# Think Tank > History >  Lysander Spooner: Civil War was a worse crime than slavery

## Lightfiend

Lysander Spooner: Slavery, The Constitution And Civil War

The individualist anarchist on American values espoused in the Constitution and the injustices of Lincoln's Civil War. Could slavery have ended more peacefully?

----------


## torchbearer

Slavery ended peacefully in the europeans countries.
England didn't go through a civil war to end slavery.
You just buy up the slaves and ban the sale of humans.

----------


## dr. hfn

it wasn't about slavery!

----------


## Todd

Buc Jason in 3....2......1....

----------


## Matt Collins

I think that both slavery and the illegal invasion of a sovereign country by the US government are reprehensible. 


.

----------


## Erazmus

> buc jason in 3....2......1....


hahaha!!!!!

----------


## Brian Defferding

> Slavery ended peacefully in the europeans countries.
> England didn't go through a civil war to end slavery.
> You just buy up the slaves and ban the sale of humans.


This is one part that I disagree with Ron Paul on - the southern slave states _never_ would have wanted to sell their slaves to the government.  No way.   It's a great idea in theory, but it wouldn't have worked in the 19th century.  The slave states would never have wanted to pay legit labor.

----------


## torchbearer

> This is one part that I disagree with Ron Paul on - the southern slave states _never_ would have wanted to sell their slaves to the government.  No way.   It's a great idea in theory, but it wouldn't have worked in the 19th century.  The slave states would never have wanted to pay legit labor.


if you read the history of farm implements, you'd see that slavery would have been replaced by the tractor and combine.
you could get 4 people to do the job of 100 slaves.
the cost of hiring 4 people legit would be cheaper than buying 100 slaves, feeding/housing them, etc.
Looking at the history of farming, a peaceful resolution would definitely be possible.

----------


## Matt Collins

> if you read the history of farm implements, you'd see that slavery would have been replaced by the tractor and combine.
> you could get 4 people to do the job of 100 slaves.
> the cost of hiring 4 people legit would be cheaper than buying 100 slaves, feeding/housing them, etc.
> Looking at the history of farming, a peaceful resolution would definitely be possible.


I am not a historian so I don't really know what I am talking about, but to play devil's advocate here, what if the end of slavery hastened the farm technology of which you speak? In other words since slavery was ended they had more incentive to produce more efficient ways of farming which mean inventing better technology.


.

----------


## torchbearer

> I am not a historian so I don't really know what I am talking about, but to play devil's advocate here, what if the end of slavery hastened the farm technology of which you speak? In other words since slavery was ended they had more incentive to produce more efficient ways of farming which mean inventing better technology.
> 
> 
> .


slavery ended elsewhere. those implements were going to be developed for those countries. we would either be left behind in production or adapt the new technology.

----------


## catdd

Jefferson Davis knew that the days of slavery were quickly coming to an end.

----------


## Erazmus

> I am not a historian so I don't really know what I am talking about, but to play devil's advocate here, what if the end of slavery hastened the farm technology of which you speak? In other words since slavery was ended they had more incentive to produce more efficient ways of farming which mean inventing better technology.
> 
> 
> .


In a free market, incentive is profit -which means out producing your competitors. Innovation occurs to enhance productivity. Someone is always going to look for a way to improve production. For example: the cotton gin was created during slavery times, so this goes against your premise.




> Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin revolutionized the cotton industry in the United States. Prior to his invention, farming cotton required hundreds of man-hours to separate the cottonseed from the raw cotton fibers. Simple seed-removing devices have been around for centuries, however, Eli Whitney's invention automated the seed separation process. His machine could generate up to fifty pounds of cleaned cotton daily, making cotton production profitable for the southern states.


source: http://inventors.about.com/od/cstart...cotton_gin.htm

----------


## Matt Collins

> In a free market, incentive is profit -which means out producing your competitors. Innovation occurs to enhance productivity. Someone is always going to look for a way to improve production. For example: the cotton gin was created during slavery times, so this goes against your premise.


That's what I thought. Thanks for making the point

----------


## John Taylor

> This is one part that I disagree with Ron Paul on - the southern slave states _never_ would have wanted to sell their slaves to the government.  No way.   It's a great idea in theory, but it wouldn't have worked in the 19th century.  The slave states would never have wanted to pay legit labor.


Considering they were paying for northern merchantilists already through the transfer payment system of the trariff, you're probably right.... except, Brazil abolished slavery by doing precisely what is urged here, peacefully, without bloodshed.

----------


## ARealConservative

> if you read the history of farm implements, you'd see that slavery would have been replaced by the tractor and combine.
> you could get 4 people to do the job of 100 slaves.
> the cost of hiring 4 people legit would be cheaper than buying 100 slaves, feeding/housing them, etc.
> Looking at the history of farming, a peaceful resolution would definitely be possible.


so then you would only have to buy 4 slaves, not 100 slaves.

it doesn't end the economic advantage slave labor has over non coercive labor.

----------


## torchbearer

> so then you would only have to buy 4 slaves, not 100 slaves.
> 
> it doesn't end the economic advantage slave labor has over non coercive labor.


you don't have to pay for housing or food for regular labor.
the pay they give mexicans now is comparable to what it would cost to house and feed slaves.

----------


## torchbearer

slave labor wasn't free labor, it was cheap labor.

----------


## ARealConservative

> slave labor wasn't free labor, it was cheap labor.


correct.  not free, just cheaper.

a free man would always cost more then forced labor.  Why would a free man hold out only for enough funds to live on the same level of luxury given to the slave?

----------


## raiha

> Originally posted by *Brian Defferding
> *
> This is one part that I disagree with Ron Paul on - the southern slave states never would have wanted to sell their slaves to the government. No way. It's a great idea in theory, but it wouldn't have worked in the 19th century. The slave states would never have wanted to pay legit labor.


The Northern Financial centres spun gold from the slave fields of the South. 

By 186o New England was home to 473 cotton mills. If the South seceded, the cotton would go direct from New Orleans to Europe and those godly slave-ship builders and powerful textile manufacturers would miss out. On the cusp of the Civil war the 10 major cotton states were producing 66% of the world's cotton (half of the US exports.)

No war has ever been fought for altruistic reasons. You find the would-be altruism weaving their way throug the rhetoric like the master textile merchants they are.

