Worst President in US History

[Yakman]

That doesn't stop one being a Unionist. Many men who were pro-slavery, even those who eventually ended up serving the Confederacy, did not believe secession was the right thing to do.

What I meant was that the slave power loved to call themselves the Unionists during Bloody Kansas.

Their opinion was that those heartless northern settlers who moved to Kansas to farm were breaking the Union apart by not allowing slavery in the formative state, and that by terrorizing them, swamping their votes with drunks brought over from Missouri, and burning their towns down that they, the Unionists, were keeping the country together.

 

[Dinglehoff]

What I meant was that the slave power loved to call themselves the Unionists during Bloody Kansas.

Their opinion was that those heartless northern settlers who moved to Kansas to farm were breaking the Union apart by not allowing slavery in the formative state, and that by terrorizing them, swamping their votes with drunks brought over from Missouri, and burning their towns down that they, the Unionists, were keeping the country together.

Was Johnson involved in the Kansas attacks and voter fraud?

 

[Yakman]

Was Johnson involved in the Kansas attacks and voter fraud?

oh, not to my knowledge - then again, I didn't accuse him of that... so...

Just to say - the "unionists" in 1854 were town burning slavechasers from Missouri. Andrew Johnson had more in common with them - fellow unionists - than he did with the President he succeeded (sadly).

 

[Dinglehoff]

oh, not to my knowledge - then again, I didn't accuse him of that... so...

It looked like you implied it by comparing him with them. Not that I really care about his legacy, I was just curious.

Just to say - the "unionists" in 1854 were town burning slavechasers from Missouri. Andrew Johnson had more in common with them - fellow unionists - than he did with the President he succeeded (sadly).

He helped enslave the States to the Union, instead of supporting their independence. So there's that.

 

[Yakman]

It looked like you implied it by comparing him with them. Not that I really care about his legacy, I was just curious.


He helped enslave the States to the Union, instead of supporting their independence. So there's that.

Eh... Back in the day, the VP was seen as an extension of the legislature in his role as President of the Senate, not as a President-in-Waiting or as a full cabinet officer.

See VEEP.

Hamlin supposedly only had a few meetings with Lincoln during his first term. Dunno why Lincoln chose Johnson for the second term... Although I read TEAM OF RIVALS so I feel like I should... But it turned out to be a more disastrous decision than making Little Mac a field commander (he would have been a great choice for Commander of the military district of Washington, and thus responsible for training the Army of the Potomac).

Let us just leave it at Lincoln making a bad decision that he could never have known the consequences of.

 

[Dinglehoff]

Eh... Back in the day, the VP was seen as an extension of the legislature in his role as President of the Senate, not as a President-in-Waiting or as a full cabinet officer.

That makes no sense to me.

See VEEP.

Hamlin supposedly only had a few meetings with Lincoln during his first term. Dunno why Lincoln chose Johnson for the second term... Although I read TEAM OF RIVALS so I feel like I should... But it turned out to be a more disastrous decision than making Little Mac a field commander (he would have been a great choice for Commander of the military district of Washington, and thus responsible for training the Army of the Potomac).

Let us just leave it at Lincoln making a bad decision that he could never have known the consequences of.

Unless Johnson lied about everything he believed, like some of these SCOTUS justices we have now, Lincoln should have known. That's as bizarre as Trump selecting Jeb Bush as VP, and people being surprised to learn he is an open borders sellout after he takes over as President.

Oh well. When Hillary wins I'll be spamming this thread so hard it'll make your head spin.

 

[Yakman]

That makes no sense to me.


Unless Johnson lied about everything he believed, like some of these SCOTUS justices we have now, Lincoln should have known. That's as bizarre as Trump selecting Jeb Bush as VP, and people being surprised to learn he is an open borders sellout after he takes over as President.

Oh well. When Hillary wins I'll be spamming this thread so hard it'll make your head spin.

You and me both brother.

 

[SDSkinner]

Some slaves would be employed on other duties yes, but these also had to be fed, and were not contributing to the crop harvesting. Moreover the amount of food produced would need to feed the entire plantation. Compare that to the Northern worker, who once paid his wage would then spend it on food, or the smallholder, who would sustain himself. The point here is that slavery was not cost-free.

Only if the cash crops and food crops are planted and harvested at the same time; if not, you can have them do both.

