402. Seguine - Jan. 7, 1999 - 8:32 AM PT
"The government is the servant, and Clinton only "runs" the executive
branch of the federal level of that servant."
Since you say you understand what people who use the phrase "running the country" mean, this strikes me as a distinction without a difference: most people probably mean "serving the country by managing his job in it", just as you do.
"But phrases like that, not to get tedious with too many examples, do indicate to me that we do still have status-based thinking about in 1999."
With status, in the case of the presidency, goes a great deal of responsibility. Is it not a legitimate thing to accord people who are burdened (via their choice and our collective consent) with great responsibility a commensurate degree of status?
You appear to be saying that status differenece, in itself, is a bad thing. But is that true? Or is the important issue the *basis* on which status difference arises?
403. ScottLoar - Jan. 7, 1999 - 8:54 AM PT
Pseudoerasmus, your questions on specificity would prompt volumes in reply. My definition posits the basic premises of any civil war (you ever been married?)which answered the general tone of the initial question. Also, your addition of [when?] to the quote is superfluous.
404. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 7, 1999 - 9:05 AM PT
Message #403
Well, perhaps "how does a country get into a civil war?" is less a question for historians, who dislike universal algorithms, than for political scientists, who work with universal causal models.
405. ScottLoar - Jan. 7, 1999 - 9:17 AM PT
I'm not a historian or political scientist and so free of academic convention I can just damned well call'em as I see'em.
406. pjacobson - Jan. 7, 1999 - 9:31 AM PT
What a nice little discussion! I wish I could stick around longer and read more. A professor at my alma mater in North Carolina said that a Civil War occurs when there is a sizable faction, often a region, in a country that sees itself as disproportionately to be responsible for the strength of the country and does not like the direction the central government has taken. It takes two power centers, the official, legitimate power center, and another power center that is strong enough to have the belief that they are the heart of the nation. It is a difference in national visions that usually preceding the war is papered over by allowing the rival power block the illusion that they are in control. When that illusion is shattered war may break out, depending on the lay of the land as to armaments and force strength as well as other factors unique to each case.
407. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 7, 1999 - 9:35 AM PT
That's more like the sort of answer, if not the actual answer, I was looking for.
408. ScottLoar - Jan. 7, 1999 - 4:48 PM PT
"Time on the Cross" (continued): Chapter Six, Paradoxes of Forced Labor
Cliometric research at the time of publication revealed (e.g. fig. 44, pg. 195, The Percentage of Farm Residents Who Were Slaves, by Size of Farm; fig. 45, pg. 195, A Comparison of the Efficiency of Old South Farms with Northern and New South Farms):
"1. Southern agriculture... was about 35 percent more efficient than northern agriculture in 1860..."
"2. (S)outhern slave farms were 28 percent more efficient than southern free farms. Compared with northern farms, southern free farms were 9 percent more efficient, while slave farms were 40 percent more efficient.
"3. There were economies of scale in southern plantations... Scale led to a 15 percent gain in efficiency for moderate-sized plantations with between sixteen and fifty slaves. And the average scale at which the largest plantations operated - those with over fifty slaves - raised their efficiency by just over 23 percent.
"4. Economies of scale were achieved only with slave labor. There were no large-scale farms based on free wage labor... On farms of ten or fewer persons, about 11 percent of the residents were slaves, on average. But on farms of fifty to one hundred persons, 90 percent were slaves. On farms of one hundred or more persons 94 percent were slaves.
"5. On average, the plantations of the newer, or slave-buying, states were 29 percent more efficient than those of the older, slave-selling states. The free farms of the Old South virtually match the efficiency of free northern farms. The slave plantations of the Old South exceeded the efficiency of free northern farms by 19 percent, while the slave plantations of the newer southern states exceeded teh average efficiency of free northern farms by 53 percent".
409. ScottLoar - Jan. 7, 1999 - 4:58 PM PT
This extraordinary increase in efficiency was effected by a highly-organized slave labour force managed by "a highly self-conscious class of entrepreneurs (leading planters) who generally approached their governmental responsibilities with deliberation and gravity", and directly so. Fig. 46, pg. 201, The Percentage of Farms with White Overseers, by Size of Farm reveals under 30% of those estates of 100 or more slaves employed white overseers, those having 50 or more less than 25%, and 1 of 6 of those plantations having 16-50 slaves used white overseers. Yet the management of labour (the gangs and crews assigned to each task, size and type of the work, pace and rhythm of work, the interdependence between field gangs, the full use of all slave hands whereby the plantation could extract the closest "'full capacity' utilization of the labor potential than was true of the free economy") was necessarily effected within a work year of about 265-275 days averaging 70-75 hours per week by effective drivers and managers directly involved in production. "(F)or 75 percent of the plantations were without overseers, there were no sons or other males who could have assumed the duties of overseer". The startling conclusion is that the managers responsible for the productivity of the enterprise were themselves slaves, even as testified by notes and letters from owners to overseers evidencing both proprietor and employee often deferring to the experienced judgment of the black slave drivers. The dumb and brutish stereotypes recounted by Olmsted's review of Southern slave labour belied the factual operation of an extraordinary intensity and organization of labour more similar to the regimen of modern assembly line workers than the "pre-industrial peasant mentality" common to Olmsted and his time.
410. Msivorytower - Jan. 7, 1999 - 5:04 PM PT
Scott
Could you please define what the authors mean by efficiency?
I have a hard time seeing the validity of comparing slave versus free labor wrt efficiency if the definition includes costs of labor.
411. ScottLoar - Jan. 7, 1999 - 5:04 PM PT
The persistent myth of blacks' incompetence perpetrated most earnestly even by the most deeply abolitionist was challenged by W.E.B. DuBois in American Negro Slavery published in 1918, Richard Hoffstadter's 1944 paper "U.B. Phillips and the Plantation Legend", and Kenneth Stamp's The Peculiar Institution. Nevertheless, all failed to recognize the superior quality of slave labor, a diligent and disciplined labour extracted by optimal submission (not "perfect submission") through calculated force and positive incentives by "shrewd capitalistic businessmen... to achieve the largest product at the lowest cost".
