For me, it's a very close tie between Wilson and FDR, but if I had to go with only one, it'd be FDR.
- 6
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes, that is why you clear it. If only plantation owners had some sort of labor source they could use to do this.
The fact other people in the same time period and technology pulled it off is irrelevant?
This applies to EVERY HUMAN BEING. This is NOT a feature of slavery.
You do realize most people in the North didn't live in cities, right? If you are a northern farmer (or simply don't live in an industrial town), there is zero benefit to you from tariffs. If you do work for a factory... there is no benefit to you from tariffs that protect other industries.
As for 'not too badly', having everything you need be 20-30% more expensive (when you are on the margin of survival) isn't nothing.
The 'outgoings' are consumption. Having funds for consumption is the point of economic activity.
The issue at hand is you were declaring the Southern system wasn't lucrative. The fact they managed to pay for similar levels of rail development is strong evidence that it was essentially as lucrative as industry.
Slavery was motivated by the desire to make money as can be clearly seen by the fact Southerners were willing to spend large amounts of money to buy slaves.
Then that is a consumption item, not an investment like field, industrial or artisanal slaves.
Yes, and Americans hate poor people- that is why most Americans support capitalism despite the fact they aren't millionaires.
Oh wait, that is idiotic.
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half.
With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.
- 2
- 1
Wasn't it also more predictable as a fixed cost instead of a variable cost, being more insulated from the labor market forces?
First, only the free population is being counted, so that the south is considered to have only 30% of the nation's population when this would not be so small if we counted slaves as people. Then, a person's wealth as they calculate includes the value of owned slaves in that measurement. This is contrasted against the north, where their worker base being free is counting against the percentages and the worker base being employed is not counted as net worth of their employer.
I don't particularly mind having slaves count as a wealth determinant, even if it goes against my argument, but you absolutely should NOT discount them when determining the population figures. They were people and should be counted as people. When you remove the bottom almost half of the population from your metrics obviously your average swings up nearly double.
Which, again, requires diversion of labour.
Yes, because, as has become your habit, you have simply diverted onto a new question.
Yes.
Actually by 1860 75% of Northerners lived in New York. They all ate pastrami and talked to their cousin Vinnie regularly.
Indeed tariffs do not benefit everybody, hence why there was substantial Democrat support in the North.
Except that you're not paying 20-30% extra on domestically produced goods.
No, these outgoings are maintenance.
No, again you're deliberately missing the point. I did not say it wasn't lucrative (and indeed, have hammered this home regularly).
That logic only follows if the Southern planters were building the railroads.
In part, yes, there was economic motivation. But as I've said, there were also social-cultural factors.
This shows they believed they would get a return on their investment, yes. It does not counter my point.
Again, you're rather missing the point. Which was that there wasn't as big a difference in pricing between the two butlers as is often thought.
I'd imagine the support for capitalism comes from several factors, economic gain, the belief that one can gain the millionaire liftstyle if one tries, cultural factors dating back to the strong spirit of American individualism.
Thankyou.
Yeap. As I said, the majority of Southern families didn't own slaves. Off the top of my head, something like 25% of households owned a slave and 5% owned more than 20 (so could be classified as large planters). Thus we can see that, even classifying all slave holding families as cotton planters (ignoring, for example, domestic slaves of non-planter families), the great majority of Southern Whites were not directly profiting from slavery.
Again, I did not say that cotton planting was not a potentially very lucrative industry. Rather that economic factors were not the sole motivation.
A figure which, by itself, proves nothing. Distribution of the wealth being important and all that. I'd be interested to know how it was calculated as I wasn't aware we had much information of the like that far back.
I begin to tire of this conversation to be honest. You seem more intent on misinterpreting me than anything else.
The CSA had a population of 5.6 million free citizens and 3.5 million slaves.
The Union had a population of 20 million free citizens and 2.5 million slaves
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html
The CSA population including slaves was 29% of the total population of the country including slaves but not non-citizen indians. The CSA free population was 22% of the total citizen population not including slaves or non-citizen indians.
