DIFFERENT THOUGHTS ON SLAVERY

[williamlayton]

Lets not turn this into a racial thing--OK.
Slavery was the mainstay of the Souths economic base. While it is true that not many in the South were owners of slaves---those who had money and power did and their existence was perpetrated on this economic resource.
Planters---those large holdings by elite families---were the ones that required slaves to maintain their economic holdings.
Farmers--those that had less than 20 slaves were in the minority and were really not dependant on slavery.
The South was in subjugation to the landed gentry. They controlled the economics and the war was fought for those in control. Swampy put it pretty well when he stated that it is always a money war and a poor mans battle.
My opinion is, that like all wars propaganda fires the hearts of those who must do the fighting. The average man in the NORTH or the SOUTH had no stake in the outcome.
This was a war to determine what was known as Divine Destiny--the ability to create a great NATION---a true Republic.
It was going to happen.
Blessings 

[Shu]

The south had slaves the north had industry. The north wanted the resources the south had and was unwilling to pay market value. When the southern states thought about how unfair this was they decided they did not want to belong to the United States. The north seeing the source for cheap resources going away declared war to bring them back under the guise of freeing slaves. In the 1860 time frame land was culitivated mostly by hand and a large work force was needed, hence the souths need for slaves.

All cultures have had slaves, some still do. Slavery is/was not nothing new thought up by America. There were slave cities in Africa where a merchant ship could dock, purchase slaves and set sail again.

If you should travel to Jamica, all the so called natives are actually descended from slaves. The local population simply refused to be subjagated and were killed off and replaced with slaves from Africa.

It was not the white man who first captured the African for slavery. The war like tribes captured the nonwarring tribes and found a good market for the spoils of war.

[williamlayton]

I think the point is that only certain Southernerns had an interest in slavery----but they were in control.
The South had another concern. What would happen to the slaves if they were defeated.
I don't think the slavery issue was as big an issue to the North as it was the South.
It was an issue that the South had to deal with. The North was pretty well intergrated with a lot of folks from Southern Europe--Cheks, Poles, Slavs and Italians.
Labor cost in the North was haigher than the South and the population was more mobile.
Pay fair market value? Well I am not sure what you are getting at here. The South was selling to the Brits at inflated prices and recieving goods at low cost--the differences made up by the Brits to keep a foothold.
What happened to trade with Europe after the war?
Blessings

[Shu]

The reason the south was selling to the brits at an inflated cost was the north did not want to pay what the south considered a fair value. The law of supply and demand. If you want something you will pay for it or you don't get it. The more the items are in demand the more you pay. The north did not think this was good.
Simply put if you offer me $1 for a bushel of wheat but someone elses offers $2 for the same thing, who would you sell to?

The wealthy always are in control. The plantation owners held slaves certainly. Once a society has no wealth, it fails. The rich pay the poor for what they don't want to do. That is how an economy works. The south was not a heavily industrialized society as the north was.

The thought of a slave rebellion was certainly a concern. Only the arrogant would think men do not want to be free.

[williamlayton]

Where did the Brits go for textile goods---cotton---after the South lost and most of all WHY?
Blessings

[Shu]

The south of course, they were and are still major producers. Now there is machinery that does the labor of manual labor.

The good ol' US is still the leading producer and manufacture of goods.

[SHOOTALL]

The north had slaves also . They were house servants . Keep in mind the mason dixon line is well north of the Va. state line. Also keep in mind that the invention of machines to plant and harvest was killing slavery in the field faster than in the house. Slavery existed long before we were a nation and still exist in the world. If you recieve govt. hand outs to vote a certian way is it much different than hoeing a field for food and shelter ?

[mcwoodduck]

Settin aside the whole moral idea of owning another person.
The North did not need slaves.
They had cheap labor in the form of the Irish and Germans.  Immagrants were commming to the Northern ports.
The Norths resources were more in the minning and manufacturing rathern than agraculture.  Hard to grow stuff in the snow.
For some reason it is cheaper to have workers in mines rather than slaves.
Slaves were expensive.  Expensive to buy, expensive to keep, and expensive to keep around after they were no longer to work.  But if you rent a person by the hour or day pretty cheap.
As machinery took over in the growing arena the need for more and more hands would have been needed less and less and slave prices would have gone down also as more people moved to the South and labor increased slaves would not have been needed.