By definition slavery deprives a human being of the disposition of his own "human capital" and "ownership of a female slave brought with it title, in perpetuity, to all her descendants" and so slaves have an explicit market value, and title which can be bought and sold.
412. ScottLoar - Jan. 7, 1999 - 5:13 PM PT
Although the urban demand for slaves was elastic (at times slaves comprised up to 1/2 the labour force of Tredegar Iron Works, the fourth largest iron manufacturer in the US and largest in the South) slave and free labour were interchangeable dependent on market price relative to wages, but rural demand for slaves was inelastic as free wages to the ratio of slave prices "had virtually no effect on the preferences of large plantations for slave labor". Consequently, it seems plantations were limited in their ability to fund a premium for free labour (estimated at 50% beyond which free labour earned on small farms) while force - limited force to increase productivity rather than excessive which would increase the cost of labour - could compel slaves "to accept gang labor without having to pay a premium that was in excess of the gains from economies of scale". It was the degree of compelling force (again, "there were rapidly diminishing returns to force") plus pecuniary benefits that achieved the optimal submission and most efficient use of gang labor. A prime field hand received pecuniary income "roughly 15 percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker" as "(s)laves received approximately 20 percent of the increase in product attributable to large-scale operations".
413. ScottLoar - Jan. 7, 1999 - 5:17 PM PT
Slavery allowed all gains in productivity to pass to the consumer in the form of lower cotton prices and not to the gang labourer in the form of higher wages. Table 3, pg. 245, Approximate Income Gains and Losses from Large-scale Operations in 1850 (in millions of dollars of 1850) shows "(s)laves as a class... suffered a net loss in 1850 of at least $84,000,000 so that the rest of the world (cotton consumers) could benefit by $24,000,000". In effect, the consumers of US cotton perpetuated US slavery.
414. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 7, 1999 - 5:19 PM PT
Msivorytower
By "efficiency" Fogel and Engerman mean total factor productivity, as developed by Kuznets and Solow.
415. Msivorytower - Jan. 7, 1999 - 5:21 PM PT
Pseudoerasmus
Could you be more specific? Being as ancient as I am, I'm not placing that definition.
Are they defining total factor productivity as output per unit of time? per unit of cost?
416. ScottLoar - Jan. 7, 1999 - 5:28 PM PT
Table 4, pg. 248, Per Capita Income by Region for 1840 and 1860 (in 1860 prices) illustrates a generally lower per capita income in the South compared to the North, although ceratin Southern regions exceeded certain Northern regions and the general inequality of wealth distribution was roughly similar. Nevertheless, Table 5, pg. 250, The Relative Level of the Per Capita Income of the South in 1860, assuming a Southern per capita income level of 100, shows the South inferior to Australia (144), the North (140), UK (126) but coequal to Switzerland and superior to Canada (96), Netherlands (93), Belgium (92), France (82), Ireland (71), Denmark (70), Germany (67), Norway (54), Italy (49), Austria and Sweden (41), Japan (14), Mexico (10) and India (9) whereas the poorest region of the South (South Atlantic) scored 69. Table 6, pg. 256, The Relative Level of Southern Industrialization in 1860 as Revealed by Three Partial Indexes again assumes a Southern index level of 100, by which the South ranked sixth worldwide in cotton textile manufacture, second to all the leading nations of Europe in the manufacture of pig iron (not surprising, as the South lacks such ore deposits) yet greatly superior to all save the North (by a slight margin) in railroad mileage per capita. "Preliminary works suggests that slavery both retarded industrialization and increased per capita income".
417. ScottLoar - Jan. 7, 1999 - 5:33 PM PT
Msivorytower re Message #410: "The primary instrument used to measure and compare the relative efficiency of the agriculture in the North and South is called the 'geometric index of total factor productivity.' With this index, efficiency is measured by the ratio of output to the average amount of the inputs. The higher the output per average unit of input, the greater the efficiency." - pg. 192, ibid.
418. ScottLoar - Jan. 7, 1999 - 5:37 PM PT
My Dear Lady, you would doubtlessly love Appendix B (which I have not)being a technical appendix discussing "the data on which the principal findings are based". Et moi? I'm not that curious to wade through more technical data for my interest is casual, not professional.
419. Msivorytower - Jan. 7, 1999 - 6:26 PM PT
Scott
Thanks.
My problem with using such a measure to compare slave versus free labor is the issue of the forced nature of the former compared to the latter.
I simply don't see how such comparisons are useful, given the fact that slave labor could be forced to work for however long the owner needed, under whatever conditions prevailed. Northern industrialists had to compete for labor in periods of significant shortages, and even then, couldn't necessarily force workers to remain on jobs that were very unpleasant.
It's one thing to compare efficiency of slave labor among all slave holders (between various size units of production, etc), but comparing efficiency between slave labor and free labor doesn't have much meaning for me.
420. LadyChaos - Jan. 7, 1999 - 6:46 PM PT
MsIT,
The point has been, as I have understood it, to debunk the conventional wisdom that slavery was a clunky and inefficient institution that would have collapsed all on its own had there not been a civil war.
421. Msivorytower - Jan. 7, 1999 - 7:04 PM PT
I don't think I'm being clear. Let me try again.
I think it's pretty clear that slavery was more profitable for Southern plantation owners compared to free labor or the system would never have taken such a firm hold otherwise. I'm also of the opinion that the costs of establishing large plantations in the early colonization period of the South made slave labor particularly attractive. The working conditions were onerous, very dangerous (lots of sickness), and required a large scale work force to clear and prepare the land (in some cases claim land from the swamps). Finding labor willing to work in those conditions would be difficult, if not impossible (at least to maintain a stable group of workers), whereas slaves could be forced to work under any conditions.
