Moral outrage and the U.S. Civil War

[giblets]

Putting junk food into the basket of your motorized shopping cart should be illegal

[Aeson]

This is a strawman, I did not claim that South Africa as a whole wasn't backwards.

I said that the CSA would have been backwards. You countered with South Africa, mentioning how the whites there weren't poor. You didn't acknowledge that South Africa was backwards at all, and used it to argue that CSA wouldn't have been backwards.

You (apparently) claimed the CSA would be on par with Central America which is an exaggeration because the existence of slavery wouldn't have undermined the productivity of white workers to anywhere near that extent.

A small number of very rich people, a rather large number of slaves, and everyone else who would rather leave for the better jobs. I don't think it's a stretch to say CSA holding onto slavery was going to be backwards if not outright conquered.

[giblets]

Oh, if I didn't explicitly say that South Africa as a whole was backwards then I guess it's okay for you to put words in my mouth and claim I said the opposite.

[Aeson]

Oh, if I didn't explicitly say that South Africa as a whole was backwards then I guess it's okay for you to put words in my mouth and claim I said the opposite.

So are you finally admitting the CSA would have been backwards?

[giblets]

If you're comparing the productivity of black workers to first world standards yes. If you're looking at the productivity of white workers it probably would have qualified as first world. Overall somewhat backwards.

[Aeson]

You still don't seem to be accounting for (or making an argument against) any of this:

a) the North was demonstrably already able to conquer the CSA
...
c) the North had a growing sentiment against slavery
d) the rest of the world had a growing sentiment against slavery
e) the CSA was heavily reliant on exports
f) the CSA didn't have the capital to industrialize anywhere as fast as the North
g) slaves are even more inefficient in industrial economies if the CSA ever managed to get that done
h) most of the whites in the CSA were not slave owners, and would have eventually had more opportunities emigrating to the North
i) Manifest Destiny
j) Monroe Doctrine

[Sava]

half of your arguments are also why the scenario in question can't happen

gotta ask... are you high?

[Sava]

SMOKIN DAT REEFER HYDROOOO

[giblets]

Half of those things are irrelevant because the premise is that the North is either unable or unwilling to conquer the South. And you could claim the North didn't have sufficient capital to fully industrialize itself- after all British investors put plenty of money into railroads in the US. Also, Northern industry benefited from high tariffs and the USA's protectionist policies would have been less effective in promoting industrialization if the CSA were independent. Slaves would be employed in areas where they have a comparative advantage- that is wherever the efficiency gap between slave labor and paid labor is smallest- while paid labor did everything else. Since cotton is a fungible commodity it would be difficult to harm the South's cotton exports through a boycott. In the 19th century the US was reliant on British support in order to actually enforce the Monroe Doctrine and the British government frankly wouldn't have seen US dominance over the CSA as being in Britain's interest.

[Aeson]

Half of those things are irrelevant because the premise is that the North is either unable or unwilling to conquer the South.

No, the hypothetical is that the Civil War didn't happen. At points I have eliminated all conquest for clarity on the applicability of a specific factor (since some of them doom slavery in and of themselves eventually), but that was not the basic premise ... only what would have happened if you spotted the CSA the Civil War. All other options (such as an actual war to try to stop slavery, arming slave rebellions, Manifest Destiny) were still on the table, and have specifically been mentioned before. This is important because an economy has to support a military which can protect it or suffer the consequences. Not doing so is just another way for an economy to show itself as deficient and open the doors to various forms of of being exploited/destroyed by foreign interests. Trying to rely on a magical fairy defence for your economy to show how well it would have functioned clearly belies how weak that economy would have been.

The CSA was already too weak militarily to protect/promote their interests (they did very well with what they had in the Civil War and still lost), and would have continued to lose ground to the North in that regard. Whether this was displayed in outright conquest, or in other ways (using the position of strength to favor extractive US ventures in the CSA) doesn't so much matter.

