3 ms·
Slavery was less efficient than a market economy and a free labor pool. Consider the Irish who built the Erie Canal. They were paid mostly in rum and they died
by nickbauman 10y ago
Slavery was less efficient than a market economy and a free labor pool. Consider the Irish who built the Erie Canal. They were paid mostly in rum and they died off so quickly the bosses didn't care because a fresh crop of Irish workers walked off the boat the following week.
Slaves had to be fed and housed and nominally cared for. After all, they cost money and you didn't want to throw away your investment.
The slavery economy, which is what the South fought to preserve in the American Civil War (let's face it: those who like to hide behind "states rights", it all comes back to "states rights to buy and have slaves"), was a last gasp to try to preserve what was left of feudalism. It was doomed before it began.
Please don't misconstrue this as being "pro slavery". Treating humans as property is an abomination. Even the Romans believed this and enshrined it into their legal codes even though they kept slaves.
- hueving 10y ago>let's face it: those who like to hide behind "states rights", it all comes back to "states rights to buy and have slaves" This is an idiotic strawman. That's the equivalent of saying that people who think countries in the European Union should be mostly free to implement their own laws are pro slavery. Smaller localized government control vs one rule for everyone has little to do with slavery. There is no reason that slavery couldn't exist in a strong central federal government system either.
- hn_throwaway_99 10y agoI think you are misunderstanding the context of the parent's argument. I'm assuming he's not talking about all states' rights arguments, only those applied to the US Civil War. If you look at historical documents, protecting the institution of slavery was clearly the main driver for the Southern states to secede. It relatively recent years, Southern apologists have tried to rewrite this as "No, they were just for States' Rights", because this is currently less offensive than saying they just wanted to own slaves.
- nickbauman 10y agoYes you're misunderstanding the point. It refers to southern US states who claimed states rights when seceding from the Union in the American Civil War.
- hueving 10y agoI apologize then, the grammar implied the present tense - "those who like to". There are lots of conservatives who like to advocate for stronger state level governance now, but I don't know of any movement to bring back slavery.