Moral outrage and the U.S. Civil War

[pchang]

Everyone knows that slavery was just a cover to keep the evil Southern, vampire plantation owners supplied with fresh blood........

Just ask Mr. fun.

[rah]

Wasn't there a movie about that?

[pchang]

That's how you know it's true.

[rah]

I kept telling myself that I would watch it when it made it to free cable. Naw, couldn't do it. I could never get past the original premise.

And considering I'm a big syfi/fantasy fan, that's saying a lot.

[pchang]

Mr. Fun put a lot of work into writing those homoerotic scenes with a shirtless Abe training on the Ax with his vampire mentor. How can you say no to that?

[rah]

Quite easily actually.

[Dr Strangelove]

The Civil War was fought because the South Carolina militia got impatient to take control of the forts in their harbors. Also Jefferson Davis was too stupid to barter access to the Gulf via the lower Mississippi in exchange for Federal property in the southern states.

Slavery wasn't doing so bad in 1860. Does anyone have real figures comparing the profitability of tobacco and cotton on slave plantations vs. non-slave farms?

Slavery or no slavery, the bottom of the economy of the South would have dropped to the floor after 1870 anyway because in order to pay for the Suez Canal most of Europe put up subsidies and customs to favor the import of cotton and tobacco from Asia. Perhaps with slavery the plantation owners might have weathered the storm better.

[grumbler]

The Civil War was fought because the South Carolina militia got impatient to take control of the forts in their harbors. Also Jefferson Davis was too stupid to barter access to the Gulf via the lower Mississippi in exchange for Federal property in the southern states.

Actually, those militia had been called up in the service of the Confederate States of America, and were acting for the CSA under the command of Confederate general PT Beauregard. I don't think the CSA was impatient to get all one of "the forts" in Charleston Harbor; the siege of Fort Sumpter lasted from South Carolina's secession in Dec 1860 through the middle of April 1861. The Confederacy did want to take the fort before it could be reinforced.

Jefferson Davis was never in any position to barter anything for US property.

Slavery wasn't doing so bad in 1860. Does anyone have real figures comparing the profitability of tobacco and cotton on slave plantations vs. non-slave farms?

Indian cotton (i.e. from non-slave farms) was cheaper at the dock in Britain than American cotton, despite the greatly increased transport costs. It was of inferior quality (much shorter fibers) so wasn't as desirable. When long-fiber varieties were introduced as a result of the outbreak of the ACW, Indian cotton matched Southern cotton in quality (though not quantity). That was long after the war, though.

Slavery or no slavery, the bottom of the economy of the South would have dropped to the floor after 1870 anyway because in order to pay for the Suez Canal most of Europe put up subsidies and customs to favor the import of cotton and tobacco from Asia. Perhaps with slavery the plantation owners might have weathered the storm better.

Actually, that's not true. First, "most of Europe" didn't care about the Suez Canal's finances, and second, by 1870 the bulk of cotton grown in the US was being consumed in the US. Slavery would have died a slow death even in the absence of the ACW, as not even the "free" labor of slaves could compete with machinery.

[giblets]

Slavery would have died a slow death even in the absence of the ACW, as not even the "free" labor of slaves could compete with machinery.

Machinery makes labor more valuable, not less valuable. If machinery made labor less valuable wages would have fallen over the last two hundred years.

[Aeson]

The problem is how to properly whip the operator of the tractor if they happen to go rogue?

[grumbler]

Machinery makes labor more valuable, not less valuable. If machinery made labor less valuable wages would have fallen over the last two hundred years.

Machinery makes some labor more valuable and some labor less valuable. Not many peasants wielding sickles these days.

[DaShi]

You couldn't afford them.

[giblets]

Machinery makes some labor more valuable and some labor less valuable. Not many peasants wielding sickles these days.

If you're claiming that it's literally impossible to use slaves in any occupation outside of agriculture- modern slavery and human trafficking would contradict that.

[grumbler]

If you're claiming that it's literally impossible to use slaves in any occupation outside of agriculture- modern slavery and human trafficking would contradict that.

Why don't you respond to my actual posts and not to strawmen of your own devising?

[grumbler]

You couldn't afford them.

Sure I could afford them, since all I have to pay is what their labor is worth to me. That value is so low, though, that they'd never accept it. It wouldn't be a living wage.