Slavery and the American Economy

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

Yes, the fact that Jobs owns the "right" type of company that progessives love he is not referenced or beaten over and over again in the media lke Oil companies and Banks.

Have you been living under a rock? All the president does is attack those greedy oil companies and almost anyone with a mouthpiece in his administration does.

If you have your eyes closed so much that you cant see the left attacks oil companies while praising tech companies than you are the one who sees things through the prism of left vs right. I am merely pointing out that different political parties have different motives, I am not seeing things through the left/right prism but being objective.

I apologize if you thought i was trying to frame the debate between left and right. I was merely pointing out the hypicrosy of the left and their supposed human rights campaign that only exists when it fits their agenda. The same can be said on the right on many issues.

Surely when someone doesn't speak up agaisnt Apple and their wage slaves who are "supposedly" for human rights than they are accepting it as in the fact of Apple employing chinese wage slaves. You would never see someone protesting big oil go and protest Apple. Those people who are usually protesting are also usually left wing progressives.

And thanks for alluding that I am a nut for merely pointing out the hypocrisy that I see on the left and FYI they is the left. That sounds like bias on your part and your view. For you see I am agianst the chemicals they use in fracking but also agaisnt Apple offshoring their jobs to chinese wage slaves and this is mainly due to the 1994 GATT agreement which allowed global labor to meet global capital.

There is no possible way that western wages can compete with asian wages in any way shape or form.

Here you go James Goldsmith on GATT in 1994. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65078176641728#

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

Hey carig, sorry I dont necessarily mean an ism like Capitalism but what Capitalism produces which is innovation and technology. Sorry for the confusion. It was technology and innovation that was the spark that ended slavery. Obviously, decisions made by white individuals to end slavery was a huge factor. But I do not think you can deny that technologt and innovation made farming quicker and cheaper than owning slaves so therefore those two things helped end slavery.

Where technology and innovation happened there was no need for slaves anymore because it was cheaper to farm and produce with those two things than to own slaves. Slaves were extremely expensive as evidence from this slave registry from the Laura Plantation in 1808.

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

slaves cost from 10k to 100k per slave in 2003 dollars.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

I have no fixation with capitalism or the free market. You unfortunately have a fixation with central planning and the thought that benevolent men can somehow run a society. Where do you find these angels? A necessity of freedom is capitalism but capitalism not a sufficient condition for freedom. I mean you had capitalism even in soviet russia.

It seems slavery ended with the decision by one major general in the Union army to keep 3 runaway slaves and to label those slaves as contraband of war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/ma...pagewanted=all

Socialism/communism always creates slavery (not in the sense of manual labor for no wages but in the sense of the slavery of the mind to the collective and not to individual expression) because it ends the ability of the people to choose. Why do Cubans risk their lives building boats out of cars to escape Cuba and enter the US? You can ask this question for every communism country (where the citizens are escaping to have a better form of freedom) and I wouldnt use China as an example because China is really state capitalism not communism.

No system is perfect C1ue that fact is obvious. But....

I would rather try to move our society back to more freedom and away from state control than to accept your thesis that the market should be controlled or whatever it is that is your belief. I know you don't think so but you do have a belief even if it is the belief of having no beliefs or for example the religion of no religion. Every belief always leads to orthodoxy and group think.

[leegs]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

. . . It was technology and innovation that was the spark that ended slavery. Obviously, decisions made by white individuals to end slavery was a huge factor. But I do not think you can deny that technologt and innovation made farming quicker and cheaper than owning slaves so therefore those two things helped end slavery. . .

