So you think the civil war just sprung up out of no where in a matter of years before 1865? Civil war or just a plain fight over the idea of slavery was well established since the founding of the country. This is why the 3/5ths rule was put in place. That's 3/5 for SLAVES/servants, not blacks. The north and south were two different cultures that clashed, kind of like today. The north were arrogant cause they had big cities and a lot of money, the south were bitter cause they worked all day long. They were like Hatfield's and McCoy's.
Yes, they were a commodity. Prices went up and down with the economy. His figures are off -- and of course it depends on the time frame. (and of course, as noted, breeding them was easy, they were not all off the auction block) In 1831, for example, average price for a slave was about 280.00. Course it depended on if you wanted a field hand, a man, a woman, a young boy, young girl, baby...all varied at the auction block -- top of the line, prize five star slaves yielded a bit more. Average price spiked up to about 600 during the Panic of 1837 years ...then back up again again....then back down to below 300 in the mid 1840's. Then slowly ...little by little, up again, to about 650 in 1858. The average per capita income in the South was on average a good deal more than in the north. And with the help of banks, who were happy to mortgage a slave to an average family -- it was like buying anything from a used vehicle today, to an average middlin' car in the yard. They were making gobs in that blood labor, and the men of the cloth and fire-breathers were telling them it was almost their duty to own themselves at least one or two slaves.
But the North could have let the other states leave by an act of Congress just because its not spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean they couldn't and who would argue they could have again avoided war, used the fact they did have slavery to alienate the Confederates from foreign trade and isolated them forcing them to end the institution at some point. Cheap immigrant labor worked well in the North and territories and was less demanding you simply paid a wage and if the worker quit or left you could easily replace them. In time the slavery institution would have died out. And until then slaves could still flee North or into the territories of the US which we likely would have expanded and made it law no more States could succeed if they become one its permanent.
I would like to see these figures. Thinking about it, I can see how the bolded can be true if you exclude the slaves in the south and include the indentured servants under contract in the north.
Kentucky prices I think the 40K "quote" is from this poster. Note that it is adjusted for inflation. I have no source for it, so take it as you will....
I have many other resources I do not have access to at the moment, but a little poking around will show it to be true. Here's a quick on I grabbed in haste: The Economic Impact of Slavery in the South Gale Library of Daily Life: Slavery in America For some insight, I turned to Peter Coclanis, a professor of economic and business history at the University of North Carolina whose research focuses on the American South in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Coclanis offered some interesting thoughts on the economic legacy of the Civil War: "In 1860, the American South was one of the wealthiest areas in the world, an agrarian, capitalist economy that enjoyed a handful of comparative advantages: namely its ability to grow and get to market a small number of crops for which there was strong international demand: cotton, tobacco, and rice in particular. There was also the obvious labor advantage of slavery. But that advantage wasn’t so much economic as it was coercive. Getting people to work in extremely difficult conditions, i.e. cultivating sugar and rice out of the sweltering, bug-infested swamps of Georgia and Mississippi was slavery’s biggest advantage. Without the coercion of forced labor, it’s doubtful people would have ever tilled much of that land, certainly not in the numbers that actually did." There's also this: Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.) For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements. Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040. http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm "include the indentured servants under contract in the north." After the start of the 19th century indentured servants in teh US had all but vanished in the US (with some limited instances)
Yeah, that 1809 price is way, way way off. I saw where it was from. Crappy source. And a lot happened in the many decades that followed. I can show price calculators that present average prices in the 1850's and like I said, slaves could be bought (adjusted for inflation) for the price of a used car -- $2,000, - 4,000, and some averaging up to about 12,000 to 18K, where people today can buy a suitable new car for. And again, there were mortgage companies that would help a family buy a slave, so its not like they had to put that money out, up front.
Jackson did NOT SEE what was happening with regard to the Civil War (as Trump claimed)....he was dead and even alive could not predict it.
