Prove it. It’s put up or shut up time buddy. If it was so much cheaper to pay people than to own slaves, people would have done it. People would do it now in the places where slavery is still happening.
Cite?
I cannot believe you have to the gall to say slaves were treated better *aside from the whippings and rapes. * Like being raped is a minor inconvenience.
Cite?
How can it be rare, and happen all the time?
…but they were treated so well, right?. They were rescued from Africa, and they got a free trip to America.
No it’s not.
No, that is not why Russian-style communism failed.
Africa aint so bad. I live with a family of six in a large but not luxerious house. We eat a lot of fish and manioc. We watch South African MTV. We go to church on Sunday. Most of the family prefers to bathe in the “douche traditionalle” (a couple buckets) and often we cook outside over wood. But it’s not like it’s some horrible black hole. It’s rough around the edges (there is one paved road in town and there are not even lights in the classrooms) but it’s overall pretty normal. People live, work, love, die (perhaps a bit sooner) and do the same things we do.
Now, Cameroon isn’t so bad off, but Africa is a big place. there are 300 languages in this one country alone. There is no one thing that is “Africa” that is “better” or “worse” than the US. You can not even begin to imagine how big this place is. From my seat at this cybercafe I can see people in at least a dozen different forms of traditional clothing from different cultures and ethnic groups.
As for the culture and it’s connection, I think it’s closer than many may think. I’ve been surprised at how familiar certain facial expressions, food, customs (like weddings and church), music, dances, family structures, etc. are to me. It’s amazing just how much of Africa there is throughout the world- in the US, in South America, in the carribean, etc. From the other side it all looks very far and very exotic, but from this persepective it’s all a little more contignuous (and yes, 50 Cent is quite popular here).
As for the OP- are they better off? Certainly some. But there is it better to live as a substinance farmer on your ancersteral land or to live in American but in a high crime low oppertunity place? Hard to say. Life is still basically the same substance regardless of the circumstances. I will say the people here would be better off if Europe had minded it’s own business.
I think DrDeth’s point was that a slave wouldn’t be used for any dangerous job. If the roof needed fixing, you’d hire some Irish journeyman carpenter; not your problem if he falls off. At least, I’ve read that in histories. Likewise, you might pay a factory worker too little to nourish himself properly – if his health falls off you can always let him go and hire another – but it would be stupid to underfeed your slaves. Etc.
But slaves did dangerous jobs all the time. Shit, picking cotton in 100 degree plus weather is a dangerous job. I don’t see the point in comparing slaves with laborers because the type of training needed to do the jobs was different. A carpenter is a skilled worker. Slaves generally were not allowed to learn trades. So of course a slave wouldn’t be sent to do a carpenter’s work, dangerous or not.
Not all slaves were bought, either. Slaves were born on plantations all the time. What did it cost a slaveowner to lose one of these freebies? It wasn’t like they were going to pay for state-of-the-art medical care when a slave became injured. Do farmers shell out thousands of dollars to take care of one sick cow, when they have plenty of others? No they don’t.
Hey, it’s stupid to whip and rape your slaves and tear their families apart, too. But it happened.
You, it seems your premise is that everyone else must share your racial beliefs. I, for one, don’t - quite frankly, I find your opinions about both blacks and whites to be untrue and pretty distasteful.
Slaves were used in the skilled traders. There were many blacks employed as farriers/blacksmiths, coopers, carpenters, weavers, and other trades.
When Washington D.C. was being hacked out of the brambles along the swamps of the Potomac, slaves were employed as carpenters, masons, brick makers, and similar tasks. (They were not generally given the most skilled trades, but they were not relegated to unskilled labor.)
Blacks were employed in roofing the Capitol. (In fact, due to a labor dispute with the Irish roofers, a foreign observer noted that “only the negroes” were actually working on the project.)
The Encyclopædia Britannica’s article on slavery makes a couple of observations about the economy of slavery,
As to productivity of free vs slave, it depended on how they were organized. The EB goes on to note
So it appears that broad statements about productivity need to be more carefully cast in terms of the sort of labor employed. It is possibly true that free workers would do better in a factory than slave labor would. It does not seem to be true that one can accurately extrapolate from that specific form of labor to a broad generalization about all labor.
You ask for cites, but it’s you that make the unsupported statement first* "I don’t claim to be an expert, but it a obvious that having no labor costs is, in almost all circumstances, a huge benefit. “* So, first, you give us cites showing that “slavery= no labor costs”, or if you prefer cites showing that "
I sincerely doubt they had significant labor costs in the form of medical treatment, overseers, room or board.” You make the unsupported claims first- You provide the cites first.
It isn’t a “minor inconvenience” and it’s terrible that you are saying so. Why do you claim that being raped is a* minor inconvenience?*
I made it very clear that is isn’t that southern slaves were been treated well- my post went on to say that slavery was utterly evil. My point was that early pre-union factory workers were treated like crap, and it was cheaper to pay them a pittance than keep slaves. Slaves had to be fed, clothed, housed and especially bought- all at your own expense. Early factory workers were paid a pittance to work in terrible conditions- you might argue that their pittance did cover food, shelter and clothing not all that different than slaves, but there was no large upfront capitalization cost with free factory workers.
** Tom**- thanks for the cite. Certainly under certain rare circumstances, general laws break down. But your second cite makes it quite clear to me that the “gang labour system” is considered a rare exception to the general rule that 'free workers outperform slaves".
Why would it be stupid? If you underfeed, underdress, and underhouse your slaves, how are they going to complain? If they sloth off in work, you just beat them harder. Or you threaten to sell them down the river. Malnourished people work hard all the world over, even when they don’t have a gun to their head.
A sick slave represents a lost investment. But remember: if you shoot him, no one’s going to arrest you. If you spruce him up and sell him off to an unsuspecting buyer, no one’s going to sue you. If you ignore him and allow the other slaves to nurse him back to health, using whatever herbel remedies they can find, it’s no skin off your teeth. And if he dies, you make Jupiter jump the broom with Jezebel and hope for another “buck”. There were no contracts or laws that binded slaveowners to care for their slaves. Slaves were strictly under the mercy of their owner’s sense of morality. At least free laborers were under the protection of the law of the land. They couldn’t be killed just because they didn’t want to work any more.
It doesn’t make sense to underfeed your slaves, but it doesn’t really make sense to underpay your wage laborers either. Actually, to me, it makes more sense to treat the wage laborers more fairly because they do have a choice. If your labor is captive, all you really have to do is give them the bare minimum…survival instincts among the captives will take care of the rest. And because they are your property, you can do whatever the hell you want to do and no goody-two-shoes is going to say a damn thing.
What are your racial beliefs? Who is the OP talking about, when he asks about black people being better off? What is a black person according to you? Why doesn’t the OP’s question strike you as being illogical?
I find it amusing that you think all of what I’m saying is my opinion, like I’m just making this shit up. What is distasteful about what I’m writing anyway? I don’t even think you understand what you are saying.
I think you have misunderstood the situation. I would put forth that the “general rule” is overbroad. There is no “general rule” about free vs slave labor, but specific rules regarding the types of occupation. The gang labor system was not an exception, it was (once the Brazilians perfected it) the typical system employed for major crops such as tobacco, coffee, sugar, rice, and cotton. You will note that, of those crops, cotton, tobacco and rice were extensively farmed in the U.S. South. Plantation gang labor was the method most often employed by the largest landowners (who often rented out their slaves to others, as well).
So, in a discussion of the U.S. economy, broad claims that the South was held back by having “inefficient” slavery fails on the very point that the largest segment of the South’s economy was the one that was most profitable when powered by an aspect of slavery that was more efficient than free labor–the very method they employed.*
This does not say that the South would not have been better off, in the long run, investing more heavily in manufacturing or in crops that were lass susceptible to slave economy, but the mere use of slaves was not an actual drain on the economy as has been asserted, above.
*Recall the point mentioned often in historical discussions and also mentioned, above: many people in the 1780s believed that slavery was going to die out on its own because, once the level of immigration provided sufficient labor resources, slavery, itself, was recognized to be less than profitable for the occupations in which it was then employed. (This may have prompted the sections of the Constitution that prohibited importation of slaves twenty years after adoption; not only would it be a problem for the next generation, but it would occur at a time when slavery was deemed to be a failing business.) Then, in 1794, Whitney received a patent on his cotton gin and suddenly there was a whole new economy based on gang slave labor. (At the time the Constitution was adopted, the U.S. had not yet expanded into rice country and tobacco was a limited-use crop by terrain. However, once the U.S. expanded into rice-growing areas, the methods employed by cotton growers could be extended to growing rice and the new lands of Kentucky and Tennessee with their not-yet-depleted soils could be turned to massive tobacco production, as well.)
