Due Monday, November 1st
1. Read pp. 147-151 in your textbook.
2. Post a comment to the following: the people in the South claimed slaves were essential for their economy. Based on your reading and the video we watched. Do you beleive that slavery should have been allowed in our country during the early part of the 1800's?
Chase Conklin
ReplyDeleteIf slaves were essential for the southern economy, most of the southern population would have owned them. However in 1860, only one-fourth of the southern free population owned slaves. Only on large plantations could the use of slavery be profitable, because the owners had large amounts of money and land in order to farm. The smaller plantation owners could not be profitable because the value of slaves increased faster than the value of cotton. They could also not be profitable because they did not have much money, so if the crops failed any year, the plantation owner would face bankruptcy. From an economic standpoint alone, slavery was only effective to an elite class of rich plantation owners, not to the South as a whole.
In the video we watched, Mr. Ames notes that the slaves have the ability to learn just like anyone else. When Toby does not use his name, it is not because he could not learn it, but instead because he is too proud to allow someone else to change his name. Fiddler also showed that he was just as intelligent as the people who owned the plantation, knowing what would become of himself when Toby broke free of his chains. One of the main arguments that the plantation owners made was that slaves were not smart enough to be equal to the white people, and the slaves on the video showed themselves to be smarter than those on the plantation on numerous occasions.
chase, I agree that the slaves were highly intelligent with a good capability to learn. The color of a person's skin and his or her social standing does not determine his or her intelligence or ability to learn in any way whatsoever. The textbook affirms that slaves were smart, and that the low level of education in the south hurt the south, "Thus, in comparison to the industrializing North, the South was an underdeveloped region in which much of the population had little incentive to work hard. A lack of public education for whites and the denial of even minimal literacy to slaves represented a critical failure to develop human resources." (p 151) The south's lack of education and dependency on agriculture and slaves ultimately ruined the south becuase the south was continuously dependent and inferior to the north.
ReplyDelete"The South's economy was probably condemned so long as it was based on slavery." (textbook p 151) Slavery should not have been allowed. Aside from being extremely immoral and ethically wrong, its economic assets were not great enough to offset its downsides. Such continuous farming and agriculture wore-out the land quickly, and although many large plantaitions could fix this problem by either selling slaves or moving westward, it drained the land, and was ultimately not good for the agricultural environment. Additionally, slavery divided the south into multiple classes, reace issues, culural divisions, and geographical splits with divisions such as planters, slaes, lower class whites, and free blacks. The south was unable to be productively united with so many divisions. The south's depenency on the north also stemed from slavery, and ultimately held the south back both culturally and economcially. The slave trade and agriculture economy was dependent on many several factors. Planters and plantaion owners depended on people who sold slaves, either other farmers (generally from the upper south), or, as seen in the movie, directly off the ship from Africa. Plantaion owners had to spend much of their money buying and providing for slaves (food, shelter, clothing, etc.), and a lot of time was invested in overseeing and breaking slaves. This time and money was uneconomical. Southerners also relied on the market dictated by the northern economy. If demand and buying of cotton decreased in the north, the southern economy suffered. The north also controlled the manufacturing of goods and produced textiles out of the cotton bought from the south. Southern nationalists such as J.D.B. De Bow demaned southern development of industries, commerce, and shipping, but because of the souths' confidence and dependence on slavery, industrialization and urbanization of the south never spread.
ReplyDeleteSlavery in the south kept the south dependent on the north, and unable to grow economically. Southerners were so enthralled with earning money with cheap labor (slavