| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On 7/1/2015 9:14 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
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. But it wasn't some mandate of the *government*, i.e. the administration, that prevented the westward spread of slavery. 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. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
"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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 12:14:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: 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. No. The original point was: "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." I did, in fact, deliberately use the word "society" as within a single country there can exist more that one "society" as in "an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization". In antebellum America there certainly existed at least two distinct "societies", North and South. This is not especially unique. In Imperial Rome there existed two or more distinct economic societies. Three in fact, the Senatorial and Equestrian ranks, and the common folk called "Plebs", and only two of these groups owned a significant number of slaves, primarily for economic reasons. -- cheers, John B. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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." 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. -- cheers, John B. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
Lies, damned lies, and statistics?
|
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 01:49:11 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: 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? Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of the slaves in Louisiana. I must say, that is something to really get excited about! 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 Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat. "At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention Virginia and New England." "During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England." Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600 people. I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas. -- cheers, John B. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 01:49:11 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: 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? Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of the slaves in Louisiana. I must say, that is something to really get excited about! 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 Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat. "At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention Virginia and New England." "During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England." Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600 people. I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas. We went over this with Gunner some months ago, and reached exactly the same conclusion. -- Ed Huntress |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B.
wrote: 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? Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of the slaves in Louisiana. I must say, that is something to really get excited about! Johnny...several of those were slave sellers. They bought and sold slaves..so your claim they only owned 550 is bogus. 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 Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat. "At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention Virginia and New England." "During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England." Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600 people. I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas. -- cheers, John B. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B.
wrote: 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? Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of the slaves in Louisiana. I must say, that is something to really get excited about! You may wish to read this..all nicely cited with names and numbers http://www.theroot.com/articles/hist...hey_exist.html And climb down off your high horse..you might get a nose bleed up there. 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 What..no comment? 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 Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat. "At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention Virginia and New England." "During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England." Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600 people. I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas. Your suggestion of the "bulk" is noted with some interest. You do know that the vast majority of black slaves went to South America, right? You may also wish to read this..noting that more Irish slaves were brought to New England than black ones. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-iri...e-slaves/31076 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...at-time-forgot -- cheers, John B. Cheers, pip pip! Gunner |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
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? |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:18:23 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: 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? Irregardless...bon appetite! Gunner |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:15:52 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B. wrote: 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? Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of the slaves in Louisiana. I must say, that is something to really get excited about! You may wish to read this..all nicely cited with names and numbers http://www.theroot.com/articles/hist...hey_exist.html And climb down off your high horse..you might get a nose bleed up there. As usual, Gunner is full of crap. The largest number of slaves owned by a black, as noted in his article, was 163. Numerous white slaveholders owned more than 500; in one case, 1,200 at one time. So his claim is ****. Not that we should be surprised. -- Ed Huntress |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery. There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish. And lets not forget that the slavers that captured the slaves in Africa were black themselves. They sold off their neighbors to steal their land or cattle or whatever. Often a tribe would capture another and sell them off to the slave ships - owned by the NORTH. Just like the RUM boats, owned by the NORTH. Martin On 7/4/2015 3:49 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: 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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote: And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery. There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish. And lets not forget that the slavers that captured the slaves in Africa were black themselves. They sold off their neighbors to steal their land or cattle or whatever. Often a tribe would capture another and sell them off to the slave ships - owned by the NORTH. Just like the RUM boats, owned by the NORTH. Martin Well stated!! On 7/4/2015 3:49 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: 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 |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:18:23 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: 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? Nope. I have no problem with either the government or you. I was just reminding you that for all your ranting and raving about "left-wingers" you apparently were quite happy to take advantage of the "left-wing-style nanny government that cares for you" style treatment that you got at the hospital. I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay for treatment rendered. -- cheers, John B. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 13:15:29 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:18:23 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: 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? Nope. I have no problem with either the government or you. I was just reminding you that for all your ranting and raving about "left-wingers" you apparently were quite happy to take advantage of the "left-wing-style nanny government that cares for you" style treatment that you got at the hospital. Odd..Ive been paying taxes for about 50 yrs and I could have bitten the bullet and gone to the VA. So what "leftwing style blah blah" are you talking about? I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay for treatment rendered. Why? Its the law isnt it that my taxes get used for Medicare..among other things..right? Think Ive not paid my fair share in hummm...45 yrs? Gunner |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:06:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B. wrote: 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? Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of the slaves in Louisiana. I must say, that is something to really get excited about! Johnny...several of those were slave sellers. They bought and sold slaves..so your claim they only owned 550 is bogus. It isn't my claim that I quoted. I read the article that you referenced and quoted numbers that the article stated. Just as I said I did. But the fact that some free blacks in the South had slaves, or traded slaves, is sort of silly isn't it? After all, where did the slaves come from? You don't really think that those scoundrels on the slave ships discovered a tree in Africa that grew "slaves" and they sailed over there and just picked them off the tree.... do you? But a little more research seems to show that the Free Black population of the United States in 1830 was 319,599. or about 2% of the total U.S. population. Of these apparently some 3,775 were slave owners and they owned some 12,760 slaves out of a total slave population of 2,009,043 slaves. So, 1% of the Free Blacks owned some 0.6% of the slaves. By Godfery! That is something to really ruffle a fellows feathers, isn't it. -- cheers, John B. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:15:52 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B. wrote: 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? Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of the slaves in Louisiana. I must say, that is something to really get excited about! You may wish to read this..all nicely cited with names and numbers http://www.theroot.com/articles/hist...hey_exist.html And climb down off your high horse..you might get a nose bleed up there. I did read it and I quoted numbers from it which in another message you implied that I made up. Which rather demonstrates that you didn't read it at all. But "high horse".... you mean that researching a question and finding the truth, or as much of it as possible, causes nose bleeds? 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 What..no comment? 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 Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat. "At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention Virginia and New England." "During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England." Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600 people. I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas. Your suggestion of the "bulk" is noted with some interest. You do know that the vast majority of black slaves went to South America, right? You may also wish to read this..noting that more Irish slaves were brought to New England than black ones. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-iri...e-slaves/31076 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...at-time-forgot Gunner, I read all that tripe and that is what it is. It is undocumented bull****. And it doesn't match any numbers that come from even suspect sources, never mind actual records or census. Did you know that there are Irish records listing the people that left Ireland for the colonies in the 17th century? They don't show these fantastic numbers. That Irish church records go back to the 1600's, and in some cases much earlier, and they don't show these numbers. You are quoting from the "Daily Kos" some sort of on-line blog sort of thing that sells Tee-shirts for $20.00... that I can buy for $3.00. A truly impressive source. What's your next source? The walls in the Men's Room at the local pub? -- cheers, John B. |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 13:49:45 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:06:41 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B. wrote: 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? Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of the slaves in Louisiana. I must say, that is something to really get excited about! Johnny...several of those were slave sellers. They bought and sold slaves..so your claim they only owned 550 is bogus. It isn't my claim that I quoted. I read the article that you referenced and quoted numbers that the article stated. Just as I said I did. But the fact that some free blacks in the South had slaves, or traded slaves, is sort of silly isn't it? After all, where did the slaves come from? You don't really think that those scoundrels on the slave ships discovered a tree in Africa that grew "slaves" and they sailed over there and just picked them off the tree.... do you? But a little more research seems to show that the Free Black population of the United States in 1830 was 319,599. or about 2% of the total U.S. population. Of these apparently some 3,775 were slave owners and they owned some 12,760 slaves out of a total slave population of 2,009,043 slaves. So, 1% of the Free Blacks owned some 0.6% of the slaves. By Godfery! That is something to really ruffle a fellows feathers, isn't it. Ruffle feathers? Whatever for? Slavery was ended by 1867 in the US Were you trying to make some point? Gunner |
Everything you didnt want to know about slavery
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote: And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery. And who amended the Constitution, Martin? Are you saying that the northerners forced themselves? There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish. No there weren't. Not in North America. There were white indentured servants. They were freed of their indenture after a contract period -- usually five years. -- Ed Huntress |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter