3 ms·
No doubt, it was about slavery. However, it was also about economics. Slave labor really changes the equation when manual labor is needed for production. Thi
by FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
No doubt, it was about slavery. However, it was also about economics. Slave labor really changes the equation when manual labor is needed for production. This is especially relevant in the current model, where businesses of a certain size can afford to overcome shipping costs and enjoy lowered costs of production in emerging economies.
- paulddraper 8y agoIndeed. Tariffs (primarily affecting manufactured goods) was a huge point of contention, rivaled only by the slavery issue. During the Civil War there was "Cotton diplomacy" [1] where the South tried to pull Britain and France onto its side, under the presumption that their need for cotton would win out. Despite the cotton famine [2] they managed to stay neutral. Anyway...economics (then and now) are king. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_diplomacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_diplomacy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Cotton_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Cotton_Famine
- bunderbunder 8y agoI've never really bought that story, in that form. It tacitly suggests that the South's economy was stronger with slavery than without. It seems more likely to me, though, that reliance on slavery was part of why the South's economy ended up being so weak in the first place. It allowed money to remain concentrated in the hands of a small, landed elite. That worked out extremely well for them relative to their neighbors, but also would have fueled a sort of falling tide that sinks all boats. Which isn't to say that it doesn't change the economic equation if you take it away. But it's more tenable to say that the reason people were willing to go to war over it was more about the economics of power than about economics in general.