 I compare it to if you eat meat you need to face the full consequences of your action and be prepared to kill it yourself.
If you are going to commit heinous acts, at least don't pretend you are not being heinous.

The increase in slavery in the South rose to meet the production in the North. Fantastic book to read is"

"How the North Promoted, Prolonged and Profited from Slavery: Complicity." Farrow, Lang and Frank. It be written by Northern folks.

----------


## Dunedain

> slave labor wasn't free labor, it was cheap labor.


Like today with the Mexicans picking our peaches.

----------


## torchbearer

> Like today with the Mexicans picking our peaches.


that is correct. same thing as a jamaican working for $20/week at a resort that charges $1000/night

----------


## torchbearer

> so then you would only have to buy 4 slaves, not 100 slaves.
> 
> it doesn't end the economic advantage slave labor has over non coercive labor.


economic advantage of slavery?
would you please list these and how they are superior to a volunteer force working for equivalent pay?

----------


## Matt Collins

> The Northern Financial centre,,,,


Please modify you original post, those were NOT my words! It was a misquoting.

----------


## ARealConservative

> economic advantage of slavery?
> would you please list these and how they are superior to a volunteer force working for equivalent pay?


a voluntary work force will require you to pay them enough to not live in a shanty with the other 3 slaves.  They will require you to pay them enough to buy more food then the bare minimum required to survive.  And they will require you to pay them a high enough wage to be able to not only meet this higher living conditions, but to save on top of it, to raise a family, etc, etc.  

You have to compete for a voluntary work force.  For slavery, you only have to complete with other people looking to buy slaves as a way to lower their labor costs.

pretty basic stuff

----------


## torchbearer

> a voluntary work force will require you to pay them enough to not live in a shanty with the other 3 slaves.  They will require you to pay them enough to buy more food then the bare minimum required to survive.  And they will require you to pay them a high enough wage to be able to not only meet this higher living conditions, but to save on top of it, to raise a family, etc, etc.  
> 
> You have to compete for a voluntary work force.  For slavery, you only have to complete with other people looking to buy slaves as a way to lower their labor costs.
> 
> pretty basic stuff


you have to buy the slave, you don't have to buy the volunteer.
you have to house the slave. feed the slave, cloth the slave, medically treat the slave (or buy a replacement).
You don't have that overhead with volunteers.
pretty basic stuff.

----------


## silus

> Lysander Spooner: Civil War was a worse crime than slavery


Unless I missed it, I don't think Spooner was suggesting this point at all.  Maybe you should edit this.

----------


## ARealConservative

> you have to buy the slave, you don't have to by the volunteer.


Not necessarily.  You have to hold a person against their will and force them to work against their will.  




> you have to house the slave. feed the slave, cloth the slave, medically treat the slave (or buy a replacement).


people that work do so to meet the same basic needs, but they also will require enough money to live better then a slave is allowed.

Your refusal to accept this simple statement reflects poorly on you.

It isn't slavery if the person doing the work is happy with the exchange he is given for his labor

basic stuff

----------


## ARealConservative

> Unless I missed it, I don't think Spooner was suggesting this point at all.  Maybe you should edit this.


it's in the link provided.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

Civil War was horrible. But abducting individuals from their homeland, throwing them at the bottom of ships and chaining them up, forcing them into a life of servitude, raping their women, destroying their families, treats human beings like cattle, whipping, hanging, burning, and beating the $#@! out of individuals because you feel they arent human. Totally destroying any sense of history within a culture? All for 200 years??!

Ehh, slavery was pretty $#@!ing bad IMO.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> slave labor wasn't free labor, it was cheap labor.


Come over here and be my slave for a year and see how you feel about that statement. 

$#@!in idiot.

----------


## torchbearer

> Not necessarily.  You have to hold a person against their will and force them to work against their will.  
> 
> 
> 
> people that work do so to meet the same basic needs, but they also will require enough money to live better then a slave is allowed.
> 
> Your refusal to accept this simple statement reflects poorly on you.
> 
> It isn't slavery if the person doing the work is happy with the exchange he is given for his labor
> ...


slave don't manifest themselves out of nothing. it requires human effort to obtain slaves, whether you do it yourself or buy them from someone else. it takes resources.
you look completely over this fact by saying just kidnap someone.
well, that takes resources too and time... and the danger of getting yourself killed in the process.
Or, you can pay someone else to take the risk, but then- you pay the premium.
either way- you will pay for a slave.
You will pay for everything they need so that they can work.
You don't buy a tractor and allow it to go into disrepair. you have to make sure it is functioning and has fuel. same with a slave.
you can't be this dense. tell me you are just playing devil's advocate for the lulz.

----------


## torchbearer

> Come over here and be my slave for a year and see how you feel about that statement. 
> 
> $#@!in idiot.


I'm sorry, wasn't there something factually incorrect with my statement?

----------


## bruce leeroy

> Civil War was horrible. But abducting individuals from their homeland, throwing them at the bottom of ships and chaining them up, forcing them into a life of servitude, raping their women, destroying their families, treats human beings like cattle, whipping, hanging, burning, and beating the $#@! out of individuals because you feel they arent human. Totally destroying any sense of history within a culture? All for 200 years??!
> 
> Ehh, slavery was pretty $#@!ing bad IMO.



slavery was and still is horrible
no doubt
but slavery is something that has been practiced in one form or another every since the dawn of written history and probably before then. hell, in some places, it is still practiced today, ie sudan, and in a way, north korea etc
 my personal take on the matter is that slavery would have ended without the civil war before 1900 anyway, and many of the racial issues in the US today would be lessened or nonexistant, possibly. People from up north like to carp on about us southerners being racist rednecks, but if you look at the stats, most of the cities in the south are pretty integrated compared to their northern counterparts.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> you don't have to pay for housing or food for regular labor.
> the pay they give mexicans now is comparable to what it would cost to house and feed slaves.



Have you ever seen where slaves housed and the $#@! they would eat?

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> slavery was and still is horrible
> no doubt
> but slavery is something that has been practiced in one form or another every since the dawn of written history and probably before then. hell, in some places, it is still practiced today, ie sudan, and in a way, north korea etc
>  my personal take on the matter is that slavery would have ended without the civil war before 1900 anyway, and many of the racial issues in the US today would be lessened or nonexistant, possibly. People from up north like to carp on about us southerners being racist rednecks, but if you look at the stats, most of the cities in the south are pretty integrated compared to their northern counterparts.


