Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 263
Default 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.

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 263
Default 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.

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 263
Default 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.


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default 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


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.

  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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.

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Rex Rex is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default Everything you didnt want to know about slavery

Lies, damned lies, and statistics?
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.

  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.

  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.



  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.

  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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.

  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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?



  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,013
Default 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

  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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

  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.



  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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

  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.

  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default 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.

  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stuff you didnt know you didnt know.... Dan Metalworking 2 April 12th 12 01:59 PM
Stuff you didnt know you didnt know.... jk Metalworking 4 April 3rd 12 05:22 AM
Rethugs to restore slavery !!! Wes[_5_] Metalworking 1 August 7th 10 02:47 AM
Steve Irwin....... It didnt take long............ Jonathan Rhys-Lewis UK diy 25 September 9th 06 09:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"