Some more good reading... On King Cotton: "The most commonly used phrase describing the growth of the American economy in the 1830s and 1840s was "Cotton Is King.". We think of this slogan today as describing the plantation economy of the slavery states in the Deep South, which led to the creation of "the second Middle Passage." But it is important to understand that this was not simply a Southern phenomenon. Cotton was one of the world's first luxury commodities, after sugar and tobacco, and was also the commodity whose production most dramatically turned millions of black human beings in the United States themselves into commodities. Cotton became the first mass consumer commodity. Understanding both how extraordinarily profitable cotton was and how interconnected and overlapping were the economies of the cotton plantation, the Northern banking industry, New England textile factories and a huge proportion of the economy of Great Britain helps us to understand why it was something of a miracle that slavery was finally abolished in this country at all. Let me try to break this down quickly, since it is so fascinating: Let's start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was "roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks" and it was "equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.- As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle." http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king/
The issue Jackson had to deal with had nothing to do with the Civil war. But Trump used Jackson to make the case that he did. The south worked all day long? You mean their slaves worked all day long don't you? The slave masters worked on having a strong second amendment to keep their working slaves in line. That's what they worked on.
I thank you sincerely, and applaud your superior research skills I have always been told that sums adjusted for inflation have to be viewed circumspectly, especially as we approach higher figures and longer periods of time; something to do with baskets of goods and how much more or less desirable and/or easily made some things are now than then but I never really understood it.
Or this: VS It works both ways. Those women worked for a mill in Georgia. I doubt you will have any sympathy for them, but here is their story: https://www.civilwarwomenblog.com/exile-of-the-roswell-mill-women/
I guess you haven't noticed that the political philosophies of the two parties have switched over 100 or so years. The KKK has always been a Christian organization. Today its members are Christian Republicans.
That's the democrat propaganda. Real Christians were not KKK. Christians were abolitiomists and ran the underground railroad. There's nothing Christian about the KKK. Those southern Baptist good ole boys were not Christian. You're spewing lies and propaganda.
KKK is a Christian organization, and none but Christians may join the KKK. The KKK were southern baptists http://blog.acton.org/archives/75181-kkk-selma-southern-christianity.html Religion and the Rise of the Second Ku Klux Klan, 1915-1922 http://www.readex.com/readex-report/religion-and-rise-second-ku-klux-klan-1915-1922
Interesting Alternate History speculation here because it is unlikely that the British, who were quite willing to start wars in Africa over slavery at this time, would have been content to simply join in trade sanctions if the Congress had given them a handy excuse to get some of their North American possessions back. They had a good deal bigger Army than the South or the North and, what may be more important, nothing like the true dearth of military talent that afflicted the North until 1863.
Agree, they were southern Baptists, and they're not Christian. They're actions aren't Christian. They're bad people. Real Christians were abolitionists. Christianity is opposed to slavery. Most Southern Baptists today do not support the KKK. They've changed. That crap about the political parties changing sides is pure propaganda. I thought you were smarter than that.
Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. Sorry Bub, the KKK then, and now who felt the were solid Christians (who are you to say they were not?), sported a slogan of America First, pride themselves on being patriotic Americas, and the present platform you would find indistinguishable from the current GOP platform. & I'll remind you the slavers were also made up of Christians -- and in fact preached if you *didn't* avail yourself to having a slave or two, and had the means -- you were not doing the God's work. It was your duty! Nothing more Traditional and Conservative than slavery. It's Biblical! ...and you know how some Conservatives are always saying we are founded as a Christian Nation, and the resulting discussion about how our Founders specifically left God out of the US Constitution? Well, those Confederate founders saw to that! When they wrote their Constitution, they made certain everyone knew the Confederacy was founded as a Christian Nation, not, as they said, like the Godless government of the North that ignored God in its Constitution. Right in the preamble: "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent and federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterityinvoking the favor and guidance of Almighty Goddo ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." The Great Seal of the Confederacy: The Confederate Motto: Deo Vindice Meaning: "With God as our Defender" or sometimes translated "God Will Vindicate." The Slaveowning Confederacy: officially established as a Christian Conservative nation.
