Moral outrage and the U.S. Civil War

[N35t0r]

Anything that is unprofitable can be kept for much much longer than would be reasonable, if the main objective is to maintain it no matter the cost.

[Aeson]

Not when we are talking about whether slavery would have continued onwards without the Civil War or whether it would have withered away for being unprofitable.

The hypothetical giblet and I are discussing is if the CSA had managed to survive and held onto slavery. (It didn't and couldn't have happened of course.)

What people in 1850 thought was going to happen isn't important since we're already using "held onto slavery and somehow avoided the Civil War" as a given.

[Aeson]

Anything that is unprofitable can be kept for much much longer than would be reasonable, if the main objective is to maintain it no matter the cost.

And my point is that doing so leads to a weaker economy.

[giblets]

How do you measure the fundamental value of owning a slave and compare it to the actual prices slaves were bought and sold for in slave markets?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And my point is that doing so leads to a weaker economy.

So? People hold onto things that lead to weaker economies all the time - because of the perceived value to those making the policy decisions. They may be richer than they would otherwise even if the economy is weaker overall.

[N35t0r]

And my point is that doing so leads to a weaker economy.

Yeah, exactly (take Cuba for example). My post was written with Imran's in mind, only xpost.

[Sava]

So? People hold onto things that lead to weaker economies all the time - because of the perceived value to those making the policy decisions. They may be richer than they would otherwise even if the economy is weaker overall.

clinging to the oil economy is a good example

[giblets]

There are plenty of examples of special interest groups being able to preserve things that weaken the economy and make the majority worse off... like crop subsidies being paid to farmers for not growing anything.

[Aeson]

So? People hold onto things that lead to weaker economies all the time - because of the perceived value to those making the policy decisions. They may be richer than they would otherwise even if the economy is weaker overall.

So ... I'm right. The CSA would have been backwards in that hypothetical. Just because it may have had some rich white people doesn't change that. (Maybe you missed most of this thread?)

[Aeson]

There are plenty of examples of special interest groups being able to preserve things that weaken the economy and make the majority worse off... like crop subsidies being paid to farmers for not growing anything.

Yes, we'd be better off without them. Just like the South would have been better off dumping slavery rather than trying to preserve it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So ... I'm right. The CSA would have been backwards in that hypothetical. Just because it may have had some rich white people doesn't change that. (Maybe you missed most of this thread?)

To me it appears you have a selective reading of the thread. It appears that you were arguing that the depressed overall economic picture for the South would have doomed the entire institution of slavery. After all, giblets' point seems to be that while economic activity would have been depressed, those who were the privileged would have had a decent standard of living and those in power would have had a very comfortable standard of living and therefore the impetus to get rid of the institution wouldn't have occurred (at least until much, much later).

[Aeson]

To me it appears you have a selective reading of the thread. It appears that you were arguing that the depressed overall economic picture for the South would have doomed the entire institution of slavery. After all, giblets' point seems to be that while economic activity would have been depressed, those who were the privileged would have had a decent standard of living and those in power would have had a very comfortable standard of living and therefore the impetus to get rid of the institution wouldn't have occurred (at least until much, much later).

In the long run, yes, slavery was doomed even if you spot the CSA the Civil War. I have mentioned various factors that would have each lead to that on their own ... What form that doom would take, and how much pain the CSA would be willing to take before throwing in the towl in the hypothetical is hard to say.

Giblet's points were handwaving to claim that a CSA with slavery wouldn't have been backwards because some white folk might have been rich and that's all that matters to him.

[giblets]

Yes, we'd be better off without them. Just like the South would have been better off dumping slavery rather than trying to preserve it.

Nice to see you're agreeing with me!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Giblet's points were handwaving to claim that a CSA with slavery wouldn't have been backwards because some white folk might have been rich and that's all that matters to him.

A very uncharitable and unfair reading of his position.

[Aeson]

Nice to see you're agreeing with me!

If you could avoid being wrong more often it would happen more often.