Can you specify some concrete examples of technology and innovation that made farming cheaper and less labor intensive, and the timeframe during which they were introduced? I'm not saying that your statement is incorrect - I genuinely am interested to know.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

“Slavery by Another Name,” a documentary based on the 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winning book by Douglas Blackmon, premiered this year at the Sundance Film Festival. The story was new to me: Between the Emancipation Proclamation and the beginning of World War II, tens of thousands of African-Americans were arrested on phony charges, slapped with massive fines they could not pay, and then sold into labor to some of the biggest industries in the country to work off their debt. I didn’t expect to learn that slavery essentially continued for decades after the Civil War. And I also didn’t expect – on vacation from my legal work advising WikiLeaks and Julian Assange — to bump into Attorney General Eric Holder. Having spent the week before Christmas at Fort Meade, Md., attending the Pvt. Bradley Manning hearing – Manning is charged with passing classified material to WikiLeaks — I knew what I had to ask him.

As the last of the audience settled into their seats, the woman in front of me turned and took photos of people behind me. It was subtle, but others looked their way and smiled, nodding in acknowledgment. Not subtle enough. I turned too. I noticed a smiling, handsome African-American couple two rows back. On many occasions, I’ve been asked in interviews to respond to Holder’s public statements about the U.S. government’s criminal investigation into Assange and WikiLeaks. But there he was, in person, just steps away. I could not pass up this opportunity.

In November 2010, Holder announced a full criminal investigation into WikiLeaks, aimed at prosecuting Assange over the release of thousands of cables that embarrassed the U.S. government by revealing candid discussions among diplomats and corruption and human rights abuse around the world. Since that time, we learned of a secret grand jury investigation in Virginia. WikiLeaks supporters’ Twitter accounts have been subpoenaed. Media reports have long speculated about Assange’s imminent indictment in the U.S., possibly under the Espionage Act. (Assange is currently under house arrest in the U.K. pending his appeal of a decision that he be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault charges.) A key concern is the threat of onward extradition from Sweden to the U.S. where Assange – based on Holder’s earlier announcements – risks being prosecuted for his work as editor and publisher of WikiLeaks, activity that we believe is protected by the First Amendment.

Holder has refrained from making public comments about WikiLeaks of late, leading many to believe the U.S. might not prosecute Assange. But it was apparent during the Manning hearing that concerns about the U.S. seeking Assange’s extradition are justified. Repeated references were made to the relationship between the Manning proceedings and the Justice Department’s ongoing criminal investigation into Assange and WikiLeaks. Manning’s defense counsel stated explicitly that the Justice Department had an interest in plea-bargaining with Manning in order to get him to implicate Assange, and argued that the number of charges against Manning (particularly those carrying life imprisonment) was designed to pressure him into making a deal. Government officials seated behind the prosecution were suspected of involvement in the grand jury process, but refused to identify themselves to us or to journalists. One was later identified as the Justice Department lawyer responsible for the WikiLeaks-related Twitter subpoenas.

The grand jury is secret. Government lawyers at the Manning proceedings – a public hearing – refused to identify themselves or state their interest. Our appeals to military courts for full access to the Manning proceedings, the court documents and the evidence have been denied. The Australian government claims to have no information from the U.S. as to whether they will prosecute Assange and seek his extradition, but it does not appear to have asked for that information or sought any diplomatic assurances from the U.K., Sweden or the U.S. that Assange be able to travel home to Australia after the Sweden case is resolved.

WikiLeaks, the world’s most famous/infamous source of information, and its lawyers are, ironically, short on necessary information. Who better to ask for that information than the attorney general himself?

As the lights dimmed and the film began, I wondered: How could I speak to Eric Holder?

Soon, however, I was overwhelmed by Pollard’s compelling film. Casting a light on the murky period between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the modern civil rights movement, the film documents how the practices of convict labor rendered the 13th Amendment’s protections meaningless for millions of African-Americans living in the South.

These facts come alive through Pollard’s interviews with the ancestors of African-Americans who suffered during this period, emphasizing how these practices are part of living memory. Among them is Dr. Sharon Malone, the attorney general’s wife. She speaks eloquently about her uncle, who was born nearly 30 years after slavery ostensibly ended, but was one of the thousands pulled back into the forced labor system. Her testimony is powerful, and makes clear that every Southerner’s life is touched by this history, whether black or white.

