Should slave owners be removed from the dollar bill?

The civil war caused 620,000 soldier deaths so obviously it was important to "someone" for some reason.

Can't speak for Set. but I believe his implied reference may be to the often discussed notion (among economists and historians) that slavery actually held the South back compared to the North. It certainly enriched a small class of landowners focused on the cheap production of cash, commodity crops. However it widened the social and economic divisions between plantation owners and small farmers in the hinterlands; got in the way of the development of a more diverse economic base (as occurred in the North); and certainly wasted a great deal of human potential in forced servitude. Hard to tell what history would be if this or that feature of it were changed, but I believe it is fair to say that we succeeded in spite of slavery.

Yes, undoubtedly in the aggregate - including the war that was fought in part because of it - it can't reasonably be considered part of American "success". I was just trying to figure out , sort of as devil's advocate, what arguments could be mounted that say slavery helped America.

Wouldn't it be said that having all that building and cotton picking done for free saved a lot of money?

It's generally very hard to make a long term historically convincing argument that human servitude was net economically more beneficial as compared to applied technology. Even in war, given enough technology one man can wipe out millions of armed slaves (actually millions could now be wiped and the response automated).

The real questions going forward:

1) Wage-slaves of the developing countries

2) Cybernetic / genetic slavery

3) The emancipation of the forthcoming AI's

Snoodle, aren't you in the military? Have you seen FutureWeapons on the Discovery Channel?

I'm sure it saved some people a lot of money, but the net economic impact probably depends a lot on what they did with it, and what were the side effects. I also believe (but can't really prove) that had we the wisdom to end slavery in the 1830s just as the movement to end the trade grew in the Western World, we would have emerged far better off economically for it - even without counting the destruction of the Civil War. This because the value of the forced economic labor of the slaves was reduced by the energy required to keep them in bondage and, more importantly, by the lost benefits of their own economic initiatives if they were free. It is certainly true that the Jim Crow segregation established in the South after about 1875 had enormously adverse side effects on the economy of the South for reasons very similar to those noted above. Freedom, it turns out, is better for all in many ways.

Interestingly, I have read historians who make a case that slavery in British Barbados created a huge influx of income (quickly accumulated as capital in British markets) that fueled economic expansion and investment elsewhere. In those early days the economic value (to Britain) of Barbados was far greater than that of the North American colonies - which really were dumping grounds for disaffected religious, social and economic groups from Britain. Ironically many of the plantation owners were themselves the grandchildren (& great-grandchildren) of debtors, petty criminals, prostitutes and indentured servants (slaves under fixed term contracts) exported from Britain to Georgia and the Carolinas in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

I can take a relatively detached view only because my parents came here as young children from Ireland during the post WWI revolution & civil war.

You've pretty well gotten your answer, Snood, in that O'George has pointed out the net economic liability. But i did want to point out that you don't get something for nothing. Having the slaves as hewers of wood and drawers of water (to use a biblical term, which is apt) isn't free labor. They have to be fed, housed and clothed. Despite how cheaply that might be done, and often was done, when combined with the low quality of the labor performed (unsurprisingly, slaves are not known for their enterprise and assiduous devotion to completing tasks promptly and well), you should see that a great deal of resources was required in order that dozens of people could support a small family in modest style, or in order that hundreds of people could support a small family in luxury, or a large family in modest comfort.

All the while, the free population of small holders and small craftsmen in the vicinity of plantations lived in a continual poverty, having little resource for customers other than one another. Slavery crippled the local economy wherever it has been practiced in history, and was only successful for large-scale slave holders when they had foreign or constantly expanding markets. This can be seen in the history of the Roman Empire, where the latifundia (huge slave driven enterprises of the senatorial class, usually managed by ambitious men of the order of Equites, or "knights") were solvent only so long as the empire was expanding. When the empire began to contract in the third century, the economy of the western portion of the empire, which had been almost entirely taken over by slave-driven enterprises, rapidly began to collapse, as did the finances of that portion of the empire. In the fourth century, Constantine separated the administration of the empire east and west, and by the end of the fourth century, the "capital" in the west had been moved from Rome to Ravenna, because the latter was more defensible, and "Italy" had degenerated into lawlessness. By the fifth century, "barbarian" tribes were roaming throughout the western portion of the empire, and Rome itself was sacked by the Goths. By the sixth century, it was all over but the shouting.