This is where you seem to be making unjustified generalizations, for a couple of reasons. There certainly is an upfront capitalization required for factory workers; i.e, the factory and attendant machines. Also, in as much as slaves were “livestock,” they produced other slaves, which cost nothing to acquire.
I would be interested in seeing figures that reflect the actual costs of employing a factory worker in the North versus the actuel cost of maintaining a slave in the South, rather than the simple assertion that one was significantly less than the other.
Nonsense. The “you go first” style of debate doesn’t work here. It is pretty obvious that slave masters were not giving slaves top of the line medical treatment or accommodations.
But you make it seems like it was by comparing the lives of free people to those who were often raped and beaten. It’s a ridiculous comparison to make despite the caveat you throw in there.
Prove it. Saying this doesn’t make it true. Show me anywhere in the world where paying people is cheaper than keeping slaves.
Many slaves were not bought. They were essentially free as children of slaves.
You have to train them don’t you? Either way, if paid workers are, in almost all circumstances, more expensive than slaves.
You make the unsupported statement first, you come up with cites first. You claims ed slaves = either no, or insignificant lbor costs. Back that up with cites 1st, then I’ll come up with cites for mine. I am doing this because as soon as you look for those cites, you’ll see that you’re wrong. True, slavemasters weren’t giving most slaves " top of the line medical treatment or accommodations" but I didn’t claim that was so- I claimed that those early factory workers also weren’t provided with " top of the line medical treatment or accommodations. " Do you claim that early Industrial revolution factory workers were treated " top of the line " :dubious: ?
You made the comparison first, please note. You claimed that slavery was cheaper that free labor.
Show me where slavery is cheaper than free labor. Tom showed us one instance- in another nation.
And, when doing so, you didn’t get any significant work out of the new child for a decade or so, and also took the mother out of the workforce for a considerable period of time.
True, free workers have to be trained. So do slaves. Please gives us cites that show that (pre-civil war) “paid workers in almost all circumstances, more expensive than slaves.”
Compare and contrast the cost of slavery in the South vs Factory worker in the North, pre-Civil war. Cite please!
The idea of “Wow, I’m glad I live in America” coupled with “Whoops, what am I saying?” is one I first got reading “Out of America”, which describes a black American journalist’s stint in Kenya.
Why do folks keep missing the point of the reference from EB? Once Brazil discovered the advantages and economies of the gang system, it spread to all the locations where crops that required attendance from sowing to harvest were tended by slaves. While slaves in Georgia and South Carolina worked on a “task system” (instead of the “gang system”) early in colonial history, the “gang system” was established where ever suitable crops were grown. Slavery in the North American colonies was probably not economical and was on its way out until the cotton gin made cotton profitable a few years after the War for Independence, at which point slavery got a new lease on life as an economical and profitable industry.
According to Hugh Thomas in The Slave Trade. The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870, some 50,000 slaves were imported/smuggled into the country between 1807 and 1860. If slavery was uneconomical, this trade could not have been financed–particularly since slavers could make shorter runs to Brazil and Cuba: the only way that bringing slaves to the U.S. would have been profitable would have been if they brought higher prices, an unlikely situation if using them as labor cost more than simply hiring Irish immigrants.
Not true. People will do things that are less effective economically if it’s either Traditional or a Satatus symbol. Many farmers insisted on using animal labor after machines were more effective. Slavery in the South was it’s “peculiar institution” part of Southern Tradition. Even if running free sharecroppers might have been slightly more cost-effective, it would go against Tradition, and the fact that slaves were a Status Symbol. How many Americans drive a huge gas guzzling SUV as their commuter car as it’s a status symbol, while a hybrid would be more effective? Nor did I claim slavery was unprofitable, either. Early factory labor was just more profitable. My thesis is that (on most jobs) free labour is more effective than slave labour, comparing both costs and productivity. Free labor produced significantly more while (at that period in time) not costing a lot more.
Over-all, in the long run; the South would have been better off without slaves.