The tendency was towards free trade as plantation owners would tend to import goods from abroad whilst simultaneously exporting most of their own goods. Thus customs charges and the like were taken worse than in the North, were industrialists benefited greatly

That doesn't affect slave productivity, only the ability of owners to buy goods for themselves. This applied to every other farmer in the US as well.

Indeed. As I said, it's a problem with cash cropping in general. The point here was to highlight a lack of sustainability in economic growth.

I'm pretty sure it is unique to tobacco and cotton; they are very bad for the soil. Sugar and rice aren't as extractive.

This shows the Southern and Northern railroad networks in 1860. Note how the Southern network is far less developed than the Northern (note that the map perhaps even overstates the rail network, many parts which seem connected were actually a case of two lines of different gauges reaching the same town and stopping). In part this was because rivers could play a greater role in trade (particularly the Mississipi), but largely because the South simply wasn't as driven towards industrialisation as the North. The South in general was very happy to potter along with its old plantation economy rather than drive itself into a new industrial age with all the influx of Northern industry that entailed. In particular I would highlight how the clear focus of the Southern network is ports, the focus is export of cotton rather than connection with industrial power.

Again, I'm not claiming slavery was not a profitable economic system. Rather that there was a massive non-economic incentive to slavery, based on social-cultural factors such as fear of 'the Black' rising up, perceived threat to the Southern way of life, opposition to Northern industrialism, pure conservatism, etc...

That isn't opposition to the expansion of the rail network.

https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm

Union 18 million
CSA 9 million
Border 3 million

Union 20,000 miles of rail
CSA 9,000 miles of rail
Border 1,700 miles of rail

Total track length is nearly the same per capita; .9 versus 1.

 

[DoomBunny]

Only if the cash crops and food crops are planted and harvested at the same time; if not, you can have them do both.

Land given over to these crops could not be farmed for cotton, resulting in a loss of profit. Moreover one would need to feed an entire plantation for a year to avoid the purchase of outside food (though that which could not be grown on the plantation would be imported anyway), thus necessitating the giving over of a large amount of time and land to such activities. Moreover, household staff, non-field slaves (i.e., children, cooks, cleaners), and the White plantation staff would also have to be fed, housed, cared for, etc... This care may seem odd in the case of slaves, but one must remember that slaves were somewhat of a finite resource, and that replacing them required either children or purchase from other slaveholders. I'm not saying slaves were well-treated, rather that simply beating them to death and letting them die of exposure was not advantageous.

I'm not arguing that slavery wasn't profitable, or that the Southern planter incurred massive costs against the Northern industrialist, but the matter is not as clear cut as is so often thought. The Northern industrialist paid his worker a (limited) wage, paid some supervisors, and that was it. The Southern planter didn't pay slaves, but still had to sink money into their upkeep and pay supervisors. Again, the point here is that slavery is not cost free.

That doesn't affect slave productivity, only the ability of owners to buy goods for themselves. This applied to every other farmer in the US as well.

Indeed, I didn't say it did effect slave productivity. Rather than it was another expenditure for the plantation owner that meant he wasn't making quite so much off slavery as one might imagine. That is not to say that his life-style would not be very comfortable, it was, but that he was not the economic mastermind hoarding great piles of cash that he is so often perceived as.

As for this applying to every other farmer in the US, technically this is true yes. However, the Southern plantation owner was of a higher class and wealthier than most other farmers. Because of this he brought more goods. He also tended to favour cheaply imported British goods for example, hence the support for free trade and part of the opposition to Northern industrialisation coming South.

I'm pretty sure it is unique to tobacco and cotton; they are very bad for the soil. Sugar and rice aren't as extractive.

I don't talk of the cash crop itself, but rather of the method of cash crop farming. A Northern smallholder might clear new land and practice a crop rotation, thereby maintaining the soil and expanding his farm. A Southern plantation owner tended to find already cleared land and then plant it to the limit with cotton. He would do this year on year, and thereby end up with an unsustainable plantation.

That isn't opposition to the expansion of the rail network.

https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm

Union 18 million
CSA 9 million
Border 3 million

Union 20,000 miles of rail
CSA 9,000 miles of rail
Border 1,700 miles of rail

Total track length is nearly the same per capita; .9 versus 1.

