Slavery and the American Economy

[mesyn191]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

Badly put. Sorry.

OK so what did you mean then? I really don't know what else to gather from that part of your reply and I was trying to keep the quote spam down to a minimum, not be snippy or anything.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

Remember it was capitalism and entrepreneurship that ended slavery

or started it.

[mesyn191]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

The present lot of the African American descended from said slaves is still one of significantly lower standard of living, life expectancy, and pretty much any other measurement of health, wealth, or happiness you can find.

True but the exact reasons why those people are still generally poor and/or disadvantaged today vs whites has nothing directly to do with slavery. Racism and its effects are still wide spread today in the US, but its usually much more subtle now then it was back then both in terms of societal norms and politically.

Many of the companies which grew due to slavery equally have carried through until today - or perhaps the Lehman Brothers note didn't register?

Sure but what does slavery have to do with what these companies do today or in the last few decades, even in the 1900's? Yea they're still scumbags, but for totally different reasons that need to be addressed in different ways.

It is also of note that slavery and the Civil War continues to be a 'Southern' thing which the article above notes is a false dichotomy. Cheap cotton was a core component in Northern manufacturing prosperity as much as it was a key commodity in New York trading circles.

Except for slavery being, you know, almost exclusively practiced in the South in that time period and being banned in the North at the same time. That a relative few rich factory owners or traders in the North or elsewhere benefited from slavery doesn't mean that the North was as culpable as the South in enslaving blacks. Lehman Bros, BoA, Countrywide, and others benefited tremendously during the bubble, would you also consider the entire country culpable for their actions?

[Raz]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

Remember it was capitalism and entrepreneurship that ended slavery not central planning, or socialism or marxism or communism but capitalism. Once we created machines that could gather cotton faster etc then there was no need for slaves anymore thus slavery ended.

And C1ue please do not tell me that you are equating slavery from 100 years ago with the current plight of African Americans. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here.

It was the dreadful "Waw of Nawthun Aggression" that ended slavery in the United States. The McCormick company (International Harvester) produced the first workable mechanical cotton picker in 1943.

The Cotton Gin (a separator - it removed seed and trash from the harvested lint) invented by Eli Whitney actually increased the demand for labor in the cotton plantations of the world.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

It was the dreadful "Waw of Nawthun Aggression" that ended slavery in the United States. The McCormick company (International Harvester) produced the first workable mechanical cotton picker in 1943.

The Cotton Gin (a separator - it removed seed and trash from the harvested lint) invented by Eli Whitney actually increased the demand for labor in the cotton plantations of the world.

+1 In fact, even if you're in ol' Yankee land, you can take a ride down Dixwell Ave in New Haven CT and take a look at old Eli's shop.

[c1ue]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

Remember it was capitalism and entrepreneurship that ended slavery not central planning, or socialism or marxism or communism but capitalism.

Given that slavery ended due to a Civil War - I hardly see what various forms of government had to do with it. I'd note furthermore that slavery ended in Europe without warfare; it passed due to changes in laws.

So while your fixation with the free market and capitalism is clear, it is equally clear that you're allowing this fixation to replace common sense.

And C1ue please do not tell me that you are equating slavery from 100 years ago with the current plight of African Americans. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here.

True but the exact reasons why those people are still generally poor and/or disadvantaged today vs whites has nothing directly to do with slavery. Racism and its effects are still wide spread today in the US, but its usually much more subtle now then it was back then both in terms of societal norms and politically.

I actually don't see overt racism as the cause - certainly not anymore.

However, the cultural effects of slavery cannot be disputed. You have an entire demographic which had lost its 'nurture' side history, lacked every day role models, had no capital either intellectual or fiscal, was conditioned to being literally the lowest rung of society, and so on and so forth.

Without example, without education or even the desire for it, without capital, without pride - why are we surprised at the results?

Even the uneducated illegal immigrant at least has self selected for drive and has a poorer nation where his family is - where his low and illegal wages are a boon.

This isn't to say we can just buy out the roots of the problem, but it is to say that I personally do understand why most African Americans today are where they are.

