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

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.
--
cheers,

John B.

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.

--
Ed Huntress

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%.
--
Cheers,

John B.

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.

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.

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

--
Ed Huntress

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.

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".

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."
--
cheers,

John B.

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??


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.

--
Ed Huntress

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.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.


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%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves

Gunner

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:12:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.


While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"


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%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)

But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:00:11 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:12:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.


While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?



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%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)


The Irish who left NYC had few choices. They could and did..chop
cotton. So did the Chinese..who were better known for building the
railroads.
But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.

I suggest you review other sources for your numbers

https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...utf-8&oe=utf-8


And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
well

https://www.google.com/search?q=iris...utf-8&oe=utf-8

On 7/3/2015 3:12 PM, Gunner Asch 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.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.

Cite.

It's bull****.

On 7/1/2015 4:40 AM, 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.

Not quite; continued...

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.

It was not the federal government that prevented westward expansion of
slavery, it was federal electoral politics. And, contrary to John's
statement, it was the development of new machinery - the cotton gin -
that *strengthened* the institution of slavery in the south, as it made
inferior land profitable in the cultivation of cotton. It is a
commonplace of American history classes that slavery was declining in
the south before the cotton gin came into widespread use. Of course,
later mechanization in the form of harvesting machinery almost certainly
would have reduced the demand for slaves.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:49:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/1/2015 4:40 AM, 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.

Not quite; continued...

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.

It was not the federal government that prevented westward expansion of
slavery, it was federal electoral politics.

Uh...Ok. g

And, contrary to John's
statement, it was the development of new machinery - the cotton gin -
that *strengthened* the institution of slavery in the south, as it made
inferior land profitable in the cultivation of cotton. It is a
commonplace of American history classes that slavery was declining in
the south before the cotton gin came into widespread use. Of course,
later mechanization in the form of harvesting machinery almost certainly
would have reduced the demand for slaves.

But the harvesting machinery didn't come along until 1944. Picking
cotton was a holdout on mechanization.

The fact is that slaves remained an essential part of the South's
economy, and would have continued, in all likelihood, until the cotton
market collapsed, or they ran out of new land...or until 1944.

--
Ed Huntress

On 7/1/2015 8:03 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:49:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/1/2015 4:40 AM, 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.

Not quite; continued...

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.

It was not the federal government that prevented westward expansion of
slavery, it was federal electoral politics.

Uh...Ok. g

Dismiss it if you wish, but it's an important point. If the south had
had greater representation in Congress, slavery would have expanded.

And, contrary to John's
statement, it was the development of new machinery - the cotton gin -
that *strengthened* the institution of slavery in the south, as it made
inferior land profitable in the cultivation of cotton. It is a
commonplace of American history classes that slavery was declining in
the south before the cotton gin came into widespread use. Of course,
later mechanization in the form of harvesting machinery almost certainly
would have reduced the demand for slaves.

But the harvesting machinery didn't come along until 1944. Picking
cotton was a holdout on mechanization.

I understand that. I'm only saying that earlier mechanization increased
the demand for slaves, while later mechanization almost certainly would
have eliminated it.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:49:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/1/2015 8:03 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:49:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/1/2015 4:40 AM, 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.

Not quite; continued...

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.

It was not the federal government that prevented westward expansion of
slavery, it was federal electoral politics.

Uh...Ok. g

Dismiss it if you wish, but it's an important point. If the south had
had greater representation in Congress, slavery would have expanded.

Well, sure. But they didn't, and it didn't.


And, contrary to John's
statement, it was the development of new machinery - the cotton gin -
that *strengthened* the institution of slavery in the south, as it made
inferior land profitable in the cultivation of cotton. It is a
commonplace of American history classes that slavery was declining in
the south before the cotton gin came into widespread use. Of course,
later mechanization in the form of harvesting machinery almost certainly
would have reduced the demand for slaves.

But the harvesting machinery didn't come along until 1944. Picking
cotton was a holdout on mechanization.

I understand that. I'm only saying that earlier mechanization increased
the demand for slaves, while later mechanization almost certainly would
have eliminated it.