The colonies of the North never had a similar combination of work conditions. In addition, small scale farming was always more profitable in the Northern colonies than in the South, where climate and soil conditions lent itself to products requiring large scale farming (rice, indigo, tobacco, initially) for viability.
So, for me, the comparison of "efficiency" between Northern and Southern producers (using slave versus free labor) seems tautological.
422. Msivorytower - Jan. 7, 1999 - 7:09 PM PT
LadyChaos
From what I can tell, so far, the book only debunks such a hypothesis if one assumes the South would have been able to remain predominantly agricultural, and not industrialize.
423. phillipdavid - Jan. 7, 1999 - 7:14 PM PT
I am curious about black life after the war. I ran across a quote that surprised me a somewhat: "When I married my wife I married her to wait on me," one freedman told a former master who was attempting to hire his wife as a servant. "She got all she can do right here for me and the children."
This quote leads me to think the post-war blacks were adopting the ideal of "domesticity." That is, did the definition of black families quickly come to resemble that within white families? If this was true,
I find it interesting to think about the internal conflicts that must have occured. I assume many black women would be loathe to emulate the roles of their white counterparts -- particularly those black women who, as former house servants, had observed the lives of white women closely.
But, on the other hand, I assume economic necessity often required black women to engage in income producing activity. So even though they may have been attempting to put on the white ideal of "domesticity," I assume most black women would have to engage in some kind of paid labor of some sort.
ScottLoar, has your reading informed you what percentage of black women worked as paid laborers after the war? Or does anybody know what percentage of blacks worked as industrial laborers in the post war period. I know the South quickly attmpted to industrialize itself, as many came to believe that was what gave the North the advantage during the war, but I do not know what percentage of blacks worked in the new factories and what percentage worked as sharecroppers.
And Lemwalker asked a few days ago about the comparisons that could be made between sharecropping and slavery. I would like to read anybody's thoughts on these subjects.
424. Msivorytower - Jan. 7, 1999 - 7:23 PM PT
PD
Claudia Goldin has estimated that about 10 percent of married women continued to work outside the home at around the turn of the century, with the exception of married Black women, whose LFPR's were generally higher (I think somewhere around 30-35%). I have the reference in my office, and will check tomorrow for accuracy, but Black women had higher LFPR's than all other groups of women after marriage, including immigrants. However, I seem to remember that even among Black women, the majority left outside work to remain within the home during this time.
The Goldin analysis takes place a little later in time than the immediate post Civil war period, but I think the trends would be similar.
425. phillipdavid - Jan. 7, 1999 - 7:25 PM PT
Msit,
What does LFPR stand for?
426. Msivorytower - Jan. 7, 1999 - 7:27 PM PT
Labor force participation rates.
427. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 7, 1999 - 7:56 PM PT
I must say that I find Msit's comments about efficiency are incomprehensible. Slave labour was forced? Obviously. So what? Do you still not output and inputs? Cows and tractors have no freedom, yet they have calculable efficiencies and productivities. Also, you can compare the productivity (output per unit of input) of a factory using labour with that of a completely automated factory. So what's the problem?
428. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 7, 1999 - 8:02 PM PT
Message #422
Have you read this thread at all?
I think Fogel and Engerman make a very strong case that in the absence of the Civil War, not only slavery would have continued for the foreseeable future, but the South would have continued to prosper as an agricultural country.
429. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 7, 1999 - 8:02 PM PT
Do you still not HAVE output and inputs?
430. Msivorytower - Jan. 7, 1999 - 8:24 PM PT
Pseudoerasmus
Yes, I've read this thread in pieces, although not in it's entirety. I understood the point the authors were making, however, since I haven't read the book, I can't say whether the authors make a convincing case that, in the absence of Civil War, the South would have continued to prosper in the economic world that developed in the latter part of the 19th century. From ScottLoars posts, it seems pretty clear they make a convincing case that slavery would not have "withered away" on it's own.
And whether you find my comments incomprehensible or not, the fact remains that the comparison seems tautological to me. "Obviously" the efficiency of slave labor should be greater than wage labor, or why else would it have expanded in the early 19th century? Or why else would it have been so damn profitable for Southern planters on the eve of the Civil War?
And perhaps I just find the analysis somewhat abhorrent, generally. I mean, exploitation was the backbone of the system, whether it was efficient is secondary to me. It was immoral, and the profits taken from it were equally immoral.
431. LadyChaos - Jan. 7, 1999 - 8:43 PM PT
MsIT,
No one here questions the immorality of slavery. To suggest otherwise would be ludicrous. I think it is important, though, to understand the economic realities and, if myths need debunking, to debunk them. Many of us (myself included) have been guided under the assumption that the slave empire would have soon collapsed of its own weight whether the civil war had occurred or not. If this is a misconception, then I think it's important to understand why. Like PE says, in pure economic terms, slaves were a certain type of agricultural capital. It's not a moral question.
This is, in a way, the "yang" of the argument that slave labour built the foundation for the wealth that whites enjoy today. I don't agree with that argument, because it seems that most of the wealth we enjoy now has resulted from the industrial revolution, to which slave labor contributed almost nothing.
But that does not mean that in the absence of war the slave system could not have continued to thrive for decades, producing enormous wealth for the planters.
432. LadyChaos - Jan. 7, 1999 - 9:16 PM PT
In fact, I think that if you read about the conditions of black share croppers and levee workers through the mid-twentieth century, where conditions were sometimes barely distinguishable from slavery, it's not hard to imagine that slavery might have survived the 19th century.
But that's not what we're here to argue, really.
