Posted on 07/19/2017 4:34:02 PM PDT by Ciaphas Cain
Yeah that will calm the racial tensions down in this country.
Soros backed?
You can't have a thriving economy if nobody buys your product.
And many plantation owners were coming to realize that freed employees, allowed to work for you and also for their own families, tended to be more productive than people owned as property. Manumission became more common.
But the northern interests didn't want competition. And a consequence was that the South... which would have given up slavery sooner than later... instead hunkered down and said "SCREW YOU!"
Slavery could have ended by virtue of the free market. Instead the matter was forced at the point of a gun. Can't really blame anyone for responding in kind, if their homes and their families are threatened.
Please. I’ve been down this road before with the ‘’economic’’ bs about the Northern bankers and the South was going to abandon slavery nonsense, ok? The South fought tool and nail to preserve slavery ans lost.
Or the Draka Domination by Stirling, featuring uber-Nazis so bad the Nazis are fighting for the good side, humanity.
Also moves into the 1970s with spaceships and slavery, while the stand alone novel Drakon features genetically engineered slaves, engineered masters with total domination except humans who fled to another solar system.
You ended up with inefficient allocation of labor and low productivity for a fair percentage, both masters and overseers.
Compare Kentucky’s relatively poor agricultural state to Ohio of the time and decades later.
An "honorable" peace was made, and staved off conflict. But the ill will remained between the regions. Especially in industrial terms.
It was an economic war as much as it was a war about sovereignty and a war about ending an unjust institution. And many would sincerely argue that the moral and political causes were but peripheral aspects of the REAL driving motives of the war.
At the outset, yes, slavery was seen as an asset because of the importance of agriculture to the southern economy - and it was seen as an issue worth fighting over (see the Kansas-Missouri Border War). However, the big picture that drove the U.S. to "restore the Union" was the realization that the Confederacy would end up holding part of the western territories all the way to the Pacific. That wasn't a huge military threat early on, as the CSA had minimal industry and little capital to spare.
However, as an alternate route for western settlement, it was absolutely an economic threat. The Northern bankers did indeed worry about New York and Boston losing business to southern port cities.
If Buchanan had half the spine Jackson did the civil war might not have happened.
You mean, (guessing) kentucky started to catch up to ohio in agriculture after slavery was abolished?
I have a vague recollection of a contention that it takes a lot of supervisory manpower to keep slavery working, and that manpower is a drain on net productivity; i wonder if i got that contention correct and if so, if it is true.
Huh? Third Civil War? Did I fall asleep and miss something?
Besides, the Usual Race Baiting Suspects will be out of their minds raving over a TV series depicting institutionalized slavery of blacks.
And fags.
Did I miss the second one?
Hopefully not the Nazi parallels. I think Turtledove went a bit overboard on those.
A little bit earlier, 1935 or there about.
Slavery only works when slavers are not in competition with free men for land. A free man works as hard as he can, to provide for his family. A slave only works as hard as he has to, to avoid punishment. The free man will thus produce more from an acre of land than the slave will, and thus be able to out-bid the slaver for land.
Slavery only worked in this country when land was effectively free to whoever was willing to claim it and farm on it. Once the country filled up, slavery would be uneconomical. That's why there was such a continuous push by the slavers to legalize slavery in the western territories.
While I agree with you that the premise of slavery continuing to this day is unrealistic, so is the idea that it would have ended within 10 years had the South won their independence. The end of the century or later is probably more likely.
And many plantation owners were coming to realize that freed employees, allowed to work for you and also for their own families, tended to be more productive than people owned as property. Manumission became more common.
You can't make money by selling freed employees or their babies.
Guns of the South is a great book if you are 23.
If anybody ever invents a time machine, I’m stealing it!
the South was strangled by the high tariffs that benefitted the North.
In a way, the North was a parasite on the productivity of the South.
“the South was strangled by the high tariffs that benefitted the North.
In a way, the North was a parasite on the productivity of the South. “
Thanks. This motivated me to do a web search, and I found this:
http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
by David John Marotta & Megan Russell | 06-23-2013
Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience in spite of sound economics prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff act . For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War.
In addition to generating revenue, a tariff hurts the ability of foreigners to sell in domestic markets. An affordable or high-quality foreign good is dangerous competition for an expensive or low-quality domestic one. But when a tariff bumps up the price of the foreign good, it gives the domestic one a price advantage. The rate of the tariff varies by industry.
If the tariff is high enough, even an inefficient domestic company can compete with a vastly superior foreign company. It is the industry’s consumers who ultimately pay this tax and the industry’s producers who benefit in profits.
[photo caption: The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant’s moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.]
As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs.
Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition.
Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.
Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.
With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government’s annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.
[...]
Wow, that was a great link. I’m glad to have spurred that, assuming I did indeed spur that.
I will always stick to my thesis that the attack on the South was firstly and primarily an economic one.
Slavery, meh.
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.