And you could claim the North didn't have sufficient capital to fully industrialize itself- after all British investors put plenty of money into railroads in the US.

The difference being by the time of the Civil War, the North was demonstrably more industrialized than the South, and better set up to continue industrializing. Pretending the North couldn't do what it already was doing is silly.

Claiming the South was industrializing slower is just pointing to an obvious historical fact.

Also, Northern industry benefited from high tariffs and the USA's protectionist policies would have been less effective in promoting industrialization if the CSA were independent.

No one is claiming the situation wouldn't have harmed the North relative to what the US was able to do as a whole. (At least in the long run. For a short period of time it's likely the North would have outperformed the actual timeline USA in most sectors due to avoiding the terrible destruction of the Civil War.)

Slaves would be employed in areas where they have a comparative advantage- that is wherever the efficiency gap between slave labor and paid labor is smallest- while paid labor did everything else.

So you are admitting slavery was doomed economically. Slave labor would have increasingly lost it's comparative advantage as time went by, definitely by the 1950's open slavery would have no comparative advantage in any area.

Also you have failed to address the point where the higher paying jobs would have been in the North, drawing much of the most capable and motivated free Southerners away.

Since cotton is a fungible commodity it would be difficult to harm the South's cotton exports through a boycott.

Cotton was not the only of CSA's exports, and if they wanted to survive long without becoming a horrible backwater would have had to become a small part of the economy eventually. Agriculture, which cotton is only a small part of, makes up 5% of the modern US economy.

The extent of boycotts would have increased internationally (and even internally) over time. By 1950's a worldwide boycott and banning would have happened. Slavery was a doomed system.

Demonstrably the US was able to harm the South's cotton exports through a blockade as well. One of the disadvantages of being weak militarily.

In the 19th century the US was reliant on British support in order to actually enforce the Monroe Doctrine and the British government frankly wouldn't have seen US dominance over the CSA as being in Britain's interest.

The British demonstrably decided conflict with the US wasn't worth stopping US dominance over the CSA. Popular support for the US over the CSA would have only grown over time as slavers became more and more repulsive internationally.

[Aeson]

To the "slavery wasn't doomed" crowd ... would you buy products you knew were produced via slavery?

[giblets]

Would you buy something that was made in North Korea if the quality of the product was acceptable...?
Or do you boycott everything that was made in a country that doesn't respect human rights?
Do blood diamonds sell?
You're just making shaky hypothetical claims and then getting butthurt when other people don't accept them.

[Aeson]

I see you're dodging the question. I'm a little confused to whether you are doing so because you are afraid to admit you would buy slaved products or whether it's because you are afraid to admit near universal boycotts would have been an eventuality?

Would you buy something that was made in North Korea if the quality of the product was acceptable...?

I would not want to support the North Korean regime, and would assume all of the profit from the sale of the items was going to the NK elite rather than to help the plight of the poor. It's not as clear an issue as if North Korea were outright slavers like the CSA, but still no, I would avoid buying any products which were produced in North Korea as best I could. (I am not aware of any such products. Are there any?)

Or do you boycott everything that was made in a country that doesn't respect human rights?

Its important to note that this is not a proper analog. I said "... were produced via slavery?" not "... produced in a country which to some extent practiced slavery". Supporting free labor in a slave state would have been a good thing generally speaking, though supporting free labor in a similarly developed non-slave state would have been better. The CSA may have been to a % of the economy where a general boycott made sense.

The South had a large reliance on slaves, so a large portion of their economy (including their main exports) would have been produced via slavery and definitely should be boycotted. The CSA could not have hidden millions of slaves and their treatment from public view the way some small entities are able to do to fool consumers.

[giblets]

Jesus why do you keep writing text walls?

[giblets]

Most people wouldn't deliberately buy blood diamonds, yet blood diamonds still sell. Of course many people don't even think about where diamonds come from when they buy them.