[SHOOTALL]

I beg your pardon sir Lincon had a slave ! The northern slaves were not freed until well after the war was over ! And least we forget indentured servants , slaves with a PC name.

[mcwoodduck]

I beg your pardon sir Lincon had a slave ! The northern slaves were not freed until well after the war was over ! And least we forget indentured servants , slaves with a PC name.

But there is a difference between slave and indentured servant.
A slave was owned, indentured servent was someone that borrowed $ and was working off the loan.
Once the debt was paid, the person was free to go about doing what ever they wanted to do.

[SHOOTALL]

In the true definition you are correct. But in reality often the debt was never settled . One only look to the "COMPANY" store to see the same pratices of whole segments of workers. If the indentured servant had to add to the debt for any reason he was still in the service of his master same as a slave. Many could not read or write and were taken advantage of . Look at the children who were abused in this fashion often the injury was entertainment for the ones who "owned " their time. If this were not true then why the child labor laws ?
 The African American suffered but they were not the only ones .

[SHOOTALL]

BTW debt settled , no money , no home just how would they do what they wanted ?
 They became the slave to the greatest master DEBT

[mcwoodduck]

The company store was clearly illegal and was a problem that was later fixed.  Being paid in company issued money, only being allowed to buy from the company store with over inflated prices and rents for the housing being owned by the same company.  All were corrected by free enterprise, Unions (back when unions were for the members), and anti trust laws.
In most cases indentured servants were apprentices and earned wages toward the end of their time so they had some $ when there debt was paid off.
This is also when we had debtors prison.
My third grade history is a little fuzzy and never got an answer or maybe never asked the questions of if they were thrown into detors prison how did they ever repay the debt?
Also we used to have prison farms and prison factories.

[williamlayton]

I think you will find that the Brits started buying cotton from Egypt--not all but more and more as time went on.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

I beg your pardon sir Lincon had a slave ! The northern slaves were not freed until well after the war was over ! And least we forget indentured servants , slaves with a PC name.

But there is a difference between slave and indentured servant.
A slave was owned, indentured servent was someone that borrowed $ and was working off the loan.
Once the debt was paid, the person was free to go about doing what ever they wanted to do.

With respect I really think you need to research your facts better. There were laws covering the treatment of slaves while none covering the treatment of the indentured.

The modern word useage implys one thing while the truth is yet another matter altogether.

[Ga.windbreak]

In my reading thru this thread I see many fallacies and thus feel obligated to comment.

1. The average man in the NORTH or the SOUTH had no stake in the outcome.
This was a war to determine what was known as Divine Destiny ability to create a great NATION

Manifest Destiny, a phrase coined to moralize the killing of native peoples and plunge this country into civil war. Surely one who is a true believer can not sign off on such a blasphemy.

As for the average man in the South not having a stake in this sorded affair, that is so far from the truth it deserves no reply.

2. I don't think the slavery issue was as big an issue to the North as it was the South.

How could it be as black people were outlawed in most Northern states and/or the Jim Crow laws in the other Northern states pretty much killed this as an issue.

3. Labor cost in the North was haigher than the South

You need to read the following quote as you are so far off the mark its laughable.

4. The North did not need slaves. (a better word would be want imvho - Ga.wb)
They had cheap labor in the form of the Irish and Germans.  Immigrants were coming to the Northern ports.
The Norths resources were more in the mining and manufacturing Rather than agriculture.  Hard to grow stuff in the snow.
For some reason it is cheaper to have workers in mines rather than slaves.
Slaves were expensive.  Expensive to buy, expensive to keep, and expensive to keep around after they were no longer to work.

BINGO, you sir, have won the grand prize!

5. This is also when we had debtors prison.

We are not England, my friend! Check your facts.