What struck me most watching the film was the shameful inaction of the federal government and, specifically, the Justice Department, in failing to prosecute those responsible or taking action to end these practices, which continued for more than 80 years after the supposed abolition of slavery. While considering the historical legacy of that shameful inaction, I began to think about Eric Holder’s legacy — and the irony of his support for a film about the need to look back in order to look forward. After all, the film laments government inaction on slavery at the turn of the century. Today we lament Holder’s inaction on torture.

Holder insists on looking “forward, not back” when it comes to accountability for torture, dropping all cases of alleged illegal treatment of post-9/11 detainees by the CIA and its contractors. (Interesting that Holder, the same man advocating a forward-looking approach, said in 2010 that if the Justice Department could not identify a law under which to prosecute Assange, they would create one.)

While CIA torturers receive immunity from prosecution, Holder just announced that the Justice Department has charged a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, for allegedly disclosing information to journalists about a CIA agent who engaged in waterboarding during interrogations.

Holder does not prosecute U.S. torturers; he prosecutes those who speak out about U.S. torture. Will Julian Assange be next?

“Slavery by Another Name” received a standing ovation from the Sundance audience, and deservedly so. As the crowd filed out, I made my way over to Eric Holder. A young woman requested a photo with him, and I was asked by one of his Secret Service detail to take it. I did as requested.

Then I took the opportunity to ask the attorney general a few questions.

“Mr. Holder, I just wanted to say how powerful I thought your wife’s contribution was to the film and how great it is to see you here, as attorney general, supporting it.” My praise was genuine.

“Thank you, I am a very lucky man,” he responded, warmly and sincerely. I agreed.

I then explained that what struck me about the movie was the government’s unwillingness to take action. “What came through most for me was this sense of historical legacy.” I said. “As attorney general, do you ever think about how your time in office will be remembered?”

“Of course,” he replied, adding he is very conscious of the historical legacy he’s creating.

“That’s interesting,” I responded, “because I am a lawyer for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.” Slightly taken aback, a flicker of recognition crossed his face. “How do you think history will reflect upon your treatment of WikiLeaks and Assange?”

The young woman who requested the photo gasped audibly, whispering, “Whoa, this is major,” to the person next to her. Others gathered closer to listen.

“Eric” instantly becomes Holder, and responds in the professional manner of a politician. “The release of confidential information is a very serious matter, and we have to draw the line somewhere.” As he spoke, I recalled a conversation at the Manning hearing in December with a senior national security reporter who admitted he felt the news media would be at risk if Assange were prosecuted. One wonders where Holder’s line will be drawn — and what it will mean for journalism globally.

Holder continued to emphasize the grave harm he believes the leaked cables caused to U.S. national interests and “even to countries that [Assange] would likely support,” but that he “cannot get into the detail of the harm caused.” These blanket but unspecified allegations about harm allegedly caused by WikiLeaks’ publications (and those by the New York Times, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais and numerous other newspapers worldwide) have been common in U.S. government statements.

“Then will the Department of Justice state publicly whether or not you intend to prosecute Julian?” I asked.

Holder’s answer was short as he walked away: “We will see.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/hold...n_we_will_see/

[oddlots]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

Gotta share this:

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01...ld-master.html

[Shakespear]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

The letter is an excellent find.

Reading it I felt like Jourdon Anderson was making fun of the colonel.

This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor's visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to.

Looks like he would have done well on Wall Street.

[cbr]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

OP is a false premise. Less than 15% of the population were slaves in 1820. Slaves were more expensive than cheap capital labor that you didn't have to guard or house or take care of your investment.

Current disparaties are the result only of the failure of both sides to integrate the things that COUNT. That is, education, ethics, work ethic, to some extent language.