I agree. 

I truly believe slavery could have ended without a bloody war.

----------


## silus

> it's in the link provided.


Seems more like the writer is taking Spooner's assessments on two different subjects and then using that to make the comparison himself, then attribute that comparison to Spooner even when he may have never even thought once of comparing the two.  :shrug

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> I'm sorry, wasn't there something factually incorrect with my statement?


Sorry, misread your statement. Plus Im drunk

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> slave don't manifest themselves out of nothing. it requires human effort to obtain slaves, whether you do it yourself or buy them from someone else. it takes resources.
> you look completely over this fact by saying just kidnap someone.
> well, that takes resources too and time... and the danger of getting yourself killed in the process.
> Or, you can pay someone else to take the risk, but then- you pay the premium.
> either way- you will pay for a slave.
> You will pay for everything they need so that they can work.
> You don't buy a tractor and allow it to go into disrepair. you have to make sure it is functioning and has fuel. same with a slave.
> you can't be this dense. tell me you are just playing devil's advocate for the lulz.


People like you make we wonder about this site. 

Your basically saying people are an equivalent to cattle.

----------


## torchbearer

> Have you ever seen where slaves housed and the $#@! they would eat?


are you generalizing based off of hollywood movies?
I can show you plantations where their slaves were treated as second class family and not as rodents to be trashed, raped, and killed. those things happened, not saying they didn't... but to say all slaves ate dirt is incorrect.
not a justification. a point of fact.

You are emotionally tied to this issue. I am not.
I'm trying to illustrate that the whole purpose of slavery in the south was because prior to tractors and such, it was cost effective.
now, it is just as effective to hire cheap labor, and it is even easier to manage.. and could cost you less to work your fields with volunteer labor.

----------


## torchbearer

> People like you make we wonder about this site. 
> 
> Your basically saying people are an equivalent to cattle.


I'm saying that slaves were considered property.
is that factually incorrect?

and will you stop reading $#@! into everything i type. i am talking in factual terms. not emotional.

----------


## bruce leeroy

> I agree. 
> 
> I truly believe slavery could have ended without a bloody war.



and also remember, lincoln let the states that didnt secede keep their slaves
there was an article in ebony magazine back in 2000 about that, saying that what lincoln basically did; was free the slaves where he didnt have the power and refuse to free the ones that he had the power to free
another thing to remember..............a very small group of rice and cotton planters in dixie owned like over 90 percent of the slave population
the slavery thing wasnt probably in and of itself a big deal to many southern working class whites

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> are you generalizing based off of hollywood movies?
> I can show you plantations where their slaves were treated as second class family and not as rodents to be trashed, raped, and killed. those things happened, not saying they didn't... but to say all slaves ate dirt is incorrect.
> not a justification. a point of fact.


I can also sow you plantations here in Louisiana where slavers WERE raped, killed, and treated like subhumans. 

Sure I am emotionally tied to the situation, I would not wish that type of treatment to any human being. The fact that people like find ways to justify it and say "oh it wasnt that bad" truly makes me wonder why some people say libertarians would cosign slavery.

----------


## bruce leeroy

> I can also sow you plantations here in Louisiana where slavers WERE raped, killed, and treated like subhumans. 
> 
> Sure I am emotionally tied to the situation, I would not wish that type of treatment to any human being. The fact that people like find ways to justify it and say "oh it wasnt that bad" truly makes me wonder why some people say libertarians would cosign slavery.


one of the big arguments of southerners against northerners before the civil war was that many slaves were better off than their ethnic european counterparts in the north that worked in factories. Is this so? I dont know. wasnt there. but if you look at history, what happened to most of the slaves immediatly after the civil war....................they becaume "sharecroppers"..........which is basically a softer form of slavery

----------


## torchbearer

> I can also sow you plantations here in Louisiana where slavers WERE raped, killed, and treated like subhumans. 
> 
> Sure I am emotionally tied to the situation, I would not wish that type of treatment to any human being. The fact that people like find ways to justify it and say "oh it wasnt that bad" truly makes me wonder why some people say libertarians would cosign slavery.


I never said, slaves were treated like kings. I stated, that not every slave was treated like $#@!.
I never said slavery was good. I said that before tractors, it was economically viable.
You are making these giant leaps in your thought. just read the words i wrote. and take those words for what they mean.


I'm not a racist prick. I'm a sociologist, we are trying to inform people that there is only one race. the human race. all other distinctions are based on physical traits.

What i'm trying to point out over the context of my post on this thread is that slavery would have ended for economic reason. No need for blood-shed.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

[QUOTE=bruce leeroy;2624448]one of the big arguments of southerners against northerners before the civil war was that many slaves were better off than their ethnic european counterparts in the north that worked in factories. Is this so? I dont know. wasnt there. but if you look at history, what happened to most of the slaves immediatly after the civil war..................*..they becaume "sharecroppers"..........which is basically a softer form of slavery[*/QUOTE]

This is also very true. 

But the fact that "some slaves were better off" goes against the entire principle of freedom. I dont care if being free means a life and struggle I will take struggle over freedom. 

Lots of slave owners loved to use the excuse that "slaves were better off" just because in there eyes if they werent slaves they would be "running around the jungle like monkeys" 

But so what? If that was their lifestyle then so be it.

----------


## torchbearer

> one of the big arguments of southerners against northerners before the civil war was that many slaves were better off than their ethnic european counterparts in the north that worked in factories. Is this so? I dont know. wasnt there. but if you look at history, what happened to most of the slaves immediatly after the civil war....................they becaume "sharecroppers"..........which is basically a softer form of slavery


My ancestors came here as indentured servants, who later became sharecroppers... who saved over the generations and now own all the land they once farmed.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> I never said, slaves were treated like kings. I stated, that not every slave was treated like $#@!.
> I never said slavery was good. I said that before tractors, it was economically viable.
> You are making these giant leaps in your thought. just read the words i wrote. and take those words for what they mean.
> 
> 
> I'm not a racist prick. I'm a sociologist, we are trying to inform people that there is only one race. the human race. all other distinctions are based on physical traits.
> 
> What i'm trying to point out over the context of my post on this thread is that slavery would have ended for economic reason. No need for blood-shed.