Right, that's accurate.

We've diverted a bit from the riginal point here, which was that a
common way that slavery ends in most countries is through economic or
technical evolotion that makes slavery uneconomic. That isn't what
happened in the US. It was economically attractive as hell, and would
have remained that way for nearly a century if it wasn't for the civil
war. That is, if the cotton market held up and we didn't run out of
arable land.

--
Ed Huntress

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
...
On 7/1/2015 4:40 AM, 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.

Not quite; continued...

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.

It was not the federal government that prevented westward expansion
of slavery, it was federal electoral politics. And, contrary to
John's statement, it was the development of new machinery - the
cotton gin - that *strengthened* the institution of slavery in the
south, as it made inferior land profitable in the cultivation of
cotton. It is a commonplace of American history classes that
slavery was declining in the south before the cotton gin came into
widespread use. Of course, later mechanization in the form of
harvesting machinery almost certainly would have reduced the demand
for slaves.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas...93Nebraska_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

Eli Whitney personally made the South an agricultural power with his
cotton gin, and the North an industrial one by promoting and
facilitating mechanized mass production of interchangeable parts.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._1818--001.png

I saw that machine or one like it in the American Precision Museum in
Vermont. It's not very large, but neither were gun lock parts, the
only thing worth mass producing back then.

-jsw

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.

Yes..and your excellent summation had what to do with Leftist world
views?

Gunner

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:06:25 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

Yes..and your excellent summation had what to do with Leftist world
views?

Gunner

I don't know, after all you would be a far better spokesman for the
"leftist" side of things, being the recipient of government furnished
medical care. In a purely "rightist" environment - pay for what you
get - you would be under the ground.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 06:18:30 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:06:25 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

Yes..and your excellent summation had what to do with Leftist world
views?

Gunner

I don't know, after all you would be a far better spokesman for the
"leftist" side of things, being the recipient of government furnished
medical care. In a purely "rightist" environment - pay for what you
get - you would be under the ground.

Odd.."government supplied medical care". Oh..you mean like Medicare
and VA care and whatnot?

Gunner

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 01:50:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 06:18:30 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:06:25 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

Yes..and your excellent summation had what to do with Leftist world
views?

Gunner

I don't know, after all you would be a far better spokesman for the
"leftist" side of things, being the recipient of government furnished
medical care. In a purely "rightist" environment - pay for what you
get - you would be under the ground.

Odd.."government supplied medical care". Oh..you mean like Medicare
and VA care and whatnot?

Gunner

Nope, I was referring to the government mandated laws that say a
hospital must give emergency treatment. If you had to prove that you
were capable of paying the medical bills before you were admitted you
would be laying six feet below the surface.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:16:16 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 01:50:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 06:18:30 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:06:25 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

Yes..and your excellent summation had what to do with Leftist world
views?

Gunner

I don't know, after all you would be a far better spokesman for the
"leftist" side of things, being the recipient of government furnished
medical care. In a purely "rightist" environment - pay for what you
get - you would be under the ground.

Odd.."government supplied medical care". Oh..you mean like Medicare
and VA care and whatnot?

Gunner

Nope, I was referring to the government mandated laws that say a
hospital must give emergency treatment. If you had to prove that you
were capable of paying the medical bills before you were admitted you
would be laying six feet below the surface.

Say..does that work the same with with Medicare and the VA?

Hummm?

Now..if you have a problem with the "government mandated
laws"..perhaps you should take it up with the government?

Or are you simply being an ass visa vis me, personally? And if
so..how did I manage to **** in your cornflakes?

Hummm?

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:16:35 AM UTC-4, 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.

So has sleeping with animals. So has racial and religious discrimination. So has rape. So has robbery and state corruption.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 11:14:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:16:35 AM UTC-4, 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.

So has sleeping with animals. So has racial and religious discrimination. So has rape. So has robbery and state corruption.

The difference is, of course, that while legal slavery - the literal
owning of another human - has become extremely rare, the sins that you
mention have not.

--
cheers,

John B.