[williamlayton]

Please keep the passion out of the conversation---I do not try to intimidate or bully with words---I would appreciate the same respect.
I think you should study the plight of the slaves from their writings before trying to glamorize a system that was not glamerous.
Yes there were some owners who were more objective towards their slaves than others. There were no retirement programs under slavery. Most worked at menial work until they died.
There were others who viewed slaves as aburden and would sell when they became unable to work--some simply turned them out to be cared for by other slaves.
Some owners were very harsh---brutal is a good word.
Prior to the war many escaped west and south into Mexico to be free of the tyranny.
It was a tyranical system---at best.
I made no comment on devine destiny, other than to use the term. If you wish to say that God's will was not in place that is your opinion.
Let's stick to discussing issues not being personal.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

 Slavery is harsh , Back in the day there were houses in several Southern cities where young slave women ( girls) and young boys were abused for the pleasure of rich men . From what I have read it involve out right torture and sex. From what I see on the news we still have this form of slavery in most large cities in the USA , Its called the white slave trade or sex slave trade .

[SHOOTALL]

BTW they seldon retire , they either die from sickness or are killed. Guess its like the new health care when you reach 55.

[Ga.windbreak]

Please keep the passion out of the conversation---I do not try to intimidate or bully with words---I would appreciate the same respect.
I think you should study the plight of the slaves from their writings before trying to glamorize a system that was not glamerous.Yes there were some owners who were more objective towards their slaves than others. There were no retirement programs under slavery. Most worked at menial work until they died.
There were others who viewed slaves as aburden and would sell when they became unable to work--some simply turned them out to be cared for by other slaves.
Some owners were very harsh---brutal is a good word.
Prior to the war many escaped west and south into Mexico to be free of the tyranny.
It was a tyranical system---at best.
I made no comment on devine destiny, other than to use the term. If you wish to say that God's will was not in place that is your opinion.
Let's stick to discussing issues not being personal.
Blessings

Please point out anywhere in this forum where I have ever glamorized Slavery, it was inhumane, as was the indentured. Anyone who argues one is less evil than the other truly has not looked into the facts as they were in those years. Which is the very reason we have no debtor's prison in this country and never have!

You brought up divine Destiny, it is Manifest to be proper btw not divine, I would think you, of all people, would want to use the proper wording. Yet to suggest you only used the word without the belief behind it begs the question why use it at all if there was no belief in the first place?

You question my education and my opinions as being beneath a proper response from you as well as misquoting/misstating my beliefs all the while standing behind a cloak of christian yet you want our debate to be non personal. I am more than willing to debate the issues, if you are. All you have to do is back up your words with the facts that prove them true.

[Dixie Dude]

From what I have read only 10% of southerners owned slaves.  From 50% in Mississippi and 30% in Alabama to far less in Maryland, Delaware and Missouri.  Then only 10% of the owners actually abused their slaves.  Most treated them well because they needed the work from them.  Slavery was changed to sharecropper after the war, just another name, and they owed so much to the landowners for food, clothes, housing, etc, that they had to stay a lifetime on the plantation to pay their debts.  What's the difference?  The young didn't want to stay on the farms as sharecroppers so they left and went to northern cities to find work.  If cooler heads prevailed, I think sharecropping would have taken over slavery within 20 years.  Lots of lives would have been saved. 

The only good things that came out of the war was technology, iron ships with screw propellors, submarines, standard rail gauge, better weapons like rifled cannons and repeating rifles.  Also more manufacturing of these items. 

[williamlayton]

Dixie
You are correct in a lot of your thought, though I will disagree on slavery---well the fact that it would have ended.
The expansion of slavery--not just slavery--was a very real topic in the South.
The South, and its outlook on slavery and the white man, was one of the more disturbing points the South was facing with abolitionism breaking out not only in the South and North but the west also. There were abolitionist counties in Texas,
It was a problem the South created and would have to face. With a great many slaves being given the right to vote it most assuredly gave a foreboding atmosphere for those who would want to keep power---see how long John Crow laws were kept in effect---at least for a 100 years.
The North was well developed in manufacturing by the time of the great division.
We all were raised in this climate of the Jim Crow laws and know the effects.
Blessings

[Swampman]

The good ol' US is still the leading producer and manufacture of goods.

For once I'm speechless

[SHOOTALL]

must be all those gun cleaning products !