Do You Support Slavery in the American South?

[jaichind]

Shrug.  I remember learning in history class (with an outdated textbook) that most of the South didn't own slaves, and of those that did, most of them owned only one or two.  It was a while ago though.

I know a very low % owned slaves.  On the other hand I would put that much trust in history class books.  I remember in Junior High my American history book taught me that Thomas Jefferson was the smartest man that ever lived. 

[jaichind]

For sure I oppose slavery in the South but would oppose a war that forces them to give it up.

[Alcon]

Five people have now voted "yes." Lovely.

I wish they would not be cowards about it.

[7,052,770]

Well I've always been taught in school that it was a small minority that owned slaves.  In fact my AP US History teacher last year liked to talk a lot about how slavery "wasn't that bad"....of course it was, whether they were treated like crap or not, the idea of one human being owning another is terrible.  I agree that many slaves were treated OK, but many were also mistreated.

[Sam Spade]

FYI, I would have supported slavery in the South until about 1850, when it became apparent that economically it was devastating the South by postponing necessary advancements in an industrial society.

Northern forms of "slavery" were much more effective after that point till the 1930s of course.

Right now, I would of course oppose slavery in every possible form or circumstance.

I wonder how opebo feels for those Thai "sex slaves" that he seems to like to frequent?

[Storebought]

No, because it was economically stupid after the Mexican War.

By 1850, good mechanical cotton harvesters had been invented. If the wealthiest slaveholders had been good businessmen, they would have bought the harvesters, kept a minimum of field slaves to tend to the machines, and hired out the rest of the slaves out as corvees or industrial labor. They could have monopolized cotton growing and manufacture in one sitting, instead of shipping their crops 3000 miles off to Britain for spinning, etc.

The small cottongrowers could have scraped together enough money to buy one harvester for use among the group (like midwestern farmers had with the wheat threshers, or European peasants with the steel plow). During harvest time, the small farmers would share the machine and use their individual slaves as value-added labor in the local town.

[Sam Spade]

No, because it was economically stupid after the Mexican War.

By 1850, good mechanical cotton harvesters had been invented. If the wealthiest slaveholders had been good businessmen, they would have bought the harvesters, kept a minimum of field slaves to tend to the machines, and hired out the rest of the slaves out as corvees or industrial labor. They could have monopolized cotton growing and manufacture in one sitting, instead of shipping their crops 3000 miles off to Britain for spinning, etc.

The small cottongrowers could have scraped together enough money to buy one harvester for use among the group (like midwestern farmers had with the wheat threshers, or European peasants with the steel plow). During harvest time, the small farmers would share the machine and use their individual slaves as value-added labor in the local town.

Bingo.

[J. J.]

I'll ask again, then or now?

[Smash255]

Either way slavery was absolutley terrible and a disgrace to our society.  no matter what kind of impact it had on the economy good or bad it doesn't take away from how awful slavery is.  Even if it was profitable & helped the economy in the south as some say it did in the 1800's it doesnj't make the fact that people were forced into a live of slavery in the south simply because of the color of their skin (or any reason for that manner0 any less horrific.  It was terrible either way

[??????????]

No, because it was economically stupid after the Mexican War.

By 1850, good mechanical cotton harvesters had been invented. If the wealthiest slaveholders had been good businessmen, they would have bought the harvesters, kept a minimum of field slaves to tend to the machines, and hired out the rest of the slaves out as corvees or industrial labor. They could have monopolized cotton growing and manufacture in one sitting, instead of shipping their crops 3000 miles off to Britain for spinning, etc.

The small cottongrowers could have scraped together enough money to buy one harvester for use among the group (like midwestern farmers had with the wheat threshers, or European peasants with the steel plow). During harvest time, the small farmers would share the machine and use their individual slaves as value-added labor in the local town.

Bingo.

You two of course are right on this. But I must add that the institution had become so ingrained and part of the social order and owning a slave was a class statement that it didnt matter that it was out of date. It was a part of the culture.

[Sam Spade]

No, because it was economically stupid after the Mexican War.

By 1850, good mechanical cotton harvesters had been invented. If the wealthiest slaveholders had been good businessmen, they would have bought the harvesters, kept a minimum of field slaves to tend to the machines, and hired out the rest of the slaves out as corvees or industrial labor. They could have monopolized cotton growing and manufacture in one sitting, instead of shipping their crops 3000 miles off to Britain for spinning, etc.

The small cottongrowers could have scraped together enough money to buy one harvester for use among the group (like midwestern farmers had with the wheat threshers, or European peasants with the steel plow). During harvest time, the small farmers would share the machine and use their individual slaves as value-added labor in the local town.

Bingo.

You two of course are right on this. But I must add that the institution had become so ingrained and part of the social order and owning a slave was a class statement that it didnt matter that it was out of date. It was a part of the culture.

Very true.  The interesting thing is how defense of that culture spread across white society in most of the South, even among those who didn't own slaves.

[??????????]

No, because it was economically stupid after the Mexican War.

By 1850, good mechanical cotton harvesters had been invented. If the wealthiest slaveholders had been good businessmen, they would have bought the harvesters, kept a minimum of field slaves to tend to the machines, and hired out the rest of the slaves out as corvees or industrial labor. They could have monopolized cotton growing and manufacture in one sitting, instead of shipping their crops 3000 miles off to Britain for spinning, etc.

The small cottongrowers could have scraped together enough money to buy one harvester for use among the group (like midwestern farmers had with the wheat threshers, or European peasants with the steel plow). During harvest time, the small farmers would share the machine and use their individual slaves as value-added labor in the local town.

Bingo.

You two of course are right on this. But I must add that the institution had become so ingrained and part of the social order and owning a slave was a class statement that it didnt matter that it was out of date. It was a part of the culture.

Very true.  The interesting thing is how defense of that culture spread across white society in most of the South, even among those who didn't own slaves.

Well, it was sort of like the Hollywood stars today. Many many people want to live their life and actually aspire to do so. I find it ridiculous, but to each his own I suppose.