While we're on the subject of what the government has done for us...

• Slave patrol (mandatory for mature white males)
• Manumission regulations

In order to transfer the cost of slavery onto the American people, thus decreasing the pressure on themselves, the government enacted slave patrol which required all white men to participate. Penalty was an escalating list of fines. This is what a growing, uncontrolled government does.​

Doesn't it also make sense that requiring that slaves receive no education and restricting manumissions that granted freedom to slaves interfere with economics? ​

This could also be an argument for capitalism because had a free market been in place during the late 1700 beginning 1800 time frame, when free Black population doubled from 8.5% to 16%, these restrictions would not have been needed because then slavery would have been forced out. In a free market society, it makes more sense for slave owners to allow their slaves to freely choose employment rather than be forced to work for nothing. The price was roughly $1200 for a slave in this time period. It would have been cheaper to pay the usual $.95 cents a day to them to work freely. Another thing about a free market with free people choosing their own jobs, the performance is much better. You cannot expect a man who is working completely against his own will to produce as well as a man who has chosen his own profession and is earning money, all the while spending money and bettering the economy.

 

Let's pretend that your post isn't idiotic.

You forget a few things:
1) Not all slaves were purchased. Humans breed. Slaves were bred as stock.
2) The average price of a slave was not $1,200. Up until 1860, it was less than $450.00
3) It is arguable that the market was "freer" in the 1700s and 1800s than it was during all of the 1900s. The "free market" had over 200 years to "work out" out slavery in the fashion that you said it would. It didn't. It never would without intervention.
4) As for your last thought... that's a pretty simplistic and overly Pollyannic approach to real life. I guess you've never really studied the labor revolutions and its antecedent conditions; company script, violent union breaking, atrocious work environments, child labor... those are the results of allowing the beneficent businesses to determine their own rules.

Early 1800s, I guarantee these boys weren't making .95 cents a day. Note the guy with the club standing over them? Do you think he used the club to keep the rats away?



8-16 year old boys breathing that (*)(*)(*)(*) in all day? I wonder what their average life expectancy was. Get injured? Too bad for you... crawl off somewhere and die please we got plenty of young fodder to replace you.

 

No location for the photo? I'm sure in the North. In the Southern States, normal daily wages "between 1820 and 1856 rose from 73 to 95 cents a day." Journal of Economic History, Vol 47

You cannot use child labor as an argument with slavery statistics. The Journal also points out that between those same years, the price went from $850 per slave to over $1200.

Lastly, how was the market "freer" in the 1700's, and who are you quoting when saying "freer?" It's certainly not me. In the 1700's the government ran out of control with tarrifs, taxes, and regulations. Large government control is not part of a free market.

I assume my post was not idiotic after all. I'm sure your only move left is to bash my sources, but at least I provided some.

 

It's not difficult:

Right click on image, press "properties".

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/hine-dust.jpg

 

I think everyone recognized that the "wage slaves" in the North were more economical that the chattel slaves in the South. Chatel slavery was doomed as it should have been.

 

I didn't mean web address, lol.