesting information in regards to slavery and how economically beneficial it was financially to farmers up until the Civil War. I found an interesting correlation between prices of slaves, wages paid to farm labor in non slave states, and the abolition movement.
It seems that perhaps a large reason for the abolition movement was due to slavery no longer being financially feasible compared to just hiring labor. I find it interesting that once it wasn't cost efficient, all of a sudden it was this terrible thing that needed to be done away with. But all the years prior, people found a way to justify it.
Take for example, from the info I gathered, farm wages in the midwest in 1820 were around 9 bucks a month with board. 108 dollars per year. A prime slave was worth about 250 dollars at that time. Average lifespan on a plantation was 7-9 years for a slave. So basically after 2 years, you had free labor for 5-7 years. Cost efficient.
After 1850, costs of a slave skyrocketed to 1600-2000 dollars due to other countries cutting off the Atlantic trade routes. At the same time, farm labor was about 15 dollars a month. A slave would have to work for around 10 years before the cost justified themselves, and since many died earlier than that, it was no longer cost efficient. Right after this change in pricing, the push for abolition started.
Just find it interesting how money drives evil and leads to justification of said evil, and the moral high ground is only taken once money it no longer in the equation.
It seems that perhaps a large reason for the abolition movement was due to slavery no longer being financially feasible compared to just hiring labor. I find it interesting that once it wasn't cost efficient, all of a sudden it was this terrible thing that needed to be done away with. But all the years prior, people found a way to justify it.
Take for example, from the info I gathered, farm wages in the midwest in 1820 were around 9 bucks a month with board. 108 dollars per year. A prime slave was worth about 250 dollars at that time. Average lifespan on a plantation was 7-9 years for a slave. So basically after 2 years, you had free labor for 5-7 years. Cost efficient.
After 1850, costs of a slave skyrocketed to 1600-2000 dollars due to other countries cutting off the Atlantic trade routes. At the same time, farm labor was about 15 dollars a month. A slave would have to work for around 10 years before the cost justified themselves, and since many died earlier than that, it was no longer cost efficient. Right after this change in pricing, the push for abolition started.
Just find it interesting how money drives evil and leads to justification of said evil, and the moral high ground is only taken once money it no longer in the equation.
Posted on 9/29/14 at 10:56 pm to deltaland
That makes zero sense. If slaves were so much more expensive, the South wouldn't have seceded to keep them.
Posted on 9/29/14 at 10:57 pm to Stonehog
Waiting for the lightbulb.
Posted on 9/29/14 at 11:02 pm to Stonehog
quote:
If slaves were so much more expensive, the South wouldn't have seceded to keep them.
The South didn't secede to keep them, slavery wasn't abolished until halfway through the war. There were many issues at hand that caused the war. Mostly over political power. Very few people actually owned slaves due to the cost.
Posted on 9/29/14 at 11:19 pm to deltaland
quote:
Just find it interesting how money drives evil and leads to justification of said evil, and the moral high ground is only taken once money it no longer in the equation.
Meh, just like you said there's many reasons the Civil War was fought, there are also many reasons slavery fell out of favor. Cost efficiency is merely another factor to consider, not the sole culprit.
Posted on 9/29/14 at 11:30 pm to deltaland
quote:
Very few people actually owned slaves due to the cost.
Were those people traditionalists?
Bad business men?
Stupid?
Why did anyone still have slaves if the costs were so outrageous?
Posted on 9/29/14 at 11:41 pm to Stonehog
Probably cause they could.
Why would anyone own a private jet if the costs are so outrageous?
Why would anyone own a private jet if the costs are so outrageous?
Posted on 9/29/14 at 11:45 pm to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
Probably cause they could.
Why would anyone own a private jet if the costs are so outrageous?
Are you retarded?
Posted on 9/29/14 at 11:54 pm to CheeseburgerEddie
Ok, care to explain your comparison of a slave to a private jet?
Posted on 9/29/14 at 11:55 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Ok, care to explain your comparison of a slave to a private jet?
Both noisy and like to get high
Posted on 9/29/14 at 11:58 pm to Stonehog
high dollar assets which require a lot of ongoing maintenance/operational costs
Posted on 9/29/14 at 11:59 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Why did anyone still have slaves if the costs were so outrageous?
Well actually it was about even at the time the abolition movement started gaining ground.
If you already owned slaves, then those slaves would reproduce and you would have a never ending supply of free slaves to use, therefore the rich, large plantation owners in the south still had a cost advantage.
But at that point, someone who didn't have old money couldn't afford a slave because a one time payment of 2000 dollars was a lot of money then. They'd be better off to spend 250 bucks a year on labor and turn an immediate profit. So basically the costs prevented any new slaveowners from coming into the market. Most of the cause of the rise in prices was due to the Atlantic Trade being shut down..so now supply was short and the only people who had slaves for sale was other plantation owners..so they jacked up the price because it would inhibit competition and allow them to monopolize.
This lead to an abolition movement as slavery before this movement was seen as a necessary evil for business profit. Now that the vast majority of the next generation couldn't even afford a slave if they wanted one, they opposed it. You could stand to reason that if the cost of a slave had remained close to the cost of 1 year of labor, many more people would have still supported slavery.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 12:00 am to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:
Both noisy and like to get high
Posted on 9/30/14 at 12:28 am to deltaland
So you're saying slave owners in the South were kind of like the 1 percenters?
Posted on 9/30/14 at 12:33 am to Stonehog
quote:
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 6:44 am to Stonehog
quote:
the South wouldn't have seceded to keep them.
Really wasn't the primary reason the South seceded.
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News