Meanwhile, in the eastern portion of the empire, where slavery had never reached the same insane extent, and where small holders and small craftsmen still provided most of the goods and services, things ticked along nicely for another thousand years. I know of no time or place in history in which large scale slavery did not have sooner or later, and usually sooner rather than later, a serious negative effect on the economic health of any society in which it was practiced.

Well, I'm glad then. I'm glad that besides being a blight in humanitarian terms, it was also not helpful overall economically. That will take away one ridiculous claim from those who still try to defend the indefensible.

It is indefensible, on economic terms as well as on "humanitarian" terms. By the 1850s, a young, strong black man, suitable for work as a "field hand," sold for as much as $2,000. In a book by a German who fought for the South which i was reading last night, he paid $1,000 for a thoroughbred horse in 1863, and that was in the hopelessly inflated currency of the Confederacy. By 1850, slaves were being exploited in two ways. Plantation owners in the coastal states were selling off children produced in the normal, human way by their slaves, because they could no longer accumulate capital from the production of tobacco, indigo or rice, and they had destroyed the soil of their land through the constant monoculture of cash crops. The second way in which it was being exploited was by speculators who bought large bodies of slaves, cleared cheap land in the newer regions (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.) and planted cotton. They then worked the slaves (sometimes literally to death) in appalling conditions with bands of overseers who drove the slaves on with the lash, and rode about heavily armed. "King Cotton" was only king because the worst abuses of the era of slavery in the United States were being practiced to produce a cash crop by absentee landlords (and many of the investors in such enterprises were Northerners), without the least regard for the people exploited and the land on which the cash crop was being exploited. Small holders in those western portions of the South could only scratch out a living by growing corn to make moonshine whiskey (it's a lot easier to transport and find a buyer for whiskey than it is for corn as a grain, which was true throughout the history of the South from the end of the Revolution up to modern times, without reference to slavery), or by planting tobacco or cotton, and selling it for starvation prices to the large plantation owners. Things got worse and worse for the slaves, and for the poor whites. Even then, the only way to profit was to sell the cotton to the English and French textile mills, because to make a profit, far more cotton had to be produced than American industry could absorb, and the American textile milling industry would not (could not) pay the prices for raw cotton that could be got in Europe, which had to import cotton from somewhere anyway, because they didn't produce it themselves. For the Europeans, the equation was always that they got their own back by selling cheap consumer goods to those from whom they bought tobacco and cotton, so the Southerners were always opposed to a tariff, which would otherwise have been used by Northern interests to protect their manufacturing interests. Most slave owners in the older portions of the South were deeply in debt to their European factors, who sold their production and then purchased consumer goods for them, of a poor quality and at inflated, unreasonable prices.

Whether it was the Romans of the western portion of the empire two thousand years ago, or the American slave owners of two centuries ago, the equation of consumer economies was simply not understood by them. On the latifundia, the slave owners produced wheat, olives (for olive oil, just about the only cooking oil used in the ancient world), wine, or ran slave factories to produce pottery or woolen cloth. But if you put the local farmer or craftsman out of business, who's going to buy your production? The slave-drivers of the Roman Empire flourished as long as the empire expanded, creating new markets for them. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the older portions of the empire increasingly relied on panem et cirque, "bread and circuses," which means the public dole. Bread was guaranteed to Roman citizens in what is now Italy (and citizenship expanded with the empire), initially with price subsidies, and eventually with the imperial administration importing the grain, grinding it, baking the bread and handing it out to the people. The "circuses" were the public entertainment (chariot races, gladiators, the old "Ben Hur" routine) which was intended to distract the population and make politicians popular (and it worked, too, Iulius Caesar instituted gladitorial games to make himself popular with the people). As long as the empire continued to expand, the system creaked along. But more and more small holders and small craftsmen were put out of business, and more and more Roman citizens were entered on the dole, which meant that more and more of them flocked to the cities for the free bread and the free entertainment. There, they would eke out a paltry income doing repairs and building work (you definitely do not want slaves doing the skilled labor to build the roof over your head--think about it), with which to buy a little meat and oil, and some wine when they could get it. Public holidays were very popular, because the imperial authorities handed out food and wine--eventually, there were more than a hundred days a year of public holidays in Rome.

