3 ms·

"Preserving slavery was so ingrained in the Southern mindset that I feel fairly certain the plantation owners would have gone through a certain amount of econom

"Preserving slavery was so ingrained in the Southern mindset that I feel fairly certain the plantation owners would have gone through a certain amount of economic dislocation if that meant keeping the slaves and the social system built on slaves." Yes, and that's OK. Free men with tractors were about to tear out the foundations of slavery. We know that slavery was economically infeasible by 1920, and that's with a decade or two of lost progress due to War losses. With a balls-out effort for industrial independence, that could probably have been accelerated to 1890. That didn't happen because the abolitionists decided that it was better to kill one man today than to free two men tomorrow, and because the CSA let the abolitionists choose the terms of the conflict. "Besides, even if you're right, the CSA still would never have allowed former slaves equal rights." And that's OK too. In a Christian nation, the master is responsible for his estate's dependents, even if there is no use for them. After farm automation, most plantation owners would have freed them in desperation to escape the room and board costs. (In short order there would have been nothing left but lifestyle slaveholders and the obscenely rich, and the Southern abolitionists would have taken care of them.) "Admittedly, this is at least partially because Reconstruction didn't go on long enough or go nearly far enough." It has been argued that Reconstruction had to wait for the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program, which diverted vast amounts of resources into Southern industrialization.

derleth 15y ago
> Free men with tractors were about to tear out the foundations of slavery. Slaves can build tractors. > We know that slavery was economically infeasible by 1920 This was a generation after it was abolished and the South had had to do something else. It's my contention that had the South been able to hang on to slavery, it would have found ways to work it into niches it never filled in the real world. Assembly line labor, for example, or mining, or fishing. > the CSA let the abolitionists choose the terms of the conflict. The abolitionists, by and large, thought they could win enough seats in Congress to outlaw slavery if they could prevent slavery from expanding into the new Western territories. That's why such expansion was the main topic of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and why Bloody Kansas was so bloody, and so on. There were certainly militant abolitionists, but they were the minority; the CSA chose its own war. > In a Christian nation, the master is responsible for his estate's dependents, even if there is no use for them. In a Christian nation, slavery either doesn't exist or is infinitely gentler than what actually occurred. > After farm automation, most plantation owners would have freed them in desperation to escape the room and board costs. Farm automation means machinery, and slaves can make machinery. Maybe that would involve plantations being turned into factories, but it isn't a slam-dunk that it would involve freeing slaves. > It has been argued that Reconstruction had to wait for the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program, which diverted vast amounts of resources into Southern industrialization. This is an interesting idea. Who argues that?
- Daniel_Newby 15y ago
  > Slaves can build tractors. I doubt they can do it well. Machinery is hard enough for enthusiastic people who are being showered in money. > It's my contention that had the South been able to hang on to slavery, it would have found ways to work it into niches it never filled in the real world. Perhaps. My experience is that skilled industrial jobs are hard. Even in the time of Henry Ford, high wages had to be paid to attract good enough people. If slaves could get the job done, then auto workers at minimum wage could do it, which seems absurd to me. > In a Christian nation, slavery either doesn't exist or is infinitely gentler than what actually occurred. Southern slaves were not treated nicely (slavery, duh), but they were treated well in comparison to many other examples of slavery. Elderly, worn-out slaves were a reasonably common sight, despite the fact that their economic output was near zero. Slaves were given the very important job of child care (creating the Southern accent in the process), which is not a job given to a sullen, mistreated drudge. Compare this to the Arabs, who use slaves completely up and plow the bodies under as fertilizer. (See Dubai for a modern example.) > This is an interesting idea. Who argues that? TVA, Oak Ridge, Huntsville, and so forth. Huge amounts of resources were poured into creating technology projects from scratch. By the time of Apollo, Southern senators were good at bringing home the money and economic development.

derleth 15y ago

> Free men with tractors were about to tear out the foundations of slavery. Slaves can build tractors. > We know that slavery was economically infeasible by 1920 This was a generation after it was abolished and the South had had to do something else. It's my contention that had the South been able to hang on to slavery, it would have found ways to work it into niches it never filled in the real world. Assembly line labor, for example, or mining, or fishing. > the CSA let the abolitionists choose the terms of the conflict. The abolitionists, by and large, thought they could win enough seats in Congress to outlaw slavery if they could prevent slavery from expanding into the new Western territories. That's why such expansion was the main topic of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and why Bloody Kansas was so bloody, and so on. There were certainly militant abolitionists, but they were the minority; the CSA chose its own war. > In a Christian nation, the master is responsible for his estate's dependents, even if there is no use for them. In a Christian nation, slavery either doesn't exist or is infinitely gentler than what actually occurred. > After farm automation, most plantation owners would have freed them in desperation to escape the room and board costs. Farm automation means machinery, and slaves can make machinery. Maybe that would involve plantations being turned into factories, but it isn't a slam-dunk that it would involve freeing slaves. > It has been argued that Reconstruction had to wait for the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program, which diverted vast amounts of resources into Southern industrialization. This is an interesting idea. Who argues that?

Daniel_Newby 15y ago
> Slaves can build tractors. I doubt they can do it well. Machinery is hard enough for enthusiastic people who are being showered in money. > It's my contention that had the South been able to hang on to slavery, it would have found ways to work it into niches it never filled in the real world. Perhaps. My experience is that skilled industrial jobs are hard. Even in the time of Henry Ford, high wages had to be paid to attract good enough people. If slaves could get the job done, then auto workers at minimum wage could do it, which seems absurd to me. > In a Christian nation, slavery either doesn't exist or is infinitely gentler than what actually occurred. Southern slaves were not treated nicely (slavery, duh), but they were treated well in comparison to many other examples of slavery. Elderly, worn-out slaves were a reasonably common sight, despite the fact that their economic output was near zero. Slaves were given the very important job of child care (creating the Southern accent in the process), which is not a job given to a sullen, mistreated drudge. Compare this to the Arabs, who use slaves completely up and plow the bodies under as fertilizer. (See Dubai for a modern example.) > This is an interesting idea. Who argues that? TVA, Oak Ridge, Huntsville, and so forth. Huge amounts of resources were poured into creating technology projects from scratch. By the time of Apollo, Southern senators were good at bringing home the money and economic development.