The really sad part is that it seems African-American role models seem to consist of either sports figures or rap artists/criminals. In this respect having Obama as President is a good thing, though his not having any relation to the 'natives' is rather telling.

Sure but what does slavery have to do with what these companies do today or in the last few decades, even in the 1900's? Yea they're still scumbags, but for totally different reasons that need to be addressed in different ways.

While I'm not a big fan of original sin, corporate or otherwise, the reality is that the big piles of money and corporate power resulting from slavery did go on, and continue to have an effect on American society. It can be argued that the attitudes embedded in the American corporate employment of slave labor - or more specifically profit without morals - is equally repellent and destructive.

Except for slavery being, you know, almost exclusively practiced in the South in that time period and being banned in the North at the same time. That a relative few rich factory owners or traders in the North or elsewhere benefited from slavery doesn't mean that the North was as culpable as the South in enslaving blacks. Lehman Bros, BoA, Countrywide, and others benefited tremendously during the bubble, would you also consider the entire country culpable for their actions?

Do you have actual data behind your beliefs?

Or are you simply assuming that slave labor derived commodities were only a small part of the US economy in the early to mid 1800s?

http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/...ippi-1800-1860

American cotton production soared from 156,000 bales in 1800 to more than 4,000,000 bales in 1860 (a bale is a compressed bundle of cotton weighing between 400 and 500 pounds).

...

Nearly 4,000,000 of Britain’s total population of 21,000,000 were dependent on cotton textile manufacturing. Nearly forty percent of Britain’s exports were cotton textiles. Seventy-five percent of the cotton that supplied Britain’s cotton mills came from the American South, and the labor that produced that cotton came from slaves.

...

The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Douglass C. North, stated that cotton “was the most important proximate cause of expansion” in the 19th century American economy. Cotton accounted for over half of all American exports during the first half of the 19th century.

...

By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.

...

New Yorkers even dominated a booming slave trade in the 1850s. Although the importation of slaves into the United States had been prohibited in 1808, the temptation of the astronomical profits of the international slave trade was too strong for many New Yorkers. New York investors financed New York-based slave ships that sailed to West Africa to pick up African captives that were then sold in Cuba and Brazil.

This doesn't even go into the role New England played via its textile mills and 'triangle trade' sailing ships in the 1700s and 1800s.

[flintlock]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

I'm just surprised to see the true story about slavery in the US put out there. Rarely do you see the facts brought up for fear of upsetting those who cling to the "official version". Thanks c1ue for posting.

[flintlock]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

I'd argue that illegal immigration is a form of Leverage for those who own Restaurants, Landscaping firms, and other low skilled - high numbers of employee firms.

Agree. But point this out and be prepared to be met with a lot of self-serving BS.
"

[flintlock]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

What I find appalling is the fact that we have a President who is constantly attacking Big Oil and Banks etc etc yet he praises (along with about any other progressive) Apple which uses wage slaves to create their products AND offshored all their production!

The cognitive dissonance is astounding. Somehow the progressives who are supposed to loathe the idea of slavery are fine with Chinese wage slaves and hold Apple Inc in the highest esteem.

Why is it that the President attacks Oil companies when they provide thousands upon thousands of americans with jobs and good wages both white collar and blue collar yet says nothing about our tech companies like Apple who I imagine employ mostly high tech immigrants and offshore all their production?

And FYI I guess the cheap cotton that the European textile mills and stores received from America should be condemned as being built on the backs of slaves as well.
....

I have noted this as well. They want to have it both ways.

[mesyn191]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

However, the cultural effects of slavery cannot be disputed. You have an entire demographic which had lost its 'nurture' side history, lacked every day role models, had no capital either intellectual or fiscal, was conditioned to being literally the lowest rung of society, and so on and so forth.

Yes but this was a long time ago and if you were talking about immediate post Civil War/Reconstruction blacks I'd totally agree with you, maybe even up to the early 1900's. But in 1940, or 1960, or 1980, or today? You don't believe that maybe there has been some significant cultural drift in that time period?

It can be argued that the attitudes embedded in the American corporate employment of slave labor - or more specifically profit without morals - is equally repellent and destructive.