433. LadyChaos - Jan. 7, 1999 - 11:16 PM PT
Re: Message #422
Some Southern states are *still* waiting to industrialize. (g)
434. Msivorytower - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:07 AM PT
LadyChaos
Perhaps the problem is that I assume most know slavery was efficient for the type of system that existed in the South, just as analyses of the ancient Roman and Egyptian empires indicate the importance of slave labor for their accomplishments and economic might (at the time).
I don't question the utility of verifying the importance of slave labor to the economic viability of the South, I simply found the analysis comparing "efficiencies" in production between the North and South ludicrious given the vast differences in production processes between the two regions.
I have long believed that the South would not even have been successfully settled, colonized and risen to the level of importance the Northern and Middle colonies reached on the eve of the American Revolution were it not for slave labor. Certainly, it would have been analogous to the western frontier: sparsely settled, relatively unimportant for trade or economic growth for much of the 18th and 19th centuries.
And I'm sure no one questions the immorality of slavery here, but the passages posted by ScottLoar suggest a comparison that tends to glorify the accomplishments of Southern planters, and I suppose I reacted to that. While I agree that we must pursue truth, I don't agree that it should be done with disregard for the moral consequences of the information. I believe I'll pick this book up and read it, simply because from what I've seen so far, I can understand why some have criticized the authors as being "apologists" for slavery.
435. Msivorytower - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:10 AM PT
"Like PE says, in pure economic terms, slaves were a certain type of agricultural capital. It's not a moral question."
Of course slaves were capital. I would argue that they were the only kind of capital able to make the southern economy as successful as it was. Had the South been forced to develop as the Northern and Middle colonies/states did, they would have been at the bottom of the economic heap. To the extent that exploitation was the only way the Southern economy could have been economically viable, it becomes a very important "moral question".
436. tmachine - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:11 AM PT
There was an interesting piece in the New York Times this week about independent black Southern farmers. Apparently a group of them (about 1,000) have brought a successful class-action suit against the USDA for persistent discrimination (over the last 50 or 60 years) against black farmers in granting government loans, etc. Evidently the boards that considered these requests were essentially white and--apart from not granting loans at all, which was quite common, apparently--would, for instance, wait until planting season was over before granting a loan (thus rendering it useless for the season), or hold black farmers (not whites) to ridiculous, letter-of-the-law standards of knowledge of farming, etc. In fact exactly the same kind of ploys (literacy, etc.) that were used to stop blacks voting.
437. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:16 AM PT
Re Message #420, Message #421: Please, read the synopsis in its entirety (better yet, read this thread in its entirety) and you will discover through Chapter Four the weighted conditions of diet and housing compared favourably with that of free labourers, that whippings were most likely inferior to rewards as incentives; Chapter Six the high degree of organization and specialization, of slave labour gangs, and I have directly quoted a "work year of about 265-275 days averaging 70-75 hours per week" common to all labourers free and slave at the time. To assume that peculiar instiution was driven solely by gross force is to accept in full Kenneth Stamp's thesis of vast prisons with cruel wardens, the prisoners resorting to subtle and silent resistance by "shirking their duties, injuring the crops, feigning illness, and disrupting the routine" (pg. 231, ibid.). This, no less than the abolitionists' characterization, is the constant theme of the inferiority of slave labour. If nothing else, I would intend that my synopsis of Time on the Cross abuses all of such an ill-informed notion. Indeed, I began this synopsis moved solely to explore this new knowledge that was mentioned to me by "Rask".
438. Msivorytower - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:27 AM PT
ScottLoar
I read those passages, in their entirety. I fail to see how the favorable conditions suggest slavery was not an enforced labor system.
Given that slaves were a capital investment, it makes perfect sense that they would have been treated well by the majority of holders, to obtain the maximum use of them. Now, how does this, in any way, suggest that these individuals were not forced to work through their lack of freedom, on tasks, in jobs, and in conditions that they would otherwise choose against?
439. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:33 AM PT
Of course not, and I do not suggest that a slave is at any other than the disposition of his master. But, I had said so before in this thread, and to again repeat the message is a bit tiring. You yourself recognize slavery is "an enforced labour system" yet by reason they were a capital investment it made perfect sense and practice to treat the investment well.
440. arkymalarky - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:34 AM PT
The aspects that I've been finding most provoking and thought provoking about the book are some of those social claims, which are harder to refute and seem to suggest that slavery was a very tolerable situation for the slaves, not amounting to an immoral institution at all. I know it's not being said, but the implication is certainly there from what Scott has provided. The questions of miscegenation and slave diet that PD brought up were good ones. I guess I'll buy the book as well, though Scott's summaries and analysis are excellent, just to be able to chew on it awhile. My line of thought doesn't generally run this way, and like Scott I have a "casual interest" in the economics of slavery, but some things are just bugging me enough to want to study further. I completely reject any suggestion, however, that slavery was a humane institution, no matter how favorably conditions compare with those of other poor wretches of the time.
441. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:34 AM PT
Again, read this thead in its entirety, only 400+ posts, and much of it well expressed by a number of well-informed people.
442. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:37 AM PT
Message #441 was for Msivorytower but, who or what has implied that slavery is any other than reprehensible?
443. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:38 AM PT
"I simply found the analysis comparing 'efficiencies' in production between the North and South ludicrious given the vast differences in production processes between the two regions."
This apples & oranges argument is ridiculous. There are inter-industry and international comparisons of productivity ALL THE TIME, between vastly different countries and production systems. That's the whole point of comparing output per unit of input -- it takes care of the apples & oranges problem.
The moral objections to slavery are clouding Msit's judgment.
444. Msivorytower - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:39 AM PT
Scott
I fail to see the disagreement between us then. My only criticism of the information you've been posting (and yes, I've lurked through much of it while on vacation), was the ludicrious comparison of "efficiencies" between northern and southern producers. I suppose I'd reached my limit of tolerance for the entire discussion at that point.