Well say that then.  Sorry for coming at you but I see these argument all the time, especially one some conservative blogs on how "slavery wasnt all the bad" and so on. That $#@! pisses me the $#@! off.

----------


## torchbearer

and most people think everyone in the south owned slaves. that isn't true either.
only the "big business" of that time owned slaves.

----------


## torchbearer

> Well say that then.  Sorry for coming at you but I see these argument all the time, especially one some conservative blogs on how "slavery wasnt all the bad" and so on. That $#@! pisses me the $#@! off.


I did say that.
Tomorrow, when sober, reread this thread. You will see.

I understand and i'm trying to patiently explain myself.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> I did say that.
> Tomorrow, when sober, reread this thread. You will see.
> 
> I understand and i'm trying to patiently explain myself.


I AM NOT DRUNK!!!! *burp*

----------


## bruce leeroy

[QUOTE=TheBlackPeterSchiff;2624460]


> one of the big arguments of southerners against northerners before the civil war was that many slaves were better off than their ethnic european counterparts in the north that worked in factories. Is this so? I dont know. wasnt there. but if you look at history, what happened to most of the slaves immediatly after the civil war..................*..they becaume "sharecroppers"..........which is basically a softer form of slavery[*/QUOTE]
> 
> This is also very true. 
> 
> But the fact that "some slaves were better off" goes against the entire principle of freedom. I dont care if being free means a life and struggle I will take struggle over freedom. 
> 
> Lots of slave owners loved to use the excuse that "slaves were better off" just because in there eyes if they werent slaves they would be "running around the jungle like monkeys" 
> 
> But so what? If that was their lifestyle then so be it.



I read a book one time called something along the lines of "slavery in the ante bellum south:the peculier institution" and something struck me... it said that slaves were actually on many plantations allowed to insult and goad the poorer white sharecroppers/field workers that lived on the periphery of  some of the large plantations, because if those whites were hostile toward the slaves, they were less likely to help them escape/rebel

----------


## AlexMerced

I have to say Torchbearer wins this thread, if I ever fulfill my promise to run for POTUS 2024... you are my VP pick

----------


## Matt Collins

> Come over here and be my slave for a year and see how you feel about that statement. 
> 
> $#@!in idiot.


I think he was trying to say that the cost of owning slaves to the slave owner was in fact not $0.



.

----------


## torchbearer

> I have to say Torchbearer wins this thread, if I ever fulfill my promise to run for POTUS 2024... you are my VP pick


I'll remember that! 

This is a topic I did look into with some great interest since it is apart of the history of my state.
Some of the best ways to get a glimpse into that era is through the letters of the people of that day.
Many of my ancestors kept family diaries of sorts.
I had a lot of native americans in my family. I have read their personal thoughts and feelings as they were being shipped to oklahoma.
I read how other people treated them.
People wouldn't even call them by their native names. They would give them names like John Indian, Mildred Indian. always last name indian with an anglo-first name.
This is the kind of history i've delved into. Watching hollywood produced history is laughable.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

[QUOTE=bruce leeroy;2624500]


> because if those whites were hostile toward the slaves, they were less likely to help them escape/rebel


Ooohhh we cant have that nah massa

----------


## AlexMerced

> I'll remember that! 
> 
> This is a topic I did look into with some great interest since it is apart of the history of my state.
> Some of the best ways to get a glimpse into that era is through the letters of the people of that day.
> Many of my ancestors kept family diaries of sorts.
> I had a lot of native americans in my family. I have read their personal thoughts and feelings as they were being shipped to oklahoma.
> I read how other people treated them.
> People wouldn't even call them by their native names. They would give them names like John Indian, Mildred Indian. always last name indian with an anglo-first name.
> This is the kind of history i've delved into. Watching hollywood produced history is laughable.


Just keep in touch, it'll be hell of a campaign

----------


## bruce leeroy

[QUOTE=TheBlackPeterSchiff;2624518]


> Ooohhh we cant have that nah massa


huh
is that some kinda lousiana slang, like "whoadie"?

----------


## Erazmus

> What i'm trying to point out over the context of my post on this thread is that slavery would have ended for economic reason. No need for blood-shed.


                                     That really is the crux of the argument right there. People tend to forget that a major part of economics is the division of labor and specialization. As the industrial revolution kicked up, labor (especially farming) had major advancements that took skill (like running tractors and the like). This type of training and skilled labor increases costs. 

And it is also true that not everyone abused slaves. Slaves were treated as commodities, and you don't do yourself any favors by abusing your "property" (I use this term merely for argument sake). When your laborers are happier, and morale is up, production increases. When you have people who are willingly employed (non-slaves), compensation for production is the incentive. The more you are willing to pay, the more willing people would be to increase their output. 

I agree with Torch. Ultimately as technology advanced and labor required more skill, the cost of feeding, training, housing, etc. for slaves would have gotten less and less lucrative until it was no longer feasible. I believe Virginia was already in the early processes of emancipation when the war of the states was beginning. I could swear I read this somewhere. Once the invasion occurred, that's when Virginia seceded and joined the southern states.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

[QUOTE=bruce leeroy;2624527]


> huh
> is that some kinda lousiana slang, like "whoadie"?


Cash Money fan eh?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That really is the crux of the argument right there. People tend to forget that a major part of economics is the division of labor and specialization. As the industrial revolution kicked up, labor (especially farming) had major advancements that took skill (like running tractors and the like). This type of training and skilled labor increases costs. 
> 
> And it is also true that not everyone abused slaves. Slaves were treated as commodities, and you don't do yourself any favors by abusing your "property" (I use this term merely for argument sake). When your laborers are happier, and morale is up, production increases. When you have people who are willingly employed (non-slaves), compensation for production is the incentive. The more you are willing to pay, the more willing people would be to increase their output. 
> 
> I agree with Torch. Ultimately as technology advanced and labor required more skill, the cost of feeding, training, housing, etc. for slaves would have gotten less and less lucrative until it was no longer feasible. I believe Virginia was already in the early processes of emancipation when the war of the states was beginning. I could swear I read this somewhere. Once the invasion occurred, that's when Virginia seceded and joined the southern states.


I'm pretty sure that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist, and I think Jefferson Davis had abolitionist leanings.  Slavery is and was abhorrent, but I do believe that the American people have been given a wrong picture of the true role slavery actually played in the Civil War.  I believe it was only Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina which cited slavery as one (among many) of the reasons for secession.  I know for a fact that Tennessee and North Carolina did not consider slavery as even a minor a factor in their choice to secede.

----------


## bruce leeroy

[QUOTE=TheBlackPeterSchiff;2624535]


> Cash Money fan eh?


I like  B-GIzzle
and C-murder from the no limit crew
I actually used to live in new orleans
first at a shelter in the 5th/magazine street
and then in an efficiancy right off tulane and carrolton, between the hospital district and  gert town

----------


## torchbearer

[QUOTE=bruce leeroy;2624556]


> I like  B-GIzzle
> and C-murder from the no limit crew
> I actually used to live in new orleans
> first at a shelter in the 5th/magazine street
> and then in an efficiancy right off tulane and carrolton, between the hospital district and  gert town


I used to live in River Ridge prior to katrina.
i was waiting tables at the applebees on clearview.
if housing wasn't so freakin' expensive, i'd move back. people are retarded for paying the high prices for houses in a flood/huricane zone.

----------


## bruce leeroy

[QUOTE=torchbearer;2624559]


> I used to live in River Ridge prior to katrina.
> i was waiting tables at the applebees on clearview.
> if housing wasn't so freakin' expensive, i'd move back. people are retarded for paying the high prices for houses in a flood/huricane zone.


I cooked for awhile at a diner in the bunche village section of kenner

used to go watch titties flop at the onyx club
didnt stay in NO long, just from april to july of 2005

----------


## ARealConservative

> slave don't manifest themselves out of nothing. it requires human effort to obtain slaves, whether you do it yourself or buy them from someone else. it takes resources.


Of course it takes resources.  Slavery came into existence because it took less resources then voluntary association though.

You seem to need to cling to this hope that slavery was going to become economically unfeasible at some point, but you provide no factual justification for anyone to think so, and ignore that slavery still exists in the world because of the economic advantage it affords those in control of slave labor.

it's like arguing with a child really.

----------


## Danke

> Of course it takes resources.  Slavery came into existence because it took less resources then voluntary association though.
> 
> You seem to need to cling to this hope that slavery was going to become economically unfeasible at some point, but you provide no factual justification for anyone to think so, and ignore that slavery still exists in the world because of the economic advantage it affords those in control of slave labor.
> 
> it's like arguing with a child really.


"A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him."

-Ezra Pound

----------


## AmericaFyeah92

Lincoln emancipated slaves and enslaved free men (via the first conscription act in American history).

The justifiable Northern response to the South would have been "Very well, go in peace and good luck to you. Provided you free your slaves, whom we have an obligation to, we will allow you to leave unmolested."

And of course the South would have said "go $#@! yourself," but at least then the North would have a justified case for a war of liberation.

----------


## Danke

> Lincoln emancipated slaves and enslaved free men (via the first conscription act in American history).


yep.




> And of course the South would have said "go $#@! yourself," but at least then the North would have a justified case for a war of liberation.


Why?  Like our justification on liberating Iraqis from Saddam?

----------


## Matt Collins

> The justifiable Northern response to the South would have been "Very well, go in peace and good luck to you. Provided you free your slaves, whom we have an obligation to, we will allow you to leave unmolested."
> 
> And of course the South would have said "go $#@! yourself," but at least then the North would have a justified case for a war of liberation.


But I don't think the US Government had any legal obligation to the slaves. 



.

----------


## AmericaFyeah92

> yep.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Like our justification on liberating Iraqis from Saddam?


Different, and you know it.

----------


## AmericaFyeah92

> But I don't think the US Government had any legal obligation to the slaves. 
> 
> 
> 
> .


The feds had been complicit in the slave trade/plantation system for decades, and had even written the original Constitution to enshrine slavery. I meant "obligation" as in the righting of past wrongs, if that makes sense.

----------


## Legend1104

Another economic fact not to forget is the profit incentive. Slavery is inefficient compared to paid labor. Slaves have no real incentive to work besides the whip, which in many cases can actually decrease productivity. Force tends to make people less likely to support your cause and decrease their productivity. Hired, paid laborers on the other hand are much more likely to be more productive because they have more incentive. Many of them know that working harder and doing a better job might mean a promotion or more money. Therefore, many of them will work harder. Slaves get no benefit from working harder. They do not get promoted or paid more. One other note. I cannot verify this, but I remember my college history teacher saying that Russia (or maybe it was Egypt) and India were beginning to get into the cotton buisness and would have been able to outproduce the South in just a few years so slavery could have ended peacefully. Do not forget that slavery was first instituted in the South because there was a lack of population in the south to work on plantations. Once the populations increased slavery was not needed. In many places until around the mid-1800s slavery was beginning to slow down, and was actually decreasing in my state (Mississippi). In the 1830 Constitution of MS, slavery was going to be ended in around 10 years. It was only the combination of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (which gave over much of the Choktaw's fertile lands to MS), the cotton gin, and the growing need for cotton in the texttile mills in the North/England that saw it increase again. It is possible that it could have. Either way, whenver one plantation owner figured out that paid laborers were better workers (and therefore eventually cheaper) slavery would have ended because the others would have had to compete or go out of business; or the South would have been outproduced.

----------


## Danke

> Different, and you know it.


How so?

----------


## torchbearer

> "A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him."
> 
> -Ezra Pound


yup.

----------


## Legend1104

I cannot stand when people make a big deal out of the emancipation proclamation. It was nothing  more than a political stunt. It freed no one and Lincoln knew it would not. It only freed slaves in rebelling states. We all know that that did nothing because no plantation owner was going to do that and slaves were kept from hearing about it. Also, it purposefully left slaves states still in the Union out of it in order to keep them from leaving. This one point makes me really wonder about the sanity of those slaves states. Didn't they know that they would have been next if the Confederacy lost?!

----------


## ARealConservative

> Another economic fact not to forget is the profit incentive. Slavery is inefficient compared to paid labor. Slaves have no real incentive to work besides the whip, which in many cases can actually decrease productivity. Force tends to make people less likely to support your cause and decrease their productivity. Hired, paid laborers on the other hand are much more likely to be more productive because they have more incentive. Many other them know that working harder and doing a better job might mean a promotion or more money. Therefore, many of them will work harder. Slaves get no benefit from working harder. They do not get promoted or paid more. One other note. I cannot verify this, but I remember my college history teacher saying that Russia (or maybe it was Egypt) and India were beginning to get into the cotton buisness and would have been able to outproduce the South in just a few years so slavery could have ended peacefully. Do not forget that slavery was first instituted in the South because there was a lack of population in the south to work on plantations. Once the populations increased slavery was not needed. In many places until around the mid-1800s slavery was beginning to slow down, and was actually decreasing in my state (Mississippi). In the 1830 Constitution of MS, slavery was going to be ended in around 10 years. It was only the combination of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (which gave over much of the Choktaw's fertile lands to MS), the cotton gin, and the growing need for cotton in the texttile mills in the North/England that saw it increase again. It is possible that it could have. Either way, whenver one plantation owner figured out that paid laborers were better workers (and therefore eventually cheaper) slavery would have ended because the others would have had to compete or go out of business; or the South would have been outproduced.


there will be many types of jobs not conducive to slave labor, but there will also be many forms of jobs that would be conducive.

Today slavery exists, even though it is illegal which increaes the risk, and thus the costs associated.  Yet even with the inflated cost from illegal slave practices, it still remains a present fact.  

So how would it of vanished in times where it was not forced underground in black markets?

Wishing it to be true isn't going to cut it.

----------


## Danke

> Also, it purposefully left slaves states still in the Union out of it in order to keep them from leaving. !


I have read the Statues at Large from that era, and I'm pretty sure they included the Northern States.

----------


## Legend1104

> I have read the Statues at Large from that era, and I'm pretty sure they included the Northern States.


I have read the Emancipation Proclamation. It did not.

"The Emancipation Proclamation 
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free." 

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory."

This is a direct quote from the national archives and records administration.

----------


## jmdrake

> Lysander Spooner: Slavery, The Constitution And Civil War
> 
> The individualist anarchist on American values espoused in the Constitution and the injustices of Lincoln's Civil War. Could slavery have ended more peacefully?


*sigh* Yet another civil war thread.

Anyway, a boatload of contradictions at the posted link.  A constitutional - anarchist who thinks the government can't force people to free the slaves yet thinks the constitution would free the slaves?  Maybe he was going by the "Don't force free states to turn over slaves" argument.  But the constitution specifically required slaves to be turned over.  Fugitive slave laws went against the principle of states rights, but they were totally constitutional (and highly demanded by the very same people claiming to want states' rights).  Ron Paul was right when he said this:

_A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic._

Now as for slavery ending peaceably, there is a flaw in the economic argument.  Despite all of the technological advances in the past century there is still slavery.  So slavery is still profitable for *some* people.  It is true that the south actually boomed once slavery ended and industrialization came in.  But convincing the plantation owners who ran things that *they* would have necessarily benefited by loosing free labor just so industrialists could have cheap labor may have been a daunting task.  Indeed if you go all the way back to Greece, they had invented a steam engine.  But (some) historians feel that they never actually put it into use because it was seen as unnecessary since they had abundant slave labor.

Of course people will point to the "compensated emancipation" model and look to how slaves were freed other places.  Those who look at this ignore two issues.

1) Other countries did not have a regional divide on the issue of slavery.
2) When Lincoln tried to do this with the border states it failed miserably largely because of issue #1.

Think about it.  If you were a taxpayer living in a free state would you want your taxes increased to compensate someone for giving up property that they really shouldn't own in the first place?  Oh sure, we can say "Well it would have been cheaper than a civil war".  But that's 20/20 hindsight.  It would have been cheaper for the south to give up slaves and pay high tariffs to in 20/20 hindsight.  

There is one solution that might have worked.  If the tariffs were used to buy the slaves.  The south felt the north was being unjustly enriched by the tariffs.  The north wanted the tariffs to protect their industry.  If the money went to buy freedom for slaves you'd still have industry protected but without wealth leaving the south to the benefit of the north.  That might have worked.  Anything else is just wishful thinking.

----------


## Legend1104

> there will be many types of jobs not conducive to slave labor, but there will also be many forms of jobs that would be conducive.
> 
> Today slavery exists, even though it is illegal which increaes the risk, and thus the costs associated.  Yet even with the inflated cost from illegal slave practices, it still remains a present fact.  
> 
> So how would it of vanished in times where it was not forced underground in black markets?
> 
> Wishing it to be true isn't going to cut it.


Where are you referring too?

----------


## AmericaFyeah92

> How so?


-Iraqis are not located within the borders of the USA
-Iraqis weren't suffering literal slavery 
-Freeing African slaves would reap obvious benefits for them, especially if they were transported to the North, whereas any benefits that have been gained from the American invasion of Iraq are dubious at best

----------


## Danke

> I have read the Emancipation Proclamation. It did not.
> 
> "The Emancipation Proclamation 
> President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free." 
> 
> Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory."
> 
> This is a direct quote from the national archives and records administration.


Wasn't referring to the proclamation.  But the law.

----------


## jmdrake

> one of the big arguments of southerners against northerners before the civil war was that many slaves were better off than their ethnic european counterparts in the north that worked in factories. Is this so? I dont know. wasnt there. but if you look at history, what happened to most of the slaves immediatly after the civil war....................they becaume "sharecroppers"..........which is basically a softer form of slavery


Not really.  Sharecroppers could leave whenever they felt like it.  Many "voted with their feet" and migrated north.  Some left the farm and became railroad porters or worked in factories which sprung up in the south once the evil of slavery ended.  Some bought the land they had been sharecropping on.  I'm one generation removed from sharecroppers so I know what I'm talking about.

----------


## Legend1104

> *sigh* Yet another civil war thread.
> 
> Anyway, a boatload of contradictions at the posted link.  A constitutional - anarchist who thinks the government can't force people to free the slaves yet thinks the constitution would free the slaves?  Maybe he was going by the "Don't force free states to turn over slaves" argument.  But the constitution specifically required slaves to be turned over.  Fugitive slave laws went against the principle of states rights, but they were totally constitutional (and highly demanded by the very same people claiming to want states' rights).  Ron Paul was right when he said this:
> 
> _A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majoritys demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic._
> 
> Now as for slavery ending peaceably, there is a flaw in the economic argument.  Despite all of the technological advances in the past century there is still slavery.  So slavery is still profitable for *some* people.  It is true that the south actually boomed once slavery ended and industrialization came in.  But convincing the plantation owners who ran things that *they* would have necessarily benefited by loosing free labor just so industrialists could have cheap labor may have been a daunting task.  Indeed if you go all the way back to Greece, they had invented a steam engine.  But (some) historians feel that they never actually put it into use because it was seen as unnecessary since they had abundant slave labor.
> 
> Of course people will point to the "compensated emancipation" model and look to how slaves were freed other places.  Those who look at this ignore two issues.
> ...


point well taken. I would point out one or two things. First, on a side note, the greek steam engine was a palor trick used in the temples of their gods. It just spun a ball in a circle. It did not really do anything so I do not know if anyone ever thought out the practical applications for it, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I might agree with you, I do not know. I know you were not referring to me, but my arguement was that it would have ended peacefully eventually because of economic reasons alone. It would have been proven to be economically inefficient in my opinion.

----------


## Legend1104

> Wasn't referring to the proclamation.  But the law.


Sorry, misunderstood. Did not know what you were talking about.

----------


## ARealConservative

> it would have ended peacefully eventually because of economic reasons alone. It would have been proven to be economically inefficient in my opinion.


it would of been reduced, but again, slavery still exists, even with elevated costs of black market slavery.  So to claim legal slavery would of ever ended outright requires a great deal of tunnel vision.

----------


## Legend1104

> it would of been reduced, but again, slavery still exists, even with elevated costs of black market slavery.  So to claim legal slavery would of ever ended outright requires a great deal of tunnel vision.


I am still trying to figure out where you are talking about? Are you referring to America? I know that there is slavery in the world still today, but where specifically are you referring?

----------


## Danke

> -Iraqis are not located within the borders of the USA
> -Iraqis weren't suffering literal slavery 
> -Freeing African slaves would reap obvious benefits for them, especially if they were transported to the North, whereas any benefits that have been gained from the American invasion of Iraq are dubious at best


Ya.  But that has been one of the justifications for going to war with Iraq.  That Saddam was such an oppressive dictator and we were within our right to liberate the Iraqi people.  Spread "Democracy" etc.

The Union was comprise of independent nations.  Some decided to break with that union.

And an outside force decided to make war on them.  Now we say to liberate some of its people.  Similar to Iraq.

----------


## ARealConservative

> I am still trying to figure out where you are talking about? Are you referring to America? I know that there is slavery in the world still today, but where specifically are you referring?


It exists all over the place, including in the US

http://www.freetheslaves.net/Document.Doc?id=69

to claim technology would make slave labor obsolete is just nonsensical.

----------


## bruce leeroy

> Not really.  Sharecroppers could leave whenever they felt like it.  Many "voted with their feet" and migrated north.  Some left the farm and became railroad porters or worked in factories which sprung up in the south once the evil of slavery ended.  Some bought the land they had been sharecropping on.  I'm one generation removed from sharecroppers so I know what I'm talking about.



by the same token, some slaves were able to buy their freedom.
and I dont know for sure, as Im not one generation removed from sharecropping(however one set of my great granparents were farm hands on west texas cotton farms and cattle ranches, but they traveled), but I have read that in the case of some sharecroppers, life wasnt that different than under slavery

----------


## axiomata

> if you read the history of farm implements, you'd see that slavery would have been replaced by the tractor and combine.
> you could get 4 people to do the job of 100 slaves.
> the cost of hiring 4 people legit would be cheaper than buying 100 slaves, feeding/housing them, etc.
> Looking at the history of farming, a peaceful resolution would definitely be possible.


Why not just train 4 slaves to operate tractors?

----------


## torchbearer

> Why not just train 4 slaves to operate tractors?


no problem with that. you still have to buy and maintain those slaves along with your tractors.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Why not just train 4 slaves to operate tractors?


because you have to feed the 4 slaves.  and house them.  and stuff.

whereas the person you employ voluntarily will eagerly work for a living wage that actually costs less then the amount you are paying to keep a slave in bondage.

make sense?

----------


## Sic Semper Tyrannis

> Lincoln emancipated slaves and enslaved free men (via the first conscription act in American history).
> 
> The justifiable Northern response to the South would have been "Very well, go in peace and good luck to you. Provided you free your slaves, whom we have an obligation to, we will allow you to leave unmolested."
> 
> And of course the South would have said "go $#@! yourself," but at least then the North would have a justified case for a war of liberation.


If the North told the South that then all the South would've needed to say was "CLEAN UP YOUR OWN HOUSE FIRST!!!".

The last slave died in the Northern State of Delaware in 1904. If the North really cared about slavery then that wouldn't have been the case.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Slavery ended peacefully in the europeans countries.
> England didn't go through a civil war to end slavery.
> You just buy up the slaves and ban the sale of humans.


So give money to the people that own slaves?

Anyway I disagree with the argument but part of me wonders who cares?  What is gained by arguing what could have should have would have been done 150 years ago?

----------


## ARealConservative

> no problem with that. you still have to buy and maintain those slaves along with your tractors.


if 400 slaves is cheaper then 400 voluntary workers,  how can 4 slaves and a tractor be more expensive then 4 voluntary workers and a tractor?

you continue to cling to this notion that the tractor fundamentally changes the rules.  Force is still being employed, which subverts the price competition element of the free market.  The tractor changes nothing in this regard.

----------


## FrostyLeaf

I love how people here totally neglect the dealings the Confederacy had with the British Empire and the East India Company.

No one ever mentions the Trent Affair.

No one mentions the KKK was an intelligence service for the south, which boothe was affiliated with.

No one mentions the fact that the British imported 80% of the confederates cotton, milled it at cheap textile facilities in their own country, traded the finished textile products to India for Opium, and then forced opium down the throats of the Chinese and started the opium wars there. They turned Egypt into a cotton colony during the civil war when cotton supplies were shortening. Created a "cotton bubble" that burst shortly after the war ended.

So who were we fighting, really? The British had the south by the balls, and everyone here as well if your one of the "south will rise again" fools. The war of 1812 wasn't even a half century old. My entire ancestory, minus one brother, fought for the south, and to this day I will say they were stooges to the same British Empire that was the enemy in the revolution, and now.

No one here, but me, has said anything about Obama's new Head of the CMD Dr. Donald Herwick.

Herwick served the British NHS under the blair adminstration and "championed" along with blair the NICE(national insitute of clinical excellence) which is the same as the authored IMAB(independent medicare advisory board) here in the states. This man was Knighted by the Queen for his service to the Empire in culling the herd for the oligarchy.

Wake the **** up. The British are coming.

----------


## jmdrake

> If the North told the South that then all the South would've needed to say was "CLEAN UP YOUR OWN HOUSE FIRST!!!".
> 
> The last slave died in the Northern State of Delaware in 1904. If the North really cared about slavery then that wouldn't have been the case.


Link?  If there was a slave in Delaware in 1904 he wasn't legally a slave since the 13th amendment freed all slaves, not just the ones in the south.

----------


## jmdrake

> no problem with that. you still have to buy and maintain those slaves along with your tractors.


You don't have to buy them if you already own them.  And slave "maintenance" wasn't as expensive as people like to pretend.  You just had to set aside enough land for the slaves to grow their own subsistence crops.  And while automation has greatly reduced the need for manual labour, it still exists which is why you have migrate farm workers who are exempt from minimum wage laws.

----------


## jmdrake

> by the same token, some slaves were able to buy their freedom.
> and I dont know for sure, as Im not one generation removed from sharecropping(however one set of my great granparents were farm hands on west texas cotton farms and cattle ranches, but they traveled), but I have read that in the case of some sharecroppers, life wasnt that different than under slavery


Sharecropping hasn't been outlawed so technically it can still exist.  The big number one difference between slavery and sharecropping is the ability to vote with your feet.  Sharecropping ended with my dad's family when he and his brothers joined the military.  People move away to factory jobs.  Or a factory opens down the street.  Yes there were abuses and attempts to force people to stay on the farm through fake debts and such, but without fugitive slave laws that didn't work out too well.  You hear about horror stories with cheap immigrant labour back in the day (some today also) but again people could vote with their feet.  That makes all the difference.

----------


## RyanRSheets

> it doesn't end the economic advantage slave labor has over non coercive labor.


Non-coercive labor is much more productive than coercive labor.  That is even a pillar of the argument for Capitalism.  I don't see your point.

----------


## torchbearer

> You don't have to buy them if you already own them.  And slave "maintenance" wasn't as expensive as people like to pretend.  You just had to set aside enough land for the slaves to grow their own subsistence crops.  And while automation has greatly reduced the need for manual labour, it still exists which is why you have migrate farm workers who are exempt from minimum wage laws.


yes, but the owners of the slaves only have so much land, so when the tractor is invented, he doesn't need 100 slaves anymore. he basically has too many people to do the job. so, either he'd try to sell the slaves on market where there is little demand- or he releases them. keeping only a handful that is required to farm the land. meanwhile, the rise of the small farmer is birthed with the invention of heavy farm equipment and now the big business has to compete with 100's of small farms who can farm just as much land with no slaves.
The slave model is then obsolete.

----------


## jmdrake

> point well taken. I would point out one or two things. First, on a side note, the greek steam engine was a palor trick used in the temples of their gods. It just spun a ball in a circle. It did not really do anything so I do not know if anyone ever thought out the practical applications for it, but I could be wrong.
> 
> Anyway, I might agree with you, I do not know. I know you were not referring to me, but my arguement was that it would have ended peacefully eventually because of economic reasons alone. It would have been proven to be economically inefficient in my opinion.


Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have.  It certainly would have been greatly reduced by the advent of technology.  Then again the end of slavery itself helped spur the advent of technology.  Everytime labor prices increase, management seeks to offset the cost somehow and one obvious way is through automation.  There's a reason why automation came to agriculture in the north sooner than it did in the south and it wasn't just because wheat is that much easier to combine than cotton.  Longer winters made slavery less practical in the north which meant their need to offset labor costs was greater.

Anyway, I'm certain that eventually demand for slaves would have gone down.  I'm also just as certain that there would have been "holdouts".  Would the southern states have eventually forced the holdouts to give up their slaves?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Cause for speculation.

Of course there's something else nobody brings up in these discussions.  Was the revolutionary war necessary?  People talk about slavery ending in other countries without war.  Nobody talks about the fact that most of England's colonies got their independence without war.  Maybe the south could have become independent without war.  After all, if a scrawny Indian lawyer wrapped in a sheet could take on the mighty British empire without firing a shot....

----------


## jmdrake

> yes, but the owners of the slaves only have so much land, so when the tractor is invented, he doesn't need 100 slaves anymore. he basically has too many people to do the job. so, either he'd try to sell the slaves on market where there is little demand- or he releases them. keeping only a handful that is required to farm the land. meanwhile, the rise of the small farmer is birthed with the invention of heavy farm equipment and now the big business has to compete with 100's of small farms who can farm just as much land with no slaves.
> The slave model is then obsolete.


Move out west and get more land.  Or plant crops that are more labor intensive than cotton but give higher profits like tomatoes (still hand picked).  The fact that you *still* hear of cases of migrant farm workers being held against their will and forced to work for free even though the people doing this face civil and criminal penalties for doing so means that the slave model isn't totally finished by economics alone.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Non-coercive labor is much more productive than coercive labor.  That is even a pillar of the argument for Capitalism.  I don't see your point.


Yes, I imagine it is more productive.

Yet slavery has always existed.  Why do you think that is so?  Why bother with slaves if it is more cost effective to not use force?

1 productive man might = 3 slaves in productivity, but he might cost as much as 4 slaves.  Somehow, it was economic advantage to use slave labor.  Claiming the tractor changed the rules is nonsensical without holding the view that a slave is inferior and too stupid to operate a tractor.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Non-coercive labor is much more productive than coercive labor.  That is even a pillar of the argument for Capitalism.  I don't see your point.


I doubt that's true for menial low wage jobs.  I worked a lot of minimum wage jobs in high school and was never very motivated or productive - worst case they would fire me and I'd find an equivalent job in a couple days.  

Whereas if they tell you "you better pick all this cotton and if you don't do a good enough job we'll whip you and/or kill you" I'd probably work pretty hard.

----------