So the "consumer economy" of the western portion of the empire only worked as long as the empire continued to expand to the east, where slavery was practiced, but not on the same huge scale. In the east, much of the land was acquired by the surrender of the local populations, or because it was bequeathed to the empire by petty kings who wished to protect their people. In those cases, the people got to keep their lands and their livelihoods, and you did not have the same equation as when land was conquered. People who had to be conquered were sold into slavery, and their land confiscated. Then the Senatorial class snapped up the public land and started their slave-driven operations. But in the east, this did not happen, and the incidence of slavery actually declined there. When they didn't have any more consumer markets, the slave-drivers sold their production to the imperial government, to feed and clothe the legions (there was fierce competition just to supply plates, cups and bowls to the legions). Even when the empire was still expanding, they were running out of cash to operate the whole creaky system--Septimius Severus, who became Emperor at the end of the second century, was the last emperor to physically expand the empire, and just one of many emperors who debased the currency--added lead to the gold coins. That was something else they didn't understand, either, because people aren't stupid, and if you put lead in your gold coins, i'm gonna want more gold coins to sell you my goods--the result was runaway inflation.

After Constantine divided the empire into two administrative districts, east and west, the inevitable result was competition between them. Constantine consolidated his power by about 320 CE, and the Goths sacked Rome in 410 CE. It didn't take long for the entire house of cards to collapse. The east tottered along until it was finally and completely severed from the west, and even began to prosper again. It took a long time to sink the Roman Empire after that, and the last Emperor died at the head of his troops when the Turks took Constantinople in 1453. The west had collapsed a thousand years earlier. There are many reasons for that collapse, but the economic failure of the system was not the least of them, and arguably was the most important.

It seems silly to me because how do you objectively assign value to any of the "good" or 'bad" things these guys did? I mean, how does one go about quantifying and measuring the value of deeds, both "bad and "good"?

Let's look at Setanta's reply. Most, I'm guessing, would say that slavery was a bad thing. Once we get past reading about Washington being called an "indispensable man," described as being "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen," and having a short temper with lazy people, we find out what Washington did that causes Sentanta to think Washington atoned for his holding humans as chattel.

Washington:

* quit his job of leading the Continental Army, following the conclusion of the American Revolution.
* other than on one occasion, never attended a session of Congress uninvited.
* never appeared in public in military uniform, nor did he appear "at the head of the troops" in the character of an officer.
* quit his job as President after his second term.

I dunno about you, but it seems silly to me to think that Washington atoned for holding people as property because he quit two public jobs (his last a couple of years before his death), shied away from watching Congress do their business, never wore, as President, his army fatigues in public. But that's just it, what I think silly may not seem so silly to someone else. In Setanta's mind those deeds (among others, I'm sure) outweigh Washington's status as a slave owner, in my mind they don't. Who can say who's right?

And in regards to slavery and the modern wealth we enjoy here in the States, here's, what I think is, a thought provoking quote: "...the most far-fetched myth that I've encountered recently is that the wealth of the modern Western world, especially that of the United States, is the product of slavery."

You are both wrong. Through most of recorded history the keeping of slaves was not a moral problem, it was understood to be the right of the victor in battle. The enslaving of the niggers of Africa (not at the time considered to be a negative term, thus I am making a point by using it here) by profiteers for use in the colonies and later the states was a possible moral problem as was recognized by some at the time, but it was also business as usual during that time. It was a global practice, European decent settlers of the new world were not doing anything that was considered unusual at the time. To expect a man of that age or any age to take a highly progressive stance at great financial detriment to himself is I think unreasonable. Those who can be rightly jammed up are those who insisted upon keeping slaves after it was generally recognized to be the wrong thing to do. Those in the Confederacy come to mind, those who would not stop doing the wrong thing.

Who knows what our great, great, great grand kids might decide we alive now have done that is equally morally reprehensible, even though it is not to us. If you judge men of 1700 by year 2000 standards then you are consenting to have your year 2000 actions judged by 2300 standards. Are you sure that you want to sign up for that deal??

No, you're wrong. It was immoral. And there were contemporaries who thought so at the time.

Human murderousness, greed, intolerance, and willingness to exploit others have all been with us for a long time. Not an age or civilization anywhere was entirely free of them.

That, however, doesn't mean that rational people don't consider them to be moral problems - now and in the past. The existence of human evil is not an excuse for it.

There are degrees of moral excess, of course. Injustices inflicted on the native American population by settlers who considered it their right to move westwards, and who viewed the response of the Indians as a serious threat to their safety, involverd a certain degree of immorality. Other actions not motivated by the need for personal safety, but merely greed and avarice, were worse.

One can make a distinction of sorts between George Washington who, at his death freed his slaves, and Thomas Jefferson who did not. However, both likely knew during their lives they were holding other human beings, of the same moral worth as themselves, in involuntary bondage.

I think that there were two problems with slavery for the men of that age, the first was that it ran counter to the then new philosophy of liberalism, the second that the slaves were not conquered but rather harvested by profiteers and kept for profit. There were doubts on the part of the better men of the day about the question of slavery, but it was the way of life, it was normal for all including the slaves.

I don't think this is a whole lot different then the American men of our generation loading up the kids and grand kids with debt that they can never pay. It is the norm for the day, any moral man with a working brain should come to the conclusion that this is the wrong thing to do, this oppression . It is wrong to live at the expense of the next generations. But have you done much of anything about it? Have you rejected your tax refund because it is the right thing to do? Have you marched on Washington? You might one day in the eyes of future generations to be no better than you think slaveholders to be. How harshly do they have the right to judge you for failing to take an unusual (for the day) stand and great financial cost to you because it would have been the right thing to do??

i always wonder this too, but that question never seems to get answered satisfactorily.
Who decides the cutoff and why?

Well historians generally regard the MODERN Era of Western history as beginning with the 16th century - soon after the Spanish Reconquista and the Discovery of America. We are still in it now !

The more relevant question is when does generally contentious analysis of contemporary events end and relatively objective history begin? That is a more difficult question, however I would put the divide somewhere around the start of WWI.

Eras are determined long after the fact, they have nothing do do with the lives of men. It is no different then economics deciding about the state of the economy. Have you ever heard on the news "America entered a recession today?"....no it is more likely "after going through the data economists have concluded that the country entered a recession in the third quarter of last year". Nobody at the time knew, and even now we are making guesses. What era the slave owners lived in has nothing to do with anything. They can only be judged upon what they did with what information and conditions they had, not what they did compared to what we know or believe to be true now.

WTF


Well, lets see. They knew it was wrong to enslave other whites, did they not? Are you suggesting that it was impossible for them to, and unreasonable for contemporary society expect that they, extend that knowledge to blacks? If so, I do not agree.

Those with power enslave those with out power, thus is how it has always been. The blacks of Africa were not enslaved because they were black or because they were from Africa, it was because they had no power to resist. The question is not about race, nor is it about America specifically because were were not the only ones to partake of African slaves. It is is question of man's right to enslave other men, in general. So far as we know humans have always enslaved other humans, I would argue that we still do economically and sexually enslave other humans, so let's not get all high and mightily offended by black slavery. Human kind has evolved, we now believe slavery is wrong and we are working to end it. We still allow it though, there are constant news stories about the trafficking and bondage of immigrants and young females harvested for the sex business both in America and through out the world. If you are so upset by slavery (and I am glad that you are because I am also), why don't you do something about that instead of picking on Jefferson, Washington, and the rest because they did not do more to resist or end the enslaving of the Negros? Doing something about the problem seems more worthy of respect to me then complaining that someone else did not do more than they did.

But there most certainly existed the rationale (besides the fact that they had "no power"), in order for slavery to be a practice that was state sanctioned and carried out on a large scale, that it was more acceptable because blacks were somehow subhuman or otherwise less significant, no?

Interesting question. White & European slaves were common enough thruought the Mediterranean area during and before the 16th century. Whole armies of Ottoman troops were made up of slaves taken from the Slavic regions of Eastern Europe and Ukraine; Europeans of all countries served in the galleys of Venice, Spain, the Ottoman Empire and the Mauritanian principalities. Africa had long been a source of slaves for the Arabian world, and, through them, beyond. (There is good reason to believe that the Russin writer Pushkin was in part descended from one).

The systematic use of West African slaves by English, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch settlers in the Americas began in the 17th century and focused primarily on agriculture. Africans were preferred, not because they were thought to be subhuman, but rather because they already had immunity to the African/Asian/European diseases which were proving so devastating to the native population of the new continent, and exhibited better survival under the conditions then existing.

I have no doubt the sub human cant was soon added as a narcotic to quiet the consciences of the slave owning classes. The slave owners merely needed to believe this to avoid an internal confrontation with the reality of what they were doing.