On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 18:35:15 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 03:32:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:05:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:40:28 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:11:28 +0700, Jophn B. slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
children between the ages of 4 - 11.

Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
comprehensive, ability.

--
cheers,

John B.

I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
the Leftist could understand it?

Hummm?

Gunner

No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every
society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his army
one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like forty
thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more than
a million people.

What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a
purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery.

That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out because
the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery, which
provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.

Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

I think that you are ignoring the decrease in slavery in the northern,
industrializing, States. The New England states, Maine - Connecticut,
had a slave population of 2,703 in 1790 and in 1820 it was 145. The
Middle States, New York - Delaware, had 45,910 in 1790 and by 1820
were at 22,305.

The Southern States, in contrast, went from 648,131 in 1790 to
1,319,208 in 1820.

The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

I don't think I'm ignoring anything, John. The decrease in northern
slavery was trivial in terms of overall numbers. Your own figures show
that there was a huge increase in slavery through that period -- all
in the South.


But that is exactly what I was saying. That slavery in the North
naturally decreased due largely to the need for more technically
qualified workers while in the South where it wasn't necessary slavery
actually increased.

As for cotton production, it grew rapaciously and the center of
production kept moving west, as the cotton fields in the Old South
were in decline. The South needed more land -- western land -- and the
federal government was blocking them from extending slavery into the
new territories.

That just isn't true at all. At least in the days of slavery.

The first areas that grew a substantial amount of cotton was South
Carolina and Georgia in 1800 (measured by counties raising 1,000 bales
or more). In 1810 the same areas predominated and a little cotton was
raised in Louisiana. In 1820 the area spread to include Mississippi
and Alabama, in 1830 essentially the same areas but some counties had
increased production to 5,000 bales. In 1840 a greater area but
essentially the same states. In 1850 we find the first evidence of
cotton being grown in E. Texas. and finally in 1860 comes the big
Jump. Exactly the same states were growing the bulk of the cotton -
and in Alabama and Mississippi the counties producing 5,000 bales or
more had grown significantly.

The "the center of production kept moving west" isn't correct. the
major producers of cotton remained essentially the same throughout its
antebellum days.

You're joking, right? You've just described a westward movement of
cotton production, and then you say the center of production remained
the same.

Huh??


Gee Ed, I guess you missed the part where I said, " Exactly the same
states were growing the bulk of the cotton and in Alabama and
Mississippi the counties producing 5,000 bales or more had grown
significantly."

John, take a look at these two maps. Notice how far WEST the center of
cotton production moved from 1820 to 1860:

http://teachers.henrico.k12.va.us/tu...01820-1860.jpg



Kansas, for example, prior to becoming a state passed a law "An Act to
Punish Offences Against Slave Property" passed in 1855, which declared
that "every person, bond or free, who shall be aid or assist in any
rebellion or insurrection of slaves, free Negroes, or mulattoes or
shall furnish arms or do any overt act in furtherance such rebellion
or insurrection shall suffer death."

So, prior to becoming a state on 29 January 1961 there was no
impediment to slave ownership in Kansas but Kansas did not become a
major, or even a 1,000 bale per county, producer. In fact, one
reference states that " Out of necessity during the Civil War
(1861-1865), Kansas farmers attempted to raise cotton because that
southern product was cut off from the northern states".

There was no impediment because of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. But that
was more political than economic.


Automated cotton pickers weren't developed until the 1940s. The South
needed slaves for their economy to survive.

Than why the argument? I originally said that "while cost effective in
a purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery."

There was no argument. You said "in nearly every society slavery died
out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a purely
agricultural environment..." etc.

I pointed out that was NOT how slavery "died out" in the US. Nor is it
likely it would have for decades to come.


It died out in the US because we had a war that decided the issue.