Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Slavery caused secession.
The civil war was over the economy. Lincoln fucking said so. He even offered to let them keep their slaves if they came back.
You people need to get past your fifth grade social studies education.
But it would be MORE profitable with cheaper labor. Once you get into the greed vs. non-greed, pseudo-morality thing you fall off into purely subjective value making.The question is…
Would cotton be profitable without slave labor?
The answer is……very much so
Brother Beau of YouTube fame breaks down why very thoroughly in this succinct video essay. Watch...
That means if your mammy or pappy told you it was over "Northern aggression" or "States rights" they were lying to you.
It wasn't. It was all about slavery.
But it would be MORE profitable with cheaper labor. Once you get into the greed vs. non-greed, pseudo-morality thing you fall off into purely subjective value making.
How do you propose to get the cotton out of the field without labor?Wouldn’t everything be more profitable if you didn’t have to pay for labor?
How do you propose to get the cotton out of the field without labor?
I don’t know enough details about whether the Cotton industry was profitable enough with out slaves but I will agree with you that slaves added more profit. Either way, it was economically impacting to the Southern Economy (not a justification, just an analysis). I can see the bitterness as result of the outcome of the War spilling over to Jim Crow.The South did not “need” Slavery, they just wanted low cost/free labor.
Cotton was tremendously profitable. With slavery, more profit went to the plantation owner.
The South also wanted to keep blacks as a subclass in their society. Which they did with Jim Crow
. I can see the bitterness as result of the outcome of the War spilling over to Jim Crow.
Pay them, you know like you do now.How do you propose to get the cotton out of the field without labor?
Why do that when you can get the labor for free?Pay them, you know like you do now.
Judging from your posts, it’s safe to assume that you don’t work.Why do that when you can get the labor for free?
Well, I am not a slave. I am also an employer, which means I am not some leftist turd.Judging from your posts, it’s safe to assume that you don’t work.
But if you did, wouldn’t you want to be paid for it?
Because the Army of the Potomac will blow you all to hell?Why do that when you can get the labor for free?
Actually you are wrong; both you and the slave owners refused to see the truth. Free labor is both cheaper and more productive than slave labor.The South did not “need” Slavery, they just wanted low cost/free labor.
Cotton was tremendously profitable. With slavery, more profit went to the plantation owner.
The South also wanted to keep blacks as a subclass in their society. Which they did with Jim Crow
You still have to pay for labor if you own slaves. You have to pay to support them 24/7/365 regardless of how, or even IF, they work. You can't lay them off when work is slow, or your profits go into the toilet because your expenses exceed your income. Free labor, especially back then, could be laid off or fired at a minute's notice. Free labor provided its own food, housing and health care and when injured could be simply fired, not nursed back to health at the expense of the owner like a slave.Wouldn’t everything be more profitable if you didn’t have to pay for labor?
Those poor slave owners, they had it tough.You still have to pay for labor if you own slaves. You have to pay to support them 24/7/365 regardless of how, or even IF, they work. You can't lay them off when work is slow, or your profits go into the toilet because your expenses exceed your income. Free labor, especially back then, could be laid off or fired at a minute's notice. Free labor provided its own food, housing and health care and when injured could be simply fired, not nursed back to health at the expense of the owner like a slave.
Other than slaves, what free labor are you talking about?You still have to pay for labor if you own slaves. You have to pay to support them 24/7/365 regardless of how, or even IF, they work. You can't lay them off when work is slow, or your profits go into the toilet because your expenses exceed your income. Free labor, especially back then, could be laid off or fired at a minute's notice. Free labor provided its own food, housing and health care and when injured could be simply fired, not nursed back to health at the expense of the owner like a slave.
You make a great point. Essentially, the slavers were paying the slaves the monetary value of room and board, food, exercise (field labor is better than a gym membership), etc...You still have to pay for labor if you own slaves. You have to pay to support them 24/7/365 regardless of how, or even IF, they work. You can't lay them off when work is slow, or your profits go into the toilet because your expenses exceed your income. Free labor, especially back then, could be laid off or fired at a minute's notice. Free labor provided its own food, housing and health care and when injured could be simply fired, not nursed back to health at the expense of the owner like a slave.
You would not know, you pontificating iPhone, Prius boi. It's hot in the south. There was no a/c back then. The slaves were so damn lazy that the land owners had to hire and pay overseers to make them work. The owners had to pay for the slaves' upkeep. Obviously, he is not going to treat the slaves badly because they are an investment. They are chattel, and nobody is going to intentionally break shit they own. Why would he?!? The only time a slave may get a beating was when THEY caused trouble, like raping a white woman or trying to run off, the latter of which is tantamount to theft (of labor).Those poor slave owners, they had it tough.
Well that is certainly a unique and timely opinion.You would not know, you pontificating iPhone, Prius boi. It's hot in the south. There was no a/c back then. The slaves were so damn lazy that the land owners had to hire and pay overseers to make them work. The owners had to pay for the slaves' upkeep. Obviously, he is not going to treat the slaves badly because they are an investment. They are chattel, and nobody is going to intentionally break shit they own. Why would he?!? The only time a slave may get a beating was when THEY caused trouble, like raping a white woman or trying to run off, the latter of which is tantamount to theft (of labor).
I am not saying that slaving was a good thing. I am just saying that it was not nearly as bad as you leftist cum puddles try to make it out to be. You act like you are some kind of valid arbiter of good and bad, yet you demand the right to murder unborn babies and to pollute people's bodies with drugs, among other gross and deviant causes you have.