31% owned a slave and the average number of slaves per slave owner was 11. And keep in mind that someone like Robert E Lee before he married his wife would be counted as a non slave household even though he had profited enormously from slavery over the course of his lifetime. It's just a snapshot, not the total of everyone who had reaped the benefits of slavery. Someone who had a job as a slave driver whipping them in the field wouldn't be a slave owner but he is certainly profiting directly from slavery. Someone who worked in a southern state government was paid by tax dollars overwhelmingly collected from the profits of slavery but probably wouldn't be a slave owner himself.
Last edited:
- 1
http://eml.berkeley.edu/~webfac/cromer/e211_f12/LindertWilliamson.pdf
Is a nice little paper. Just breezed through it.
Good to see that the South ni 1860 had a GINI coefficient about equal to that of contemporary Haiti.
Certainly, I do not deny this. And yet, even with these factored in (the figures are likely not massive either, government of the day was smaller than now and about 1 overseer for every 20 field slaves) and no alternative sources considered we are still left with the great majority of Southerners being neither a slaveowner or a large slaveowner (taking a simple average is not the best measure as the very large planters throw the mark off completely).
Thanks.
Re Yakman's data
Gini
1776
New England .354
Middle Atlantic .381
South Atlantic .328
1860
New England .44
Middle Atlantic .48 (mixed)
South Atlantic .51
ENC .39
WNC .38 (mixed)
ESC .48 (slave)
WSC .50 (slave)
mountain .51
Pacific .42
The South is more unequal, but not massively so. Most Southern inequality is in its slaves which shoots it up to Haiti levels; without that it is Panama compared to New England's Peru and Michigan's Thailand.
The point is slave owners made lots of money. The fact slaves didn't get any of it is the reason for slavery in the first place.
Yes, slavery doesn't provide infinite manpower. I am well aware of the concept of opportunity cost; it is something shared by all economic activity.
No, I gave an example to show a point. You make an argument and then you give evidence to support your position.
Then how is it relevant as an issue with slavery?
Do you have an argument or are you just typing randomly at this point?
It sets the price for goods that are competing with imports; higher tariffs mean that domestic producers can (and do) charge more.
I am using economic terminology because this is an economic question. Under that category, things you personally use and their upkeep are consumption.
If it was lucrative, you don't need to have any other explanation. The fact of the matter is people throughout human history have used slave labor and gotten rich of it; there really isn't anything out of the ordinary that needs to be explained.
Then I guess we can't say the North is rich because of their rail mileage either? After all, factory owners run factories, not build railroads.
You haven't remotely shown your point at all.
No, because you are assuming the largest cost for butlers is material. You haven't actually provided any evidence that is true.
In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%.
Three additional features are notable. One is that the areas that had few slaves tended to not care about keeping slavery. The second is that plantation owners rented out slaves to their neighbors. Finally, this is a much higher penetration than business ownership and Americans support that reverently.
1
2
3
4
Obviously I am misinterpreting you. I mean the fact that 1 and 2 blatantly contradict 3 and 4 is but more proof of your genius!
Gini
1776
New England .354
Middle Atlantic .381
South Atlantic .328
1860
New England .44
Middle Atlantic .48 (mixed)
South Atlantic .51
ENC .39
WNC .38 (mixed)
ESC .48 (slave)
WSC .50 (slave)
mountain .51
Pacific .42
The South is more unequal, but not massively so. Most Southern inequality is in its slaves which shoots it up to Haiti levels; without that it is Panama compared to New England's Peru and Michigan's Thailand.
The point is slave owners made lots of money. The fact slaves didn't get any of it is the reason for slavery in the first place.
Yes, slavery doesn't provide infinite manpower. I am well aware of the concept of opportunity cost; it is something shared by all economic activity.
No, I gave an example to show a point. You make an argument and then you give evidence to support your position.
Then how is it relevant as an issue with slavery?
Do you have an argument or are you just typing randomly at this point?
It sets the price for goods that are competing with imports; higher tariffs mean that domestic producers can (and do) charge more.
I am using economic terminology because this is an economic question. Under that category, things you personally use and their upkeep are consumption.
If it was lucrative, you don't need to have any other explanation. The fact of the matter is people throughout human history have used slave labor and gotten rich of it; there really isn't anything out of the ordinary that needs to be explained.
Then I guess we can't say the North is rich because of their rail mileage either? After all, factory owners run factories, not build railroads.
You haven't remotely shown your point at all.
No, because you are assuming the largest cost for butlers is material. You haven't actually provided any evidence that is true.
In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%.
Three additional features are notable. One is that the areas that had few slaves tended to not care about keeping slavery. The second is that plantation owners rented out slaves to their neighbors. Finally, this is a much higher penetration than business ownership and Americans support that reverently.
1
2
3
4
Obviously I am misinterpreting you. I mean the fact that 1 and 2 blatantly contradict 3 and 4 is but more proof of your genius!
- 2
Who said that that majority were large slaveowners? All I'm talking about is the number of people who personally had a hand in slavery and personally profited from it in an immediate, direct fashion at some point in their lives. You said that "the great majority of Southern Whites were not directly profiting from slavery." This just isn't true. 31% were currently living in households that were taking profit from slavery at the time that the census taker showed up at their door. In addition there would be people who had lived in slave owning households at some point in the past. If a person inherited a slave and sold that slave they would not own a slave at the time of the census but they certainly directly profiting from having the proceeds of that sale. If a person grew up on a small farm that owned a couple slaves and left that farm for the city with the support of their parents they are living a non slave owning lifestyle but that lifestyle was funded by slavery. A slave driver would have no reason to own slaves but would have profited. Many people involved in the slave trade wouldn't have listed a single slave in their household at the census. You tossed out a number of 1 slave driver per 20 slaves. That's probably not true because if it were that would mean 17% of CSA households were earning their bread by slave driving. But when you add up the slave drivers and ex-owners and the children of slave owners and the men who got dowrys from slave owning inlaws it starts to become a lot of people who directly profited.
31% isn't the low end estimate of the number of people who directly profited, it's the number that currently had a slave as a member of their household. The number of people who directly profited is definitely quite a bit higher than 31%. I would say it's probably likely that a majority directly profited from slavery. It was certainly the case in the deep south but mixing in the deep south and the less deep south does muddy things a bit.
Sigh. I'm beginning to see why we just let you colonials go in 1783.
One last summation however, as I have been stating all along (despite efforts to drag into detail that was tertiary to my point). Slavery was not motivated purely by economic factors but by a mix of social, cultural, and economic ones. The lack of involvement from the majority of Southern Whites in the slave industry does not correspond to either their great commitment to the slave system or to the Confederate cause. I do not deny (and have not denied) that slavery could indeed be profitable, rather I say that it was not so profitable as to promote itself in such an exclusive way, nor to promote its retention in such a manner. Essentially by looking at it from a purely economic view one omits the obvious racism of the South (and how it may be denied is beyond me), and oversimplifies the issue.
One last summation however, as I have been stating all along (despite efforts to drag into detail that was tertiary to my point). Slavery was not motivated purely by economic factors but by a mix of social, cultural, and economic ones. The lack of involvement from the majority of Southern Whites in the slave industry does not correspond to either their great commitment to the slave system or to the Confederate cause. I do not deny (and have not denied) that slavery could indeed be profitable, rather I say that it was not so profitable as to promote itself in such an exclusive way, nor to promote its retention in such a manner. Essentially by looking at it from a purely economic view one omits the obvious racism of the South (and how it may be denied is beyond me), and oversimplifies the issue.
Yes, we have read your repeated summations. They are sadly deficient in support.
Your claim that racism was a major motivation for slavery is unsupported. What is much more supported is that racism was used as an excuse for a system even the slave owners knew was heinous.
Good evidence has been supplied that at least a majority of whites made their livelihood directly from slaves.
Good evidence has been presented as to the kingly degree of consumption and wealth of the larger slaveowners.
Your claim that "rather I say that it was not so profitable as to promote itself in such an exclusive way" fails to see that it was so profitable {for non-slaves} that it made other economic systems noncompetitive. Can you show even a single example of a "plantation" in a slave state, that was not slave based? Yes it was that profitable.
- 1
Oh plus another thing, there were 132,700 free blacks in the CSA: http://www.freeaainnc.com/censusstats1790-1860.pdf
So the white population would be smaller than the free citizen population and the number of households would be smaller than the figures I used. 2.4% of the free citizens were black and very few of them were slave owners. Hard to say how many black households there are (since many free blacks still lived with their employers) but there would be some households and the all black households were probably smaller than the 5.5 people in the regular household so the number of black households is probably more than a rounding error. So the number of slave owning white households would be a bit higher than 31%.
Oh yes, my damnable insistence that it's bad to conflate related numbers.
So the white population would be smaller than the free citizen population and the number of households would be smaller than the figures I used. 2.4% of the free citizens were black and very few of them were slave owners. Hard to say how many black households there are (since many free blacks still lived with their employers) but there would be some households and the all black households were probably smaller than the 5.5 people in the regular household so the number of black households is probably more than a rounding error. So the number of slave owning white households would be a bit higher than 31%.
Oh yes, my damnable insistence that it's bad to conflate related numbers.
- 2
The South had a higher per capita income AND a worse gini index. That means Southern Slaveholders were making out much better than their Northern equivalents.
The problem with your thesis is that the other factors you name simply don't work. Fear of a black uprising doesn't explain Confederate support in the border states (where slaves were not a major threat)
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-in-the-united-states/
As for banning importation, you can just google to see the reasons they did that. Since you didn't, I'll give you a summary
- it was a way to appeal to Britain (who aid they needed and was strongly against the slave trade); also didn't cost them anything since the Royal Navy and USN would intercept slave ships anyways if they had it legal (they can always smuggle and look the other way; that is what they did since 1808).
- it was an appeal to the upper South (who exported slaves to the rest of the South)
- it benefited slave owners by making slaves more valuable. Guess who was writing the constitution?
So, if I am reading this thread right, the worst PotUS was a toss-up, either being the strong economic incentives for slavery, or the cultural motivations for racism and slavery in the ante-bellum Southern Slave States? Mixed with quibbles on the profitability of the system?
I really have to re-read the Constitution and brush up on my US history, because I was unaware that those two historical perspectives were even eligible for election, much less won...
Jonathan Fisher
I really have to re-read the Constitution and brush up on my US history, because I was unaware that those two historical perspectives were even eligible for election, much less won...
Jonathan Fisher
- 1
umm... fear of a black uprising in the border states was pretty extreme. Nat Turner, anyone? John Brown?
additionally, there was fear that abolitionists would start openly assisting runaways, maroons, or would be midnight throat slitters. there's a reason why the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was drafted the way that it was/.
How does this support {if that is intended} the claim that racism drove slavery as much as money? It seems to me it just supports the fear of retribution from abused slave, and reinforces the slaveowners property claims.
That slaves were Black seems incidental to their being foremost, slaves.
"In 1619 the first African slaves arrived in Virginia, marking the beginning of what many consider to be the slave era in North America. While the English colonists used the African slaves on their plantations, they also continued to capture American Indians who were used as slaves on their plantations or sold in the Caribbean slave markets. Europeans and later Americans continued to capture and enslave Indians until the end of the nineteenth century."http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/332
Racism was created as a result of the money. You cannot, on the ground level, beat people who you think of as people, for centuries unless you rationalize it. So, they have to become the Sons of Ham, or slavery is a way to bring them to Jesus, or whatever.
Those were both in Virginia. Not a border state. The Border states had relatively low percentages of slaves.
I'm not sure how that is related to South support of slavery in 1860.
- 1
Well in part that was already done. The British Empire abolished slavery in 1807 and starting 1808 actively tried to stop slaver ships sailing from Africa to their markets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Africa
and the US made the import of slaves illegal in 1807
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves