Posted on 03/30/2007 5:09:20 PM PDT by neverdem
Horiwitz is also a complete ignoramus when it come to the Constitution (or perhaps he needs to brush up on his math and most defiantly his history.)
When Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many Southerners, fearing that Lincoln would abolish slavery, felt they had no obligation to accept the results of the election.
Lincoln, nor any President, had no power whatsoever to end slavery. All agreed then and now, that to end slavery required a constitutional amendment.
Amendments have been very few over the last 230 years for a simple reason. They have to be approved by 3/4 of the states only after a 2/3 majority vote in each house of congress.
Even today, if slavery still existed, with 50 states instead of the 35 that existed in 1860, an amendment to ban slavery could not pass if if it were rejected by only 13 states. In 1860, it would have only taken six states to block an amendment yet their were 15 slave states who obviously oppose such and amendment.
The issue in 1860 was expansion of slavery, not the abolition of slavery. Lincoln only promised to stop expansion of slavery --- which had been a bone of contention between the north and south for the previous 40 years. No sane person, North or South, thought he could abolish slavery with some stroke of the pen. And no one even considered gun control back then --- except in the Confederacy where blacks could not own firearms.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Probably because Wickard v. Filburn had yet to have been decided.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Article V of the Constitution, but I suppose you're going to explain it to us.
Sure. Per Wickard v. Filburn, the federal government is free to impose any sort or restriction it sees fit on anything vaguely resembling interstate commerce. If no amendment was required to authorize things like the minimum wage, or OSHA, or any of its other meddling, I see no reason why one would be required to make slavery uneconomical.
Dixie Ping [><]
Amen! :)
Maa'm, you are SO right! :)
What part of East Texas are you from.
(I'm a native of Rusk & Palestine originally...:)
Jeff Davis will be pleased. Oh, wait, he'd dead and the Civil War has been over for 142 years. Nevermind.
But I love lunatic Confederates. WTF?
The libs are having a hissy fit.
Remedy: more range time.
The cotton gin made American slavery really profitable for the first time.
Given the rate of gun crime by blacks in DC, it doesn't seem to be working.
How did the economics of slavery compare with those of immigrant workers? I'd think that immigrant workers would make more economic sense.
Slavery in the South earned an average return on investment of 10% per year, comparable to other types of investments. In a non-inflationary (and during much of the period actually deflationary) and essentially no-tax economy, this wasn't too shabby.
Most years between 1830 and 1860 the resale value of a slave increased. Thus the investment was similar to buying farmland rather than renting it. You make 10% a year on your original investment, and each year your investment is worth more.
Or think of it as a mutual fund. You invest $50,000. Each year you receive a tax-free dividend of $5,000. Meanwhile, over 10 years your $50,000 investment increases in value to $75,000. Your total return for the 10 years is $75,000 over your original investment. (And of course you still have your original $50k.)
Renting labor by hiring free workers wasn't nearly as good an investment.
No, it did not. It affirmed what was written in the Constitution.
On the other hand, slaves would have required considerable upkeep, would they not? If a free worker is malnourished and consequently becomes ineffective, he can be fired and replaced at no cost. If a slave is malnourished and becomes ineffective, that represents a major loss of investment.
10% average return on investment includes all slaves. Obviously some slaves were really bad investments. They got sick and died, for instance, and there goes your money. Or they ran away.
One factor that allowed slavery to thrive in the cotton south was the relatively even distribution of work over the course of a year. There was no incentive to hire workers just for the harvest, as you needed labor all year.
Slaveowners weren't stupid. They were well aware of the risk and rewards of the institution, and they chose to continue it. Slave prices generally increased from 1800 to 1860, although fluctuating with economic factors such as depression and cotton prices. Slave prices reached their peak in 1860, about $1500 for a prime field hand, at a time when the per capita GDP (according to one source, although it sounds low to me) was $137.
That buyers were willing to pay these prices is an excellent indication that they saw the purchase of a slave as a good investment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.