Regardless of "how well" slaves were treated, the success of Southern planters is no triumph, since the system was built on enslaved, forced labor, of which the planters exploited for their own gains. Had they been forced to PAY wages for the work they required, they would not have been able to build the economic empires they did. And that is a simple fact that cannot be denied, no matter how WELL they treated their "capital investments".
445. arkymalarky - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:40 AM PT
That last sentence referred to a suggestion from the book, not anyone here, and I see while I was posting it's already being discussed.
I've got to get ready for class and I look forward to reading up on things later. You all have a good day!
446. Msivorytower - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:41 AM PT
re Message #443
Oh undoubtedly the moral issues are affecting the way I'm viewing this discussion.
Your point?
447. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:44 AM PT
"And I'm sure no one questions the immorality of slavery here, but the passages posted by ScottLoar suggest a comparison that tends to glorify the accomplishments of Southern planters...."
Well, Msivorytower has decided this week to become the living, breathing deja vu of the scholarly controversies that greeted the publication of Fogel and Engerman's book in 1974. Of course, the controversies dwelt pretty much on remarks like the one above -- "undue glorification" and other such persiflage.
For the nth fucking time, I repeat the intellectual and historical context of Fogel and Engerman's scholarship: before the 1960s and 1970s, the conventional wisdom among scholars was that slavery would have come to an end naturally even without the Civil War, because of its own internal economic contradictions. Fogel and Engerman's iconoclasm is NOT in "glorifying the accomplishments of plantation owners", but in debunking this conventional wisdom and supporting as never before the idea that the Civil War was NECESSARY to end slavery.
448. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:47 AM PT
Message #446
My point is that because you are not some untutored git, you should be viewing things more dispassionately.
449. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:49 AM PT
Message #444, partially true, as not only would the wages have been bankrupting but the economies of scale by which large labour gangs worked the fields could not have been realized. Throughout Time on the Cross is fact and testimony to the efficiency of these labour gangs. If I have failed at all in my synopsis it is because I have not recounted how damned efficient was this complex system of cropping when done by a labour gang. The work was done by well-run crews, the likes of which none of us living has any experience. We must instead peer through the distaste expressed by Oldmsted as he recounts these gangs in action.
450. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:52 AM PT
Message #444
Mein Gott. For Christ's sake.
"How well" slaves were treated is not an exculpation of the owners, but merely one way of EXPLAINING the observed high productivity of slave labour. After all, one would expect enslavement to be a DISINCENTIVE to work, lowering productivity.
451. Msivorytower - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:53 AM PT
"Well, Msivorytower has decided this week to become the living, breathing deja vu of the scholarly controversies that greeted the publication of Fogel and Engerman's book in 1974."
Hahahahaha, touche.
"Fogel and Engerman's iconoclasm is NOT in "glorifying the accomplishments of plantation owners", but in debunking this conventional wisdom and supporting as never before the idea that the Civil War was NECESSARY to end slavery."
I must have MISSED your post saying this for the nth fucking time.
Out of curiosity, what part of their analysis suggests that slavery would not have died out by the end of the 19th century because the industrial revolution would have left the agricultural monolith of the South behind? What part of their analysis suggests that technological inventions in agriculture wouldn't have driven Southerners to change their system of production or be beaten out of business?
452. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:55 AM PT
Look to Chapter Three, Profits and Prospects.
453. Msivorytower - Jan. 8, 1999 - 6:55 AM PT
re Message #450
No shit. I never SUGGESTED otherwise.
454. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 7:00 AM PT
I thought Time on the Cross sounded so profound I was moved to write a synopsis (Message #118) as I read. I find this work so profound and thorough I cannot but recommend it to anyone who wishes to find fault of the content through my synopsis.
455. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 7:03 AM PT
"Out of curiosity, what part of their analysis suggests that slavery would not have died out by the end of the 19th century because the industrial revolution would have left the agricultural monolith of the South behind? What part of their analysis suggests that technological inventions in agriculture wouldn't have driven Southerners to change their system of production or be beaten out of business?"
1) Despite the lag in manufacturing, the South was not terribly behind the North in net physical capital formation.
2) Moreover, "expenditures on farming implements and machinery per improved acre were 25% higher in the seven leading cotton states than in the nation as a whole", suggesting (to me) that agricultural industrialisation was quite advanced in the South, for its time.
3) Other data (railroad mileage per capita, cotton textile production per capita, etc.) suggest that the level of industrialisation in the South in 1860 was higher than or comparable with France's or Germany's at the same time. In other words, the South was an industrial backwater ONLY in comparison with the North.
456. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 7:06 AM PT
As a growth theory junkie, the part of the book I found most illuminating and surprising was "Economic Growth in the South, 1840-1860".
457. Msivorytower - Jan. 8, 1999 - 7:12 AM PT
So, ScottLoar and Pseudoerasmus
What do you think? At what point would the slave system have died out? Or would it have remained in place through the early 20th century unless a war, at some time, was fought to end the practice?
Btw, regarding the comparisons of Southern industrialization compared to some European countries in Message #455;
To what extent was the amount of industrialization present in the South directly related to the fact that labor was of lower cost to planters, thus allowing them to divert more of their monies into other forms of capital investments? And if so, again, are such comparisons even useful? I mean, if the South had to both pay wages and invest in other forms of capital, would it have compared as favorably with France or Germany?
I would assume not.
458. cllrdr - Jan. 8, 1999 - 7:31 AM PT
Niggers all work on de Mississippi,
Niggers all work while de white folks play,
Pullin' dem boats from de dawn to sunset,
Gittin' no rest til de Judgement Day.
Don' look up
An don' look down--
You don' dast make
De white boss frown.
Bend your knees
An' bow your head,
An' pull dat rope
AN' KILL THIS THREAD!
459. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 7:31 AM PT
Economists can thrash out the questions raised in your second paragraph. Your first paragraph can perhaps be answered that the moral and legal indictments of slavery begun in earnest in Europe in 1752 would have eventually overtaken the system in the US south. Brazil, historically the largest importer of slaves, banned slavery in 1888. Would any part of the US continue against well-nigh universal opprobrium? I think not, especially if we look to the example of child labour laws.
460. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 7:34 AM PT
There seems to be a point where a widespread social practice, as slight as spitting or smoking or as heinous as the public torture of criminals, becomes universally offensive, and so is abolished.
461. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 7:34 AM PT
"To what extent was the amount of industrialization present in the South directly related to the fact that labor was of lower cost to planters, thus allowing them to divert more of their monies into other forms of capital investments? And if so, again, are such comparisons even useful? I mean, if the South had to both pay wages and invest in other forms of capital, would it have compared as favorably with France or Germany?"
Msit, I do not mean to offend, but these remarks are OBTUSE. (The obtuseness is, I'm sure, not an intellectual failure, but a state of being blinkered by emotion.)
THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT is the impact of slave labour -- to compare a slave economy with a free economy in terms of productivity. Your questions are asking us to vary the very factors that we have no reason to vary -- the very counterfactuals we don't need by the aims of the inquiry.
The more appropriate counterfactual question is, by how much would Nothern income have been higher, had the North been able to substitute slave labour for free labour (and thus, as you mention, to alter their capital-labour ratio)?
I'm just amazed you don't see this.
462. cllrdr - Jan. 8, 1999 - 7:41 AM PT
"blinkered by emotion."
Pseudo -- meet "BTerry" He/She is over in the Impeachment thread.
463. Msivorytower - Jan. 8, 1999 - 7:49 AM PT
Pseudoerasmus
Actually, I do see that. It's a very good question, btw.
And I was being disingenuous in the second part of my Message #457, I admit. The answer was obvious (as you so charmingly say).
And you didn't offend me, you made me laugh. I am sorry my questions seem OBTUSE, but I cannot overlook the moral issues here, regardless of my training. Every turn of the analysis leads me back to the fact that these were slaves, unable to choose their own course, unable to reap the benefits of their labor. Worst is the notion that the South was in any way competitive without such a system in place. I suppose I simply need to restate that a few times for other readers who may be lurking with glazed eyes and confusion about just how "great" the Southern economy was during this time.
It was an economy built on a false front, seemingly strong until one took away the foundation, enforced labor, exploited humans.
Now, I shall retire to my corner and lick my wounds of indignity, and keep my moral outrage to myself from here on in.
464. cllrdr - Jan. 8, 1999 - 7:54 AM PT
"Every turn of the analysis leads me back to the fact that these were slaves, unable to choose their own course, unable to reap the benefits of their labor."
You see how emotion gets in the way, MS.? This means nothing. Nothing!
The only issue of importance is the economic one. And economics is a question of facts -- not emotion.
465. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 8:12 AM PT
"but I cannot overlook the moral issues here, regardless of my training. Every turn of the analysis leads me back to the fact that these were slaves."
But you don't need to overlook the moral issues. Why must keeping analysis unsentimental mean you must overlook the moral issues? THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPHERES. In philosophy, it's called the fact-value distinction. Cellardweller, with his ejaculatory style and low intellectual attainments, can't grasp the distinction, but you can and surely do.
466. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 8:12 AM PT
"The only issue of importance is the economic one. And economics is a question of facts -- not emotion."
Hmmm. Was Mr. Gradgrind an economist?
467. LadyChaos - Jan. 8, 1999 - 8:27 AM PT
Message #458 is disappointing.
I don't understand people who are unable to grasp the importance of knowing what the civil war achieved. If slavery would have died of its own weight within, say, a decade of Lincoln's election, then over 600,000 people might very well have died for nothing. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that slavery was well-entrenched economically, then the sacrifices of the war were all the more justified. Those who suggest that the whole exercise somehow "enobles" slavery are missing the point and are being unreasonably doltish, I'm afraid.
468. TabouliJones - Jan. 8, 1999 - 8:27 AM PT
Cellar,
Re. 464
I feel compelled to disagree when you say that "economics is a question of fact -- not emotion." I think Keynes said something to the effect that economics is all about positing economic models which have social resonance or value. Paul Krugman also seems to suggest that, at bottom, economics is all about the issue of human happiness.
... and yes I know that Keynes is no longer (and perhaps never was) highly regarded among economists. Yes, someone will probably say that Krugman is a hack . . . and no I don't pretend to know anything about economics.
469. LadyChaos - Jan. 8, 1999 - 8:32 AM PT
Tabouli,
Cellar was being sarcastic in Message #464. He actually seems to believe the opposite.
470. TabouliJones - Jan. 8, 1999 - 8:45 AM PT
LadyChaos:
As I wrote my post I had the impression that Cellar was being sarcastic. However, I thought my pseudo-earnest response might provoke PE to digress from the topic of this thread in order to enlighten me about the relative worth of Keynes and Krugman's ideas about what economics is all about. I was getting bored of the impeachment thread and figured that, in here, I could abuse PE's superior intellect to actually learn something about economics.
471. TabouliJones - Jan. 8, 1999 - 8:51 AM PT
"Our patron Saint is fighting with a ghost. He's always off somewhere when you need him most." PE come back.
472. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 9:01 AM PT
TabouliJones
Contrary to popular opinion, Keynes is still highly regarded in economics. He is consistently voted the most influential and important economist of the 20th century. His place in economics did nearly die in the 1970s and the early 1980s, but both theory and real-world events resurrected him. Today, the dominant macroeconomic paradigm is often called "New Keynesian".
As for Krugman, he is a specialist in international trade and open-economy macroeconomics, sub-fields in which he is justifiably highly regarded. He is also considered a future Nobel laureate.