Opposition may be the wrong word compared to reluctance. The Southern network was far less dense than the Northern, far less interconnected, and focused not on linking the South to the rest of the country but rather linking certain areas to the sea. In part as you say, this is due to the North having a greater population. However, a lot of the distribution occurs because the idea was not to create a railroad network linking the country as such, moreso small local railroads were joining plantations to export sources. Essentially that development which there was was made (particularly in 1850 and before) to develop facilitate cotton transport rather than create a modern rail infrastructure allowing free movement around the country. There are a lot of short segments you find in seemingly random places, and a lot of gaps were one would assume connections. Again, in part this was because of population density. But there was also a general emphasis on export rather than domestic development, opposition to Northern encroachment (in 1850 there was not a single railroad connection to the North, in 1860 only 2, both in Kentucky), and smaller railroads serving local routes.

Again this is not to say that the South was completely against the railroad. Much like the cotton gin, something that would facilitate their traditional way of life was accepted. Moreover, when the railroad could be used as a political tool it was advocated, there was much debate over the location of the first transcontinental railroad, many Southerners pushing for a route through Texas-New Mexico-Arizona-Southern California. But the point is that railroads were not embraced in the same manner the North did, they were not driving the country forward but rather entrenching the traditional way of life by serving cotton exports.

 

[nerd]

Indeed, I didn't say it did effect slave productivity. Rather than it was another expenditure for the plantation owner that meant he wasn't making quite so much off slavery as one might imagine. That is not to say that his life-style would not be very comfortable, it was, but that he was not the economic mastermind hoarding great piles of cash that he is so often perceived as.

As for this applying to every other farmer in the US, technically this is true yes. However, the Southern plantation owner was of a higher class and wealthier than most other farmers. Because of this he brought more goods. He also tended to favour cheaply imported British goods for example, hence the support for free trade and part of the opposition to Northern industrialisation coming South.

In terms of cash, I think you are right, but I think what you are missing in the comparison is the huge amount of money it would take for a non-slave owner to match the luxury and pampered lifestyle of a plantation family.

A slave owner would have how many "house servants"? 10? 20?

While slaves had no "cash cost", in a non-slave system cash would have had to be found to pay them....and probably twice as many, because wage workers don't work 24/7/365 like slaves. Nor do they provide the other "benefits".

A valid comparison would look at how costly 30 or 40 workers, used as house staff, would be as a cash cost equivalent.

 

[yerm]

I'm not sure about all that. It apparently was extremely simple to simply pay for maids, butlers, escorts, nannies, chauffeurs, and whatever else you wanted to serve the same duties that a slave provided in the south. Some people had live-in help that was around 24/7.

There are very sound arguments that using slavery for non-labor work such as this was actually less cost effective; your nanny can be educated and actually tutor, lazy staff can be fired without a loss of initial investment, your chauffeur can be trusted alone with the horses without fear he'll take them and leave the state, etc. Slavery is simply not nearly as efficient an economic model as it is often made out to be. It is only significantly more efficient when used for roles that are difficult or illegal to pay for, such as harsh manual labor or sex.

 

[nerd]

I'm not sure about all that. It apparently was extremely simple to simply pay for maids, butlers, escorts, nannies, chauffeurs, and whatever else you wanted to serve the same duties that a slave provided in the south. Some people had live-in help that was around 24/7.

There are very sound arguments that using slavery for non-labor work such as this was actually less cost effective; your nanny can be educated and actually tutor, lazy staff can be fired without a loss of initial investment, your chauffeur can be trusted alone with the horses without fear he'll take them and leave the state, etc. Slavery is simply not nearly as efficient an economic model as it is often made out to be. It is only significantly more efficient when used for roles that are difficult or illegal to pay for, such as harsh manual labor or sex.

Thats hand-waving.

How much CASH would it take to hire <for wages> that staff?
Based on the extreme degree of luxury they enjoyed, plantation owning families were incredibly wealthy.

 

[SDSkinner]

Land given over to these crops could not be farmed for cotton, resulting in a loss of profit. Moreover one would need to feed an entire plantation for a year to avoid the purchase of outside food (though that which could not be grown on the plantation would be imported anyway), thus necessitating the giving over of a large amount of time and land to such activities. Moreover, household staff, non-field slaves (i.e., children, cooks, cleaners), and the White plantation staff would also have to be fed, housed, cared for, etc... This care may seem odd in the case of slaves, but one must remember that slaves were somewhat of a finite resource, and that replacing them required either children or purchase from other slaveholders. I'm not saying slaves were well-treated, rather that simply beating them to death and letting them die of exposure was not advantageous.