Mmm, I don't know. From what I've read executives and corporations in the 40's at least on up to the 70's at least had more of an attitude towards civic responsibility. It was the 80's that I started to see the Social Darwinists pop up with that whole "Greed is Good" line of BS. Our current crop of execs and corps are better at projecting a certain image but IMO are probably only slightly less worse than the slave owners of the mid 1800's given the way they generally treat labor to better their bottom line.

Do you have actual data behind your beliefs?

Its generally pretty well accepted that the common laborer and factory worker of the time period got paid little and had horrible working conditions and hours. Some of the worst labor abuses are from that era. The common laborers certainly weren't the ones getting rich or even just living well off of the textile factories, that was the owners and shareholders.

Or are you simply assuming that slave labor derived commodities were only a small part of the US economy in the early to mid 1800s?

No it was huge, but what I keep pointing out was whose hands the money was going to. All that money that Lehman Bros, the banks, and traders made sure boosted our GDP for a few years but that doesn't mean the money ended up in the avg. American's hands right?

[c1ue]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

Yes but this was a long time ago and if you were talking about immediate post Civil War/Reconstruction blacks I'd totally agree with you, maybe even up to the early 1900's. But in 1940, or 1960, or 1980, or today? You don't believe that maybe there has been some significant cultural drift in that time period?

You'll note I didn't say that African Americans today are identical with those in the post Civil War period.

What I noted was that any even tiny semblence of cultural continuity - such as Chinese focus on education - was completely absent. If the parent's level of education is the largest single factor in the level of children's final level of education, what then happens when the parents have no education? Have no role models? Have no capital or opportunities?

As noted already, this doesn't excuse the present plight of the average African American. But it equally doesn't mean nothing.

Mmm, I don't know. From what I've read executives and corporations in the 40's at least on up to the 70's at least had more of an attitude towards civic responsibility. It was the 80's that I started to see the Social Darwinists pop up with that whole "Greed is Good" line of BS. Our current crop of execs and corps are better at projecting a certain image but IMO are probably only slightly less worse than the slave owners of the mid 1800's given the way they generally treat labor to better their bottom line.

Perhaps, though I'd note there are dramatic differences between a manufacturing concern like GM vs. a financial concern like Lehman, or the cotton/slave traders of New York even in the periods you mention.

Its generally pretty well accepted that the common laborer and factory worker of the time period got paid little and had horrible working conditions and hours. Some of the worst labor abuses are from that era. The common laborers certainly weren't the ones getting rich or even just living well off of the textile factories, that was the owners and shareholders.

Certainly true, but unclear what the specific point of this is. Just because only the 1% of the North made money off the slaves, does this in any way excuse the societal tolerance as well as institutional blind spot regarding the economic impact of slavery in the North?

No it was huge, but what I keep pointing out was whose hands the money was going to. All that money that Lehman Bros, the banks, and traders made sure boosted our GDP for a few years but that doesn't mean the money ended up in the avg. American's hands right?

Again I am unsure what your point is. Even after the Civil War, cotton was still a gigantic industry - you just had sharecroppers instead of outright slaves. Equally the capital accumulated by these companies and institutions itself has a huge effect; just because they don't engage in outright slavery doesn't mean there isn't an ongoing benefit.

Or do you believe that once the money is made, then all sins are forgiven?

[mesyn191]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

You'll note I didn't say that African Americans today are identical with those in the post Civil War period.

True and I wasn't trying to suggest you were either. But they are so different today that trying to discuss solutions or point out the problems they face now within the context of slavery and mid-1800s politics to them, as well as most white voters, and today's politicians is going to be difficult and convoluted to say the least. This doesn't mean you have to ignore the past, you can't really, but present or near present politics, social issues, and culture must be given precedent.

Perhaps, though I'd note there are dramatic differences between a manufacturing concern like GM vs. a financial concern like Lehman, or the cotton/slave traders of New York even in the periods you mention.

Absolutely, they generally treat labor pretty bad though. Mostly its overseas labor right now, which most people don't care about and neoliberals hand wave away as "every country has gone through a period where labor was grossly underpaid while others got rich so why shouldn't they?" but more and more they're starting to find ways to push down American wages and benefits.

Certainly true, but unclear what the specific point of this is. Just because only the 1% of the North made money off the slaves, does this in any way excuse the societal tolerance as well as institutional blind spot regarding the economic impact of slavery in the North?

I don't understand how you can say this knowing slavery was banned in the North and that the people in general then had as little ability to influence the actions of the "Northern 1%" as we do now to influence our present 1% and their abuses of third world labor.

Or do you believe that once the money is made, then all sins are forgiven?

Nooooo. Generally I believe people should be held responsible for their actions. I also generally don't believe that if a few screw up everyone has to share the same blame.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

"Once we created machines that could gather cotton faster etc then there was no need for slaves anymore thus slavery ended."

In any agrarian economy, there is never any "need" for slaves. Rather, slavery is an invention of those with superior weaponry who don't want to work. So they enslave others to work for them (thereby leveraging their own labor) and they live off increased value that comes from forced labor. I'm surprised this is so hard for some to understand.

The invention of the cotton gin and similar machinery simply made slavery too expensive to continue, which is why it disappeared in other parts of the world without always requiring civil war. It continues today wherever machines cannot replace labor, such as in the sex trade.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

Who is "they"? The last time I saw Steve Jobs referenced by politicians was when Mitch Daniels, a Republican, mentioned him as an example of how real jobs are created (and noted how "appropriate" his name was).

And, no, I don't know any progressives or Republicans who are "fine" with Chinese wage slaves. Rather, most Americans of all political strips don't give it much thought. And where do you get these ideas? I know a lot of people of all sorts of political persuasions who love Apple's products, but I don't think many of them know are care about how they are made.

Finally, when did the President "attack" oil companies? The last time I checked, the U.S. produced more domestic oil in 2011 than it had in any year since the mid-1980's. The only time he has been "concerned" about oil drilling was during the BP spill (prior to which he had proposed opening more offshore areas to oil leases than had oilman Bush). Nor has he killed Keystone. Rather, Republicans forced him to make a decision prior to the election because they wanted to run on the issue and portray him as unfriendly to oil and job growth --- and they correctly knew he couldn't afford to green light the pipeline with the election as close as it is. Given his track record on oil issues, I see little chance he will continue to oppose the pipleline once alternative routes are evaluated.

Re-read your post and see if you can find any evidence to support such generalizations. Otherwise, you're just sounding like a typical nut who sees the entire world as left vs. right. If we've learned anything on this site it's that such kind of thinking is singularly unhelpful to finding solutions to our most pressing problems.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

You really think slaves were cheap? Slaves were the most expensive expense for any plantation owner. It was only free labor in the sense that they didnt have to pay constant wages. The massive up front cost of buying slaves eventually put many a plantation owner under. Not only that but it cost lots of capital to feed/clothe etc the slave population of any plantation. Let's look at some comps of how "cheap" these slaves supposedly were

Here you go, this is the slave registry from the Laura Sugarcane Plantation in LA from 1808. The prices for the slaves were astronomical in todays dollars.

http://www.lauraplantation.com/gen_w...p?cID=39&grp=6

The cheapest slave is 10,000 US 2003 dollars and the most expensive is 100k 2003 dollars. That is not cheap in any sense of the word.

Technology has always made farming cheaper and technology or innovation is one of the main drivers that ended slavery in the United States, that and a decision by white Americans that slavery should not exist anymore.

The problem in America is slavery eventually became a function of race whereas in Roman times slavery was extended to anyone who wasnt a Roman citizen no matter the color of your skin. Europeans were enslaved for multiple centuries and longer than any African comparatively but society seems to forget that little fact. They were even taken from their homeland and transplanted in Italy, the middle east, northern africa etc for centuries. I mean an entire ethnic group of people "slavs" are named such because they were slaves first and foremost.

Surely you cannot say that the slave owners did not work, perhaps they didnt want to do manual labor in the fields but surely they worked day and night both in America, the Middle East and Europe where slavery existed for thousands of years.

The oldest profession may be prosititution but surely one of the oldest forms of trade was human trade in every society throughout the world.