Election Season Etiquette -- whatever happened to civil discourse?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Well if the South had won this war, we would not have abolished slavery. It was all about the money. The North paid labor, the south didnt. I guess freedom and liberty for all only applies to wealthy landowners?

The north already had abolished slavery. Only a few slaves states were in the union.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The north already had abolished slavery. Only a few slaves states were in the union.

So?? The southern states hadnt abolished slavery!! They seceeded from the Union and Bang, a civil war broke out.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

You better go take a better look at your history books. Plantation owners became very wealthy because they had no labor costs. Many of our founding fathers were rich landowners.

And plantation owners were the very upper crust of southern society, accounting for maybe three or four percent of the southern white population. MOST southern whites owned no more than 1 or 2 slaves per family or ZERO slaves.

Using our Founding Fathers as an example is pretty off as well, many of the northern founders that didn't own slaves were wealthy men as well; the fact that some of the southern founders were slave-owners isn't particularly an issue related to our discussion.

The economics of slavery points to the fact that it was quickly, by the 1850s, becoming cost-prohibitive in a lot of areas. Given another 20-30 years, it would almost certainly have been phased out without a war of northern aggression. The war was not started over slavery and was not framed as a war against slavery until almost 2 years into the conflict when the war effort was going badly for the North and Lincoln needed a morality-based reason to keep other nations from allying with the Confederacy.

Read back through Lincoln's own papers... He didn't give two shits about slavery until it became politically useful to him to care.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

So?? The southern states hadnt abolished slavery!! They seceeded from the Union and Bang, a civil war broke out.

The Southern secession wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights. I here note that history is written by the victors, the victor was the Federal Government of the North, and our public school system is owned and funded by the Federal Government. As such, I would hardly consider school history books a reliable source for the full reasoning behind the southern secession and the Civil War.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Publius

The Southern secession wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights. I here note that history is written by the victors, the victor was the Federal Government of the North, and our public school system is owned and funded by the Federal Government. As such, I would hardly consider school history books a reliable source for the full reasoning behind the southern secession and the Civil War.

What states rights? Why did this country have a civil war?
I never meant to imply that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. My implication was that it did have to do with the financial gains made by the southern states because of the use of free labor.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

What states rights? Why did this country have a civil war?

What do you mean what states' rights? Go back and read the Constitution, all rights not explicitly given the Federal Government in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people therein. By the time of Lincoln the rights of the states to were under definite attack. It is no coincidence that prior to the Civil War the U.S. was referred to as "these United States" (i.e., an incorporating entity of multiple parts) and after the war it was "THE United States" (i.e., single monolithic entity).

I never meant to imply that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. My implication was that it did have to do with the financial gains made by the southern states because of the use of free labor.

Financial gains that were decreasing annually in comparison with more efficient labor practices.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Publius

What do you mean what states' rights? Go back and read the Constitution, all rights not explicitly given the Federal Government in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people therein. By the time of Lincoln the rights of the states to were under definite attack. It is no coincidence that prior to the Civil War the U.S. was referred to as "these United States" (i.e., an incorporating entity of multiple parts) and after the war it was "THE United States" (i.e., single monolithic entity).



Financial gains that were decreasing annually in comparison with more efficient labor practices.

Im asking for specifics. Why did the southern states secede? Im not trying to be difficult,, do you know how long it has been since I sat in a history class? So my question is sincere.

There were more efficient labor practices? Better than Free???

[Publius]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Im asking for specifics. Why did the southern states secede? Im not trying to be difficult,, do you know how long it has been since I sat in a history class? So my question is sincere.

Commerce laws primarily. Tariffs, excise taxes, etc.

There were more efficient labor practices? Better than Free???

You're confusing efficiency and base cost. Let me put it in numerical terms... Let's say that cotton can be sold for $1 per pound. A slave laborer, since they have no real incentive to work harder since they'll be treated the same way no matter what, will pick 50 pounds per day. Meanwhile, a wage laborer, since they are getting paid per pound and will want to make as much money as possible, will pick 100 pounds per day.

If you're paying the wage laborer $0.50 per pound, then you're still breaking even in terms of profit (100 pounds x $0.50 profit per pound = $50, versus 50 pounds x $1 profit per pound). Reduce that wage to even $0.40 per pound, and your net profit increases by $10.

And that's assuming there is NO cost associated with your slave labor, which is entirely false. You have to buy the slave, you have to feed the slave, you have to house the slave, medicine if the slave gets sick (after all, you don't just throw out something you spent several thousand dollars on), etc. Slaves were a major investment of resources, wage laborers were just employees.

All in all, as wage laborers became more and more skilled at their jobs (and as machines became more advanced) it became more profitable to hire someone to work for a wage rather than purchase someone to work as a slave.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Publius

Commerce laws primarily. Tariffs, excise taxes, etc.

Exactly

The South was made up of vast plantations before the war. Cotton and tobacco were the primary crops. Cotton especially required hand picking. In fact most things did as farm machinery wasnt widely available until after the war. Slave labor was the machinery of the day. New stock was born on a regular basis.

The North wasnt picking cotton or growing tobacco. The north was industrializing. They had to pay their labor as well as face tariffs, excise taxes, etc. The North felt the South wasnt contributing its fair share to the Federal Government and I do believe it was decided that the South needed to pay more primarily based on it's free labor. The South refused and seceded. Where am I wrong?

[KatKanPlay]

[quote=Publius;56868]



And that's assuming there is NO cost associated with your slave labor, which is entirely false. You have to buy the slave, you have to feed the slave, you have to house the slave, medicine if the slave gets sick (after all, you don't just throw out something you spent several thousand dollars on), etc. Slaves were a major investment of resources, wage laborers were just employees.
[quote]
Most slaves of this time are generational. Their American ancestory was already established. Housing was just a hut on the grounds, they grew most of their own food, I will give you the medicine, I dont know. AT this point in history, the major investment had already paid for itself. The slave population was self prepetuating and nothing more than part of the machinery used for the plantation.