I'm not arguing that slavery wasn't profitable, or that the Southern planter incurred massive costs against the Northern industrialist, but the matter is not as clear cut as is so often thought. The Northern industrialist paid his worker a (limited) wage, paid some supervisors, and that was it. The Southern planter didn't pay slaves, but still had to sink money into their upkeep and pay supervisors. Again, the point here is that slavery is not cost free.

Those aren't significant concerns in the US. Land is cheap and the number of slaves can easily feed everyone; I believe the ratio was at its worse 1 farmer to 1 nonfarmer.

Indeed, I didn't say it did effect slave productivity. Rather than it was another expenditure for the plantation owner that meant he wasn't making quite so much off slavery as one might imagine. That is not to say that his life-style would not be very comfortable, it was, but that he was not the economic mastermind hoarding great piles of cash that he is so often perceived as.

As for this applying to every other farmer in the US, technically this is true yes. However, the Southern plantation owner was of a higher class and wealthier than most other farmers. Because of this he brought more goods. He also tended to favour cheaply imported British goods for example, hence the support for free trade and part of the opposition to Northern industrialisation coming South.

... then it has nothing to do with the issue. Northerners were affected by it as much as plantation owners.

I don't talk of the cash crop itself, but rather of the method of cash crop farming. A Northern smallholder might clear new land and practice a crop rotation, thereby maintaining the soil and expanding his farm. A Southern plantation owner tended to find already cleared land and then plant it to the limit with cotton. He would do this year on year, and thereby end up with an unsustainable plantation.

The South managed to keep doing this even after the civil war, so their method of cotton production was hardly unsustainable.

Opposition may be the wrong word compared to reluctance. The Southern network was far less dense than the Northern, far less interconnected, and focused not on linking the South to the rest of the country but rather linking certain areas to the sea. In part as you say, this is due to the North having a greater population. However, a lot of the distribution occurs because the idea was not to create a railroad network linking the country as such, moreso small local railroads were joining plantations to export sources. Essentially that development which there was was made (particularly in 1850 and before) to develop facilitate cotton transport rather than create a modern rail infrastructure allowing free movement around the country. There are a lot of short segments you find in seemingly random places, and a lot of gaps were one would assume connections. Again, in part this was because of population density. But there was also a general emphasis on export rather than domestic development, opposition to Northern encroachment (in 1850 there was not a single railroad connection to the North, in 1860 only 2, both in Kentucky), and smaller railroads serving local routes.

Again this is not to say that the South was completely against the railroad. Much like the cotton gin, something that would facilitate their traditional way of life was accepted. Moreover, when the railroad could be used as a political tool it was advocated, there was much debate over the location of the first transcontinental railroad, many Southerners pushing for a route through Texas-New Mexico-Arizona-Southern California. But the point is that railroads were not embraced in the same manner the North did, they were not driving the country forward but rather entrenching the traditional way of life by serving cotton exports.

That isn't about serving their way of life; it is about making investments that pay off. That is straight up an economic motivation.

 

[Rubidium]

Johnson was chosen to try and conciliate Northern Democrats; he was a Democrat, and had strongly opposed secession, thus giving a bipartisan glow to the war. As VP, he would have no real impact on policy in general, so unless Lincoln somehow died in office, he was a perfectly reasonable choice.

Of course, once Lincoln did die, Johnson ended up basically frittering away the opportunity to establish a new order in the South, by allowing plantation owners to basically reassert themselves in power. The end of the Civil War left the South utterly devastated; it was the perfect time for rearranging things to end the plantation system and establish a more equitable settlement (which would also have left Southern blacks and their white allies in a much better position to defend themselves). Instead, Johnson cultivated Southern Democrats (i.e. plantation owners and ex-Confederates) and gave them time to regroup, so that when Reconstruction was finally implemented, it was going to be strongly and violently opposed.

That's why I tend to put Johnson as the worst; most presidents in Pierce or Buchanan's shoes would have ended up in similar situations; they were terrible, but they built on the foundation that others laid. Literally any other plausible VP choice for Lincoln (or Lincoln just not getting shot) would have performed vastly better than Johnson did, and left the South (and the entire country) better off in the long run.

 

[DoomBunny]

Those aren't significant concerns in the US. Land is cheap and the number of slaves can easily feed everyone; I believe the ratio was at its worse 1 farmer to 1 nonfarmer.

Land might be cheap, but land was also limited. Much of the area around the plantation would be forested in some way.

Do you have a source for the 1:1 figure on a plantation? It seems somewhat dubious, even with children/elderly/house slaves factored in.

... then it has nothing to do with the issue.

Well actually it does, as you see, the point (which I have been labouring over and over, almost to excess), is that slavery was not cost-free labour. I.e., the Southern planter was not just making cash without expenditure.

Because he did not grow or produce much that he needed himself, particularly that with which to sustain his aristocratic lifestyle, he was not necessarily at so massive edge to the Northern industrialist as is sometimes supposed.

Northerners were affected by it as much as plantation owners.

As I said, this was not the case.

The South managed to keep doing this even after the civil war, so their method of cotton production was hardly unsustainable.

Unsustainable does not necessarily mean an immediate collapse, rather that yields would fall year on year until a plantation would eventually become unsustainable.

Yes, cotton production continued in the South. I did not mean that it didn't. The advent of pesticides/mechanical farming and the like helped keep yields up (and even increased them) thus avoiding the slow decline that was inherent in methods. I'd also note that the sharecropper/smallholder had far less outgoings than your average planter. A planter had to buy slaves, care for them, house them, care for his own needs (which were far from modest), hire staff, etc... A smallholder meanwhile needed to grow or buy food for himself and his immediate dependents and maintain their shack.

However, there were also shifts in location of production. If one considers the location of modern production one can see large changes from the highest concentrations of slaves.

That isn't about serving their way of life; it is about making investments that pay off. That is straight up an economic motivation.

Indeed, that is a factor. One would hardly expect railroads in the middle of Arizona at this date. But as I said, this was not an industrial use of the railroad rather an agrarian one. The South as a whole was not pursuing a modern means of making increased profit, rather a traditional one that was not as lucrative.

In terms of cash, I think you are right, but I think what you are missing in the comparison is the huge amount of money it would take for a non-slave owner to match the luxury and pampered lifestyle of a plantation family.

A slave owner would have how many "house servants"? 10? 20?

While slaves had no "cash cost", in a non-slave system cash would have had to be found to pay them....and probably twice as many, because wage workers don't work 24/7/365 like slaves. Nor do they provide the other "benefits".

A valid comparison would look at how costly 30 or 40 workers, used as house staff, would be as a cash cost equivalent.

I think you overestimate the lot of the Northern worker and underestimate the maintenance of a house slave (these in particular would require treatment coming towards that one might expect of a human being).

You also seem to miss my point (as everyone seems to be doing). The detailed point is that slavery was not without expenditure or hazard, in short that it was not simply a massive money making exercise pursued purely for profit. The wider point is that, rather than being a purely economic system, slavery also owed a great deal to social-cultural factors largely centered on the incredible racism (even by the standards of its day, when the good guys also tended to be racist assholes) of the Southern Whites in general and the plantation owner especially. This racism largely found voice through fear, and was subsequently carried throughout Southern society, even though the vast majority of Southerns were not slave owners and an even greater majority not largescale slave owners.

Thats hand-waving.

How much CASH would it take to hire <for wages> that staff?
Based on the extreme degree of luxury they enjoyed, plantation owning families were incredibly wealthy.

Again, I'm not arguing that they were not.

However, let's do the maths on a butler (presumably one of the higher paid domestic roles.

Both are live in and 24/7.
The free butler is paid, the slave purchased, inherited, or raised.
The free butler buys his own clothes, the slave does not.
Both are fed by their master.
Both are housed by their master.
The free butler is already educated, the slave butler presumably so if inherited and likely bought.

The difference in expenditure is not so great after all. Certainly the Northern butler is probably more expensive, depending on wages and inheritance of the slave. However, as I've been stressing, the slave butler is also not without his outlay.

 

[nerd]

You also seem to miss my point (as everyone seems to be doing). The detailed point is that slavery was not without expenditure or hazard, in short that it was not simply a massive money making exercise pursued purely for profit.

I did not miss your point, I just don't see it as anything valid.

Plantation owners lived lives that rivaled royalty. It is of no consequence what "expenditure or hazard" they had.....nor how little cash they may have had. They lived, on the backs of slaves, as well or better than the richest Northerners and as well as European royalty. Claims of how hard it was or how poor they were or how many obligations they had are meaningless against that lifestyle.

And yes, for most the records of their treatment of slaves show they were in it purely for profit and the royal lifestyle that profit provided.

 

[yerm]

Thats hand-waving.

