Slavery

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Hey anyone have any information on the negative economic impacts of slavery?

[Charred_Phoenix]

Slavery had quite good economic effects... it's just that it's entirely immoral. Perhaps I don't fully understand what you mean?

[Soldier]

The chief problem (I presume you're referring to the American manifestation of it) was that it let the south continue to operate as it always had; it didn't keep up with the technological advances the north was making. Part of why they had problems with the Civil War - not much industry to run with. There was also some other effect having to do with geography/location of southern population centers, but I can't quite remember what it was.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Well from what I have heard, haven't yet started the research bit, didn't all the slave owners put other small famr owners out of business ebcause they could not comepte witht the free labor of the larger plantation owners?

[Soldier]

Seems quite possible, but (and I really don't know), would that actually be a bad overall economic effect?

[Charred_Phoenix]

I think I understand what you're saying now. You're talking about individual economic loss, not overall, right?

If so, I think you've already identified the main problem with it. A farm using hired men can't possibly keep up with the prices a slave owner can sell at. Which, of course, means all the wealth is amasses in the hands of the slave-owners.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Charred_Phoenix
I
A farm using hired men can't possibly keep up with the prices a slave owner can sell at.

This is not exactly true, simply because there is no such thing as "free" labor. The slaveholder had costs that the employer of hired hands did not; they were merely DIFFERENT expenses. Slaves had to be fed, clothed, housed and otherwise kept at the expense of the owner; hired men did not. Moreover, to the extent that slaveowners did not raise all their slaves, the initial purchase price of each slave would have required a future-value calculation vis-a-vis the wages paid over time to free workers. And finally, to the extent that incentives to productivity would have been nil for slaves, these would not have been as inclined to work hard in the absence of supervision and punishment...constant supervision and punishment being two other things the slaveholder had to pay for which the employer of labor did not ( overseers still had to be paid ).

It is widely credited that slave labor in the antebellum South was actually LESS efficient in its allocation of resources than wage labor.

[Soldier]

Couldn't it be made up for in scale, though? Get a big plantation; a lot of slaves can be housed all together; clothing, food, etc. can be bought at wholesale prices; one overseer can oversee a lot of slaves. Would that have much effect?

[Charred_Phoenix]

I was under the impression that using slaves was much cheaper. If that's not true, then why were slaves used at all?

[damion18d]

Like many things, it seems simple. Inq is exactly right that just because you have slaves doesn't translate to cheap labor. It was a bad idea and you were correct for saying it was immoral. No man should own another man.

[Soldier]

Immoral, definitely. Morality aside, however, we're trying to figure out if it actually was a bad idea or not. After all, like CP said, if it was such a bad idea, how come it was so popular?

[damion18d]

I would think that like many economic moves that it may take large amounts of time to see the full benifit or ramification. In hind sight we can look and say " that was a bad idea". At the time that may not have been so obvious right away. Also it was a social norm. Bell bottoms and afros seemed like a good idea in the 70's but look at pitures now.

[Soldier]

Very true. Never did get into that jeans-big-enough-for-three thing, anyway. Glad I won't have any surprises awaiting my kids in pictures years from now, but on the other hand, what does it tell you about a 20- or 30-something-year-old who looks not much different than he did when he was 13? I mean hell, my hair didn't even get much shorter when I came to basic. I was disappointed when they quit shaving it for us every two weeks...

[Inquartata]

To my mind, the principal reasons behind the adoption and retention of slavery in the South were political and cultural, rather than economic. The costs of the institution were borne willingly by the slaveholders because it represented a way of life. Eventually, the economic inefficiency would have forced the South into relinquishing the use of slaves---slavery was vanishing all over the world for that reason, for instance it had disappeared in England well before it was made illegal...

[Soldier]

Sounds good enough to me. I never learned much more about it than my remarkably adept high school history teacher.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Right, but wasn't that pre-cotton gin. After the creation of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney cotton production mjumped off the charts and slavery was needed again, in theory.

[Soldier]

Another good point I'd forgotten.

[OCTAVIA]

A bad economic effect is probably the least of it. But i did some research into the subject on my own, by checking some Ship manefests to see whether my family tree was mentioned on the lists of people who came over, as a person who was an owner. But we had no people in my family with that background. The history of Louisiana and Mississippi are two of the big areas of slave history. Being back in Louisiana was sort of upsetting in a way; the word Plantation has no negative connotation, because now, the African American populations are part of the deal down there. For example, the whole town is very African American, the Mayor's offices and so forth. I vistied several areas that are run and organized by African Americans who have since found careers marketing the south including the plantations that run along the mississippi river. The Civil War took more lives than the Vietnam conflict. It completely destroyed the south. The north did not know salvery, in spite of the revisionary history that has come about as a result of a bunch of cowards who cant stand up to anything. But it was morally and ethically incorrect that is why they suffered. The south is poor for many reasons and that is one of their legacies. It is worth the trip to go and visit, if you can do it without having a fit and hating all the white people; because those two groups made peace along time ago and don't need anyone stirring up the pot for them, unless you can make a good gumbo. They like to call their area like a gumbo: a bit of everything in it. There are many mixed marriages and the area is getting rid of housing projects, African Americans are getting work and buying regular houses, that's the result of the Welfare to Work act/ and the Workforce Investment Act, it brought people out of poverty.

[damion18d]

I have a question for you(before I start this is not a personal attack), I am 75% Irish and 25% Indian. I am a white American. You use the term African American 4 times in your post. How many of those "African" Americans identify with Africa at all? Have they ever been there or know anything about Africa? Why give yourself or your race a title that further astranges it from being part of a whole.
I want to reiterate I am not trying to insight you. I am trying to get an answer that will make me understand some of todays racial political manuevers.
Also you mention hating all the white people? What white people? Slave owners from 200 years ago? Or white people today, because that would be so logical and bring us closer together.

[Soldier]

Why are you trying to get an answer from her that will help you understand anything?

As for 'African-American' - it's just the style right now. Have to have some convenient title for those of us with significantly levels of melanocite cells, that's generally considered politically correct/non-offensive. I personally prefer "blacks", but only because it's...six syllables shorter (sorry, calculus shorted out my arithmetic abilities there for a minute). That brings me to something else for the rant thread...