American Civil War question

[MadImmortalMan]

I think it was already illegal to import any more for some time previously as well.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, from Africa.  There was brisk business in selling slaves despite Grumbler's baseless assertions.

[Siege]

I don't give a fuck either way.
Slavery is wrong and the North was industrialized while the south was in the opening stages and lagging behind.

Natural social selection.
The most industrialized, free market capitalist society, should own the least industrialized, free market society.
Slavery slows down development, so it had to go.

Bottom Line Up Front: Suck my dick and support anything that brings the Technological Singularity closer.

In the future, we will look at the singularity the way we look at the reinasscannse, and wonder why it happen in the West instead of China.

Or the other way around.

[Razgovory]

Wouldn't the freest market be one that that has fewer restrictions on what goods can be sold i.e. slaves?

[The Brain]

During the war the South used slaves extensively in its weapons industry and IIRC they did some remarkable things producing weapons given where they were starting from.  Any particular reason slaves could not have been used in an industrial setting?  Sweat shops have been pretty profitable over time.

Slaves have no incentive to maintain their equipment or produce quality goods.  If a machine breaks down in this period, the paid worker gets no pay and does no work.  That's a tragedy for him.  If a machine breaks down and a slave is the operator, he loses nothing and, in fact, gains in that he doesn't have to work.  The Southern experiment with slave labor in factories during the war was a flop; as I recall, the only successes came when the factory managers agreed to pay the thus-not-quite-slaves.

What does pay have to do with whether you're a slave or not?

[Martinus]

During the war the South used slaves extensively in its weapons industry and IIRC they did some remarkable things producing weapons given where they were starting from.  Any particular reason slaves could not have been used in an industrial setting?  Sweat shops have been pretty profitable over time.

Slaves have no incentive to maintain their equipment or produce quality goods.  If a machine breaks down in this period, the paid worker gets no pay and does no work.  That's a tragedy for him.  If a machine breaks down and a slave is the operator, he loses nothing and, in fact, gains in that he doesn't have to work.  The Southern experiment with slave labor in factories during the war was a flop; as I recall, the only successes came when the factory managers agreed to pay the thus-not-quite-slaves.

What does pay have to do with whether you're a slave or not?

Don't think I get the distinction either. Whether the owner gives food and clothes to his slaves, or pays them so they buy it themselves does not seem to me to be constitutive traits of slavery.

[grumbler]

What does pay have to do with whether you're a slave or not?

Don't think I get the distinction either. Whether the owner gives food and clothes to his slaves, or pays them so they buy it themselves does not seem to me to be constitutive traits of slavery.

It's not whether they are slaves or not, but whether producing quality or operating your machinery in a way that maximizes its "up time" is in your best interests.  If a worker breaks his machine (in this period), he doesn't get paid, because he can't work.  That's a tragedy for him.  If a slave breaks his machine, he doesn't get paid, but he doesn't get paid anyway, and he also can't work.  That's a holiday for him.  Add the resentment the slave feels, and thus the incentive to engage in mischief to get back at his owner , and it becomes clear why slave labor in factories didn't work.  Unlike work in the fields, it isn't possible to oversee work in factories to the degree needed to catch small acts of mischief, unless you have so many overseers that you might as well have the overseers do the actual work.

[The Brain]

Whoosh.

[grumbler]

Whoosh.

[Scipio]

The economics of slavery were at their most attenuated right before the Civil War began. Chattel slavery is a great way to produce agricultural goods pre-mechanization; let's remember that the only way that slave-produced cotton became viable was by the invention of the cotton gin. Prior to that, with the collapse of the rice trade out of North America, slave importation had begun to decline; IIRC, one of the major slave auctions didn't happen one year because prices of slaves were too low, and the cost of owning one was getting too high.

http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

Slavery was economically unsustainable already when the Civil War started; Lee manumitted a number of Custis family slaves because he couldn't afford to keep them, which is recounted in the book Gods and Generals, IIRC. It would have been a matter of decades for slavery to die out.

And that's why slavery doesn't exist anywhere in the world anymore.

We're not talking about modern economic slavery, dullard.

[grumbler]

And that's why slavery doesn't exist anywhere in the world anymore.

We're not talking about modern economic slavery, dullard.

It's Raz.  Just move on.  He's being contrary because Raz gotta Raz.

[Razgovory]

I'm being contrary because these claims don't hold water and have long since been dismissed by economists.

[OttoVonBismarck]

quote author=Scipio link=topic=11895.msg780811#msg780811 date=1410641390]Slavery was economically unsustainable already when the Civil War started; Lee manumitted a number of Custis family slaves because he couldn't afford to keep them, which is recounted in the book Gods and Generals, IIRC. It would have been a matter of decades for slavery to die out.[/quote]

He was required to manumit the Custis slaves per the terms of the will. He actually took a hiatus from his Army career to get the process under way (not finished until 1862 IIRC); the hitch was the Custis family plantation had immense debts, and legally you can't just manumit a slave that is part of collateral, so Lee had to actually get the fiscal house in order at his wife's family's plantation so he could comply with the terms of the will (which required manumission within five years of the will going into effect.) I believe he was able to get it done in the appropriate legal time limit, but it was a close thing and took up a lot of his efforts outside of soldiering.

[grumbler]

He was required to manumit the Custis slaves per the terms of the will. He actually took a hiatus from his Army career to get the process under way (not finished until 1862 IIRC); the hitch was the Custis family plantation had immense debts, and legally you can't just manumit a slave that is part of collateral, so Lee had to actually get the fiscal house in order at his wife's family's plantation so he could comply with the terms of the will (which required manumission within five years of the will going into effect.) I believe he was able to get it done in the appropriate legal time limit, but it was a close thing and took up a lot of his efforts outside of soldiering.

He was in a race with the Emancipation Proclamation, though he didn't know it.  I believe he emancipated the few remaining slaves (most had already been "emancipated" by the advancing Union forces) just a few days before Lincoln did so.  It's an interesting story that i really have to delve into more deeply some time.

[Razgovory]

Don't think I get the distinction either. Whether the owner gives food and clothes to his slaves, or pays them so they buy it themselves does not seem to me to be constitutive traits of slavery.

One of the neat things about Slaves is that they had to feed themselves most of the time.  They had a much lower life expectancy then non-slaves.