How much CASH would it take to hire <for wages> that staff?
Based on the extreme degree of luxury they enjoyed, plantation owning families were incredibly wealthy.

I did not miss your point, I just don't see it as anything valid.

Plantation owners lived lives that rivaled royalty. It is of no consequence what "expenditure or hazard" they had.....nor how little cash they may have had. They lived, on the backs of slaves, as well or better than the richest Northerners and as well as European royalty. Claims of how hard it was or how poor they were or how many obligations they had are meaningless against that lifestyle.

And yes, for most the records of their treatment of slaves show they were in it purely for profit and the royal lifestyle that profit provided.

Where are you getting this idea that the wealthy northern industrialists lived lives that paled compared to the plantation-based southern slaveholder? I am not arguing that plantation owning families were anything other than incredibly wealthy. What I am disputing is that they were somehow MORE wealthy than the industrial elite in the north, and also that their methods were somehow more efficient at producing wealth.

CASH in all caps is irrelevant to the argument. You are either paying cash to a worker in exchange for their services, or you are paying cash for the basic necessities used to support a slave. The free worker costs more. The slave, however, will then need an overseer or taskmaster, possibly bounty hunters at times, to keep them performing their work at a comparable level. Paying cash is actually quite a bit easier since the worker then takes care of their necessities, rather then you needing to obtain them on their behalf, even if at a discount.

Basically, the CASH saved on slaves being cheaper than free workers is not all pocketed. You need more administrative overhead. You cannot easily or sometimes even reliably replace poor workers, while the industrialist can just fire and hire someone else. Your industry itself, as others keep repeating, isn't even as profitable at its base, so your cash flaw isn't necessary the same to begin with. Slavery was not as efficient as you seem to think. It needs social motivators (eg racism and/or classism) to justify it.

 

[DoomBunny]

I did not miss your point, I just don't see it as anything valid.

Plantation owners lived lives that rivaled royalty. It is of no consequence what "expenditure or hazard" they had.....nor how little cash they may have had. They lived, on the backs of slaves, as well or better than the richest Northerners and as well as European royalty. Claims of how hard it was or how poor they were or how many obligations they had are meaningless against that lifestyle.

And yes, for most the records of their treatment of slaves show they were in it purely for profit and the royal lifestyle that profit provided.

Again, you overstate their lot and also seem to believe that the South... wasn't racist...?

 

[SDSkinner]

Land might be cheap, but land was also limited. Much of the area around the plantation would be forested in some way.

If there is unused land, it isn't limited.

Do you have a source for the 1:1 figure on a plantation? It seems somewhat dubious, even with children/elderly/house slaves factored in.

The North exported food while having about half of its population engaged in agriculture. The South can almost certainly pull of similar levels of productivity.

Well actually it does, as you see, the point (which I have been labouring over and over, almost to excess), is that slavery was not cost-free labour. I.e., the Southern planter was not just making cash without expenditure.

Because he did not grow or produce much that he needed himself, particularly that with which to sustain his aristocratic lifestyle, he was not necessarily at so massive edge to the Northern industrialist as is sometimes supposed.

Personal consumption is not related to profitability. Saying that plantation owners had to spend money to belong to the category of 'people who are insanely rich' is not a downside for slave labor.

As I said, this was not the case.

If you own a factory making nails, you benefit from tariffs on importing nails. You lose on buying goods that are covered by tariffs.

Unsustainable does not necessarily mean an immediate collapse, rather that yields would fall year on year until a plantation would eventually become unsustainable.

Yes, cotton production continued in the South. I did not mean that it didn't. The advent of pesticides/mechanical farming and the like helped keep yields up (and even increased them) thus avoiding the slow decline that was inherent in methods. I'd also note that the sharecropper/smallholder had far less outgoings than your average planter. A planter had to buy slaves, care for them, house them, care for his own needs (which were far from modest), hire staff, etc... A smallholder meanwhile needed to grow or buy food for himself and his immediate dependents and maintain their shack.

However, there were also shifts in location of production. If one considers the location of modern production one can see large changes from the highest concentrations of slaves.

So the downside of plantation owning was they were so rich they could spend more? Having more money is the goal.

Indeed, that is a factor. One would hardly expect railroads in the middle of Arizona at this date. But as I said, this was not an industrial use of the railroad rather an agrarian one. The South as a whole was not pursuing a modern means of making increased profit, rather a traditional one that was not as lucrative.