473. TabouliJones - Jan. 8, 1999 - 9:18 AM PT
PE:
Actually, I really enjoy reading Krugman's journalism. He makes a lot of really complicated issues comprehensible for the layperson. If you don't find it to be too much of a digression from the intended topic of this thread, and presuming that you do not find it to be too much of a bother, could you please comment on the first paragraph of my previous thread -- that is: "I think Keynes said something to the effect that economics is all about positing economic models which have social resonance or value. Paul Krugman also seems to suggest that, at bottom, economics is all about the issue of human happiness."
474. msivorytower - Jan. 8, 1999 - 9:31 AM PT
"Those who suggest that the whole exercise somehow "enobles" slavery are missing the point and are being unreasonably doltish, I'm afraid."
"Blinkered with emotion" I can accept, Lady, but unreasonable doltish? I'm cut. In any case, I never questioned the entire analysis, just the utility of comparing "efficiencies" in slave versus free labor production processes.
Pseudoerasmus reMessage #465
Mea culpa. I do see the distinction, I was just struck by the lack of commentary in recent posts about the inherent immorality of slavery, despite it's economic efficiencies. There's "no little irony" in discussing the efficiencies of slave labor arrangements that made it highly productive, you know.
475. LadyChaos - Jan. 8, 1999 - 9:36 AM PT
MsIT,
The "doltish" comment was in reference to cllrdr. I don't understand why a black man would wish to quash an open and stimulating discussion of the civil war's impact on slavery.
476. msivorytower - Jan. 8, 1999 - 10:26 AM PT
PD reMessage #424
Claudia Goldin _Understanding the Gender Gap_, and the numbers are essentially what I suggested, although her data goes back to around 1890. So, among white native and foreign born women, married LFPR's ran at around 10-11%, and among black married women were at just under 30%. This refers only to working outside the home, btw; married women continued to engage in substantial economic activities within the home.
Goldin estimates that household activities ommitted from national income would have increased 1890 market production value by about 14% of the total value of all household production. The undercounting comes from direct work activities not included in national accounts, not because of changing definitions of work: the activities were boardinghouse keepers, unpaid family farm workers, and manufacturing workers in homes and in factories. In all three cases the undercounting was most serious for white, married and adult women working within their homes and on family farms.
477. Seguine - Jan. 8, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT
From Loar's 412:
"Although the urban demand for slaves was elastic (at times slaves
comprised up to 1/2 the labour force of Tredegar Iron Works, the fourth largest iron manufacturer in the US and largest in the South) slave and free labour were interchangeable dependent on market price relative to wages, but rural demand for slaves was inelastic as free wages to the ratio of slave prices "had virtually no effect on the preferences of large plantations for slave labor".
Why no effect? Does the foregoing mean that rural labor costs were routinely higher than the cost of slave labor, and that urban free labor costs moved above and below the cost of (purchasing and maintaining) slaves? If so, why did urban free labor costs fluctuate--that is, if slave labor was available, as it apparently was, what was it about urban work that allowed free labor to be competitive with slave labor while plantation free labor was not?
I would assume, btw, that demand for food crops would be inelastic but demand for iron would not; but was the demand for cotton inelastic?
[Apologies if this topic has been brought up or addressed already, or if the question is simply a product of extreme ignorance on my part.]
478. Seguine - Jan. 8, 1999 - 12:23 PM PT
Oh, I just read my previous and realized it may prompt corrections that don't get at the (perhaps completely obscure) heart of what I was asking. Let me try again:
Assuming rural labor costs were routinely higher than the cost of slave labor, and urban free labor costs moved above and below the cost of (purchasing and maintaining) slaves, and vice versa, why did urban free labor costs become greater and smaller relative to slave labor costs--that is, if slave labor was available both in industry and farming, as it apparently was, what was it about urban work that allowed free labor to be competitive with slave labor AT ALL, while plantation free labor was not?
479. LadyChaos - Jan. 8, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
Seguine,
One only need look at modern farm labor wages and productivity versus those of current industrial labor. An industrial worker is capable of creating more wealth than a cotton picker. I'm only speculating here, but I would guess that absent the invention of picking machinery, there were simply natural limitations on how much cotton one slave could produce and harvest, whereas a factory worker's ability to produce could be regularly improved by technological advances.
480. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 1:08 PM PT
"Why no effect?"
Well, Fogel and Engerman interpret the inelasticity of agricultural demand for slave labour as evidence that free labour were not easily substituteable for slave labour. "How big a premium would [plantation owners] have had to offer to induce free agriculturalists to forego the tempo and life-style of small farms and to accept a much more intense, more highly regulated, more interdependent regimen? And did the plantation owners have the capacity to pay that premium?" Fogel and Engerman don't directly answer these questions. Rather they imply that this premium was much greater than any fluctuations of slave prices relatives to free wages. If they don't know the premium, on what basis do they so conclude?
(continued)
481. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT
Well, actually, Loar's Message #412 summarises Fogel and Engerman's rationale pretty well.
482. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 1:33 PM PT
Seguine: I'm trying to answer your question without resummarising the 14 pages of reasoning that Loar already summarised well enough. But I think you should pick up the book and read pp. 232-246. By the way, Chaos's reasoning is totally off-base.
483. Seguine - Jan. 8, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
"How big a premium would [plantation owners] have had to offer to induce free agriculturalists to forego the tempo and life-style of small farms and to accept a much more intense, more highly regulated, more interdependent regimen? And did the plantation owners have the capacity to pay that premium?" Fogel and Engerman don't directly answer these questions. Rather they imply that this premium was much greater than any fluctuations of slave prices relatives to free wages."
Ah. So the point is that free agricultural workers had an alternative (small farms) to plantation work, and that alternative was substantially more attractive than plantation work (for strictly non-economic reasons?), therefore the premium for free agricultural labor was more or less always too high relative to slave labor.
1. But much industrial labor was also extremely unappealing. Did industrial free laborers not have alternatives to it comparable to the ag alternative (working on small farms)?
2. Unless wages were sufficiently high relative to alternative forms of work (assuming there were any, or enough relative to the size of the workforce) how would industrialists have been able to hire anyone?
3. And if wages were high relative to alternative, less obnoxious forms of work, as the Southern economy diversified wouldn't slave labor have ultimately pervaded manufacturing?
484. Seguine - Jan. 8, 1999 - 1:58 PM PT
PE,
Crosspost. Don't respond if it's too much trouble; I'll have to get the book, or re-read to see if I can understand better the summary Loar has provided.
LadyChaos' remarks:
"An industrial worker is capable of creating more wealth than a cotton
picker. I'm only speculating here, but I would guess that absent the
invention of picking machinery, there were simply natural limitations on how much cotton one slave could produce and harvest, whereas a factory worker's ability to produce could be regularly improved by technological advances."
But the invention of cotton picking machinery wasn't absent, and technological advances in general are hardly unknown to agriculture.
485. CoralReef - Jan. 8, 1999 - 2:07 PM PT
Isn't judging the viability of the slave economy in the advent of no Civil War dependent on there being a market for its products? Britain was a very important market for Southern cotton (the British Empire almost intervened on behalf of the south to keep the cotton flowing with no interruption) and its concievable that an opposition to slave-made products could have arisen in Britain and/or the rest of Europe over time, if slavery had continued.
486. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 2:37 PM PT
CoralReef, but there was an opposition to slave-made products that arose in Britain at the time, by Victoria Regina herself and, by even greater example, by the workingmen of Manchester who on December 31, 1862, addressed a letter "To Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States" pledging their support of the Union cause now that the Civil War was directed to the abolition of slavery. Lincoln lauded their "instance of sublime Christian heroism" by reply dated January 19, 1863. These texts are among those dedicated to an entire chapter "Great Britain and the American Civil War" (pp.515-551) in Volume One: The Blue and the Gray, quoted elsewhere in this thread.
I do not doubt that the market for US cotton would continue unabated but so, too, one cannot discount increasing moral repugnance for slavery abroad in the most import US overseas market. I would expect to see testimony of such repugnance among Northern mills as well.
487. 109109 - Jan. 8, 1999 - 2:40 PM PT
Coral, Scott
I'm not so sure moral repugnance would have had the desired economic effect. Ask Nike.
488. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 2:44 PM PT
"Time on the Cross" (continued): Epilogue, Implications for Our Time
This final summary can do no better than begin with the very words of the authors. "We have attacked the traditional interpretation of the economics of slavery not in order to resurrect a defunct system, but in order to correct the perversion of the history of blacks - in order to strike down the view that black Americans were without culture, without achievement, and without development for their first two hundred and fifty years on American soil". The traditional interpretations of this history allowed that blacks were biologically inferior, then revised to allow for stunted development by reason of "unfortunate sociological circumstances", as the constant theme of incompetence ran throughout, even to conjuring at best feeble "day-to-day resistance" and weak conspiracies against an oppresive system. These are the "myths that turned diligent and efficient workers into lazy loafers and bunglers, that turned love of family into a disregard for it, that turned those who struggled for self-improvement in the only way they could into 'Uncle Toms'".
It is finished.
489. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 2:46 PM PT
Indeed 109109, ask Nike, Walmart, Oriental rug importers, and a host of others who alerted to the conditions under which some imported products are made have worked to arrest those conditions or find alternative supply. Sorry events don't move fast or perfectly enough for you.
490. 109109 - Jan. 8, 1999 - 2:52 PM PT
Scott
Well, I'm sorry. I'm just a tireless champion of the civil rights of foreigners, and my heart is perpetually on my sleeve.
491. 109109 - Jan. 8, 1999 - 2:54 PM PT
That said, pop quiz:
the shoes on my feet were manufactured by someone making ___ cents an hour?
492. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 2:57 PM PT
I don't understand your last message. Do you infer by my comments that I'm dumb, blind or indifferent to the plight of those outside these United States who labor under conditions unfit for man or beast? Or that I would excuse so for reason that it serves economy?
493. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 3:00 PM PT
Or did you post, 109109, to advance yourself as an icon of probity?
494. 109109 - Jan. 8, 1999 - 3:03 PM PT
Scott
I have not posted much in here, but my sparse themes have been that the interjection of blubbery emotion and sidelong innuendo as to indifference in the context of an economics discussion is childish and plain silly. My point was simple: people pay for cheap goods, regardless of whether the goods are from slaves or near-slaves. So, I doubt the moral effect on the economics.
I was making no assumption regarding you, but I'll make one now. You are quick to snappishness and self-justification. Relax.
495. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 8, 1999 - 3:03 PM PT
Actually, anyone who boycotts products manufactured with low-wage-labour in the Third World are hurting the workers, because, unemployed, their alternative is frequently to scrounge around on rubbish heaps. Rather than boycotting, contribute monies to your local AFL-CIO, which finances and abets local organising efforts.
496. CoralReef - Jan. 8, 1999 - 3:04 PM PT
Scott, thanks for the response. As to the flea picking at you, it's just 109 with his self-righteous hat on trying to provoke.
497. 109109 - Jan. 8, 1999 - 3:05 PM PT
Coral
Self-righteous? Moi? Roll me a Cuban and strap on my Air Jordans, but you got the wrong fella'.
498. 109109 - Jan. 8, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
PE
I agree. Regardless, people don't boycott cheap goods as a matter of course, even if those goods come from a sweatshop in Guadelajara.
499. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 3:07 PM PT
109109, your comments regarding my personality are right on target, truer than any I've read by any persons in or related to this forum. My vigor and enthusiasm is the up side; the down side is obvious to you. Another aspect is the profound melancholy only arrested by intellection and... but you already know that other, don't you?
500. ScottLoar - Jan. 8, 1999 - 3:08 PM PT
109109, that's enough for today, okay?