You can call people equal, you can give equal access, you can 'affirmative' action force intermingling, but if you don't get both sides to embrace the same core culture, you will not make much progress (and the core culture has to be one that values education, work, family, honor, opportunity). That has been the problem.

[oddlots]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

Current disparaties are the result only of the failure of both sides to integrate the things that COUNT. That is, education, ethics, work ethic, to some extent language.

You can call people equal, you can give equal access, you can 'affirmative' action force intermingling, but if you don't get both sides to embrace the same core culture, you will not make much progress (and the core culture has to be one that values education, work, family, honor, opportunity). That has been the problem.

That in response to one of the most artfully constructed bit of prose i've ever read that explicitly and at times archly touches upon exactly the presence or absence of the values you are trumpeting - precisely education, work, honor, opportunity? And written or dictated by a recent slave

You have a tin ear sir!

[c1ue]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

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.

True, and I've noted that the existence of slavery doesn't mean a free pass for African Americans forever.

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that something is still missing and lost.

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.

While slavery was banned in some Northern states, it was not by any means banned in all of them. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was specifically worded to cover only the "rebellious South".

Thus I'd say the foundation for your statement above is false. I'd also note that since slavery in the North was basically an intellectual curiosity, as opposed to the foundation for the economy, that attacking it would hardly be provoke the Northern 1% to react - unlike for example the unionization drive in the early 1900s...

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.

This isn't strictly true.

Slavery within a low surplus economy is the "only" way to get ahead.

However, with the advent of the armored knight, a new business model was discovered where a chainmail clad man-at-arms on a big horse could control (i.e. kill) any number of peasants with spears. Thus was borne feudalism - the peasants weren't slaves but might as well have been.

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

Sorry, but your complete lack of any economic sense continues to impede your understanding.

So what if a slave cost $1500? If he was good for only say 10 years of labor, that'd work out to just about 5 cents an hour.

How did this cost work out? Here's one example:

http://books.google.ru/books?id=kTIW...0slave&f=false

The entire South in 1830 (and noted that slaves were $300 then, up from $200 only a few years before) generated $139 million in revenue and $48 million in profit. In contrast the North generated revenues of $678 million and $50.4 million in profit.

Seems perfectly understandable from a profit perspective to me.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Slavery and the American Economy

C1ue, I really wish you would stop insulting me. I think we should never meet in person at some itulip convention.

And again your complete lack of reading comprehension and self styled cherry picking of debates on this forum is distrasteful.

I never once said that the plantation owners did not make a profit off of slave labor? When did I claim that? I merely pointed out the FACT that slaves were a prohibitively expensive upfront cost that many plantation owners had to go into debt to purchase.

I would imagine that many owners eventually went bankrupt from bad debts (see debt they went into to purchase the slaves and then they couldnt turn a profit)

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/t...4_thornton.pdf

" If owners had a powerful incentive to maintain slave families intact, what caused

the slave family breakups? Specifically, why were slave owners willing to break up slavefamilies in certain circumstances, but unwilling in other circumstances? Researchershave until recently generally ignored this aspect of the problem, but we think it is themajor consideration for understanding the breakup of slave families. The answer liesin the different legal and property-rights environments at public and commercialauctions. Our research leads us to conclude that government-generated slave sales—for example, probate and bankruptcy-related sales at public auctions—led to thebreakup of the bulk of family units, whereas purely private exchanges, including

commercial auctions, tended to maintain family units."

Wow there must have been a heck of a lot of bankruptcies among plantation owners to be the main cause of slave families being sold and broken up! Look I can cherry pick data as well....... oh and notice that term "government-generated slave sales" Your precious government shows up once again.

C1ue I was simply pointing out that slave ownership had significant up front costs along with on going costs of feeding, clothing, buying more slaves (if the plantation was successful) and not to mention hiring individuals to watch over the slaves.

When the smaller plantations went bankrupt the large "monopoly" plantations bought the assets. Now that is where you can make the argument that their upfront cost was small compared to the output of the slave.