It was so lucrative the South managed to pay for almost the same amount of railroads.

I think you overestimate the lot of the Northern worker and underestimate the maintenance of a house slave (these in particular would require treatment coming towards that one might expect of a human being).

You also seem to miss my point (as everyone seems to be doing). The detailed point is that slavery was not without expenditure or hazard, in short that it was not simply a massive money making exercise pursued purely for profit. The wider point is that, rather than being a purely economic system, slavery also owed a great deal to social-cultural factors largely centered on the incredible racism (even by the standards of its day, when the good guys also tended to be racist assholes) of the Southern Whites in general and the plantation owner especially. This racism largely found voice through fear, and was subsequently carried throughout Southern society, even though the vast majority of Southerns were not slave owners and an even greater majority not largescale slave owners.

I'm not missing your point; it simply is wrong. Personal consumption is not a business cost. Full stop. You can't declare something is less lucrative if it manages to produce similar levels of profit.

Again, I'm not arguing that they were not.

However, let's do the maths on a butler (presumably one of the higher paid domestic roles.

Both are live in and 24/7.
The free butler is paid, the slave purchased, inherited, or raised.
The free butler buys his own clothes, the slave does not.
Both are fed by their master.
Both are housed by their master.
The free butler is already educated, the slave butler presumably so if inherited and likely bought.

The difference in expenditure is not so great after all. Certainly the Northern butler is probably more expensive, depending on wages and inheritance of the slave. However, as I've been stressing, the slave butler is also not without his outlay.

Yes, investing in human capital to increase its productivity is a thing. That isn't a downside of slavery, but something true of all labor usages. Also

The free butler buys his own clothes, the slave does not.

The butler uses his wages to buy clothes. If wages don't cover the butlers needs, you do not have a butler. You cannot pay free labor less than the amount of money they need to buy necessities.

 

[DoomBunny]

If there is unused land, it isn't limited.

Planting is limited to what you own and is reasonable growing area. You're not going to grow much efficiently in a dense forest.

The North exported food while having about half of its population engaged in agriculture. The South can almost certainly pull of similar levels of productivity.

None of which is relevant to the figure in question.

Personal consumption is not related to profitability. Saying that plantation owners had to spend money to belong to the category of 'people who are insanely rich' is not a downside for slave labor.

Well actually, it is. Because what the Southerner did not produce himself he had to import.

If you own a factory making nails, you benefit from tariffs on importing nails. You lose on buying goods that are covered by tariffs.

Yep. But most of the goods you would buy as a Northerner would be Northern produced. Hence why you like tariffs, they protect your industry whilst not effecting prices too badly.

So the downside of plantation owning was they were so rich they could spend more? Having more money is the goal.

No, that point was about how plantation owners had more outgoings to consider than sharecropper/smallholder farmers.

It was so lucrative the South managed to pay for almost the same amount of railroads.

The South? No. Southern railroaders, yes, they did in terms of track length.

I'm not missing your point; it simply is wrong. Personal consumption is not a business cost. Full stop. You can't declare something is less lucrative if it manages to produce similar levels of profit.

Again, that slavery was not as purely profitable as is sometimes thought is the detailed point which you have focused in on. The wider point is that slavery was also motivated (to a great extent) by social-cultural factors, namely racism.

Yes, investing in human capital to increase its productivity is a thing. That isn't a downside of slavery, but something true of all labor usages. Also

So you accept my point then, that the slave butler is not without cost, even if he is cheaper than the Northern butler?

The butler uses his wages to buy clothes. If wages don't cover the butlers needs, you do not have a butler. You cannot pay free labor less than the amount of money they need to buy necessities.

Indeed he does. At the same time you cannot invest less money in the slave butler than needed to make him presentable (presentable in your Southern fashion).

Again, you seem to be missing the overall point and the general scheme. Slavery was massively motivated and ingrained as a system by social-cultural factors. This goes a long way to explaining why so many Southerners who were not slaveholders (the large majority) and who were not large slaveholders of the big plantation variety (an even larger majority) fought and died for the Southern cause. A purely economic counter-argument seems to miss both the obvious racism of the Southern planter, and the obvious oversight that most Southerners were not economically motivated to support slavery because they were not making gains off of slavery. Rather they were motivated by racism, largely manifest in fear of 'the Black' taking over and destroying their Southern way of life. This was also a factor in the Southern constitution banning the slave trade.