American Civil War question

[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.

[Valmy]

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. 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.

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. 

[Valmy]

There was a LOT of northern sentiment that the war was about preserving the Union, and who gives a shit about slaves. I mean, it isn't like racism wasn't rmapant and the norm in the north.

In fact, I would say that the vast majority of men fighting for the Union who were doing so for ideological reasons (as opposed to being drafted) were doing so not to fight slavery, but to preserve the Union.

That being said, I think a lot of the men fighting for the South were doing so not because of slavery (after all, only a small fraction of southerners owned slaves anyway) but because they felt that their loyalty was to the South.

But I think there is an important distinction to be made between the reasons that the men who fought were willing to fight, and what caused the war. They are not the same thing. The war was fought because of slavery - the men who fought it fought primarily (and of course I am over-generalizing) to preserve the Union, or because they felt the need to protect their culture and country (which included the concept of slavery).

You are leaving out an important component here Berkut.  Why would these dudes give a crap about preserving the Union if the South wanted to go?  The reason was the belief that the country was being destroyed by the 'Slave Power' which had nefariously hijacked the South to defend its own evil slave agenda and was going to use all the land in the West for more slave plantations, taking land away from good white farmers.  Opposition to slavery and the slave-holders did not require one to not be racist at all.

[Valmy]

Union General George Thomas was a Virginian and a slaveholder right up until the start of the war.  He never wrote about his opinions on slavery (insofar as I know), but it was, at a minimum, tolerance.  He chose to remain with the US Army because he felt that secession was wrong, not because he felt slavery was wrong.

The fact he was married to a New York woman was probably the thing that most tipped the scales though.

[Razgovory]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

Leave it to Languish to completely dodge the relevancy and power of the Abolitionist movement. 

[grumbler]

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.

[grumbler]

Union General George Thomas was a Virginian and a slaveholder right up until the start of the war.  He never wrote about his opinions on slavery (insofar as I know), but it was, at a minimum, tolerance.  He chose to remain with the US Army because he felt that secession was wrong, not because he felt slavery was wrong.

The fact he was married to a New York woman was probably the thing that most tipped the scales though.

I disagree, but we will never know.

[PDH]

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.

I don't remember where it was from (McPherson maybe), but slave equipment had to be far stronger - and therefore for more costly - than free equipment.  The damned darkies continued to break their hoes and shovels and had to sit around and wait til better ones came along.

[viper37]

Coincidentally, I got the directors cut of Gods & Generals on Blu-ray yesterday. Watched the first hour of 4.5 hours last night. So far it's been about 90% Stonewall Jackson.

it's representative of the entire movie

[viper37]

There were a lot of people on both sides who had conflicting views, lots of Northerners were both pro-Union and either pro-Slavery or anti-Abolition, there was always some number of pro-Union, anti-Slavery Southerners as well. Especially the more border states, a lot of Virginians fought for the North considering Virginia had formally seceded from the Union and was at war with it (certainly more fought for the Confederacy.)

I certainly agree with grumbler on industrialization being a major cause of the war (I don't believe in a one-cause explanation for the ACW in any case.) I've oft-remarked one of the many reasons Thomas Jefferson should be vilified is his almost single-handed creation of a philosophic support for the concept of agrarianism as the ideal culture, to the detriment of any attempts to industrialize.

I know about the people, I kinda realize societies weren't monolithical blocks at the time too
I was just wondering if these kind of "contrary" opinions on the slavery issue where somewhat prevalent for the higher officers, those who most likely had a carreer in the US army before the war and we stood at a contradicting oath: protect your home or protect your uniform.

[grumbler]

I don't remember where it was from (McPherson maybe), but slave equipment had to be far stronger - and therefore for more costly - than free equipment.  The damned darkies continued to break their hoes and shovels and had to sit around and wait til better ones came along.

Indeed.  Plus you have the costs of the overseers, and the strong chance (in a factory setting) that slave laborers will take shortcuts or even sabotage the product out of spite.  The Germans in WW2 had little more luck with slave laborers in factories than did the Confederates; equipment and munitions coming from the slave-labor factories failed at a far higher rate than from conventional factories.  Not all forced-labor factory workers were slaves; the majority were conscripted workers, and received pay.  I've never seen a reliable breakdown of the quality of forced vice slave labor.

[Razgovory]

nt

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.

Except this isn't true.  The slave has the same incentive as he has in the fields, he doesn't want to get beaten and unlike a rural slave who may grow his own food, the industrial slave needs to be fed.  There is forced labor today working in factories.  A few years back there was a scandal in China were people were being used as slaves in a brick factory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_slave_scandal

[Admiral Yi]

If slaves were becoming uneconomical, the market should have responded by lowering their price.

[grumbler]

If slaves were becoming uneconomical, the market should have responded by lowering their price.

Except that there wasn't really much of a market in slaves.  Only a relative handful were sold each year.  Mostly, people got slaves by inheriting them.  When they did come on the market, scarcity drove up the price.  No aristocrat sold slaves to make a profit; his slaves were the symbol of his status.  The theoretical market value of all the slaves in the South was greater than the value of all the factories and railroads in the North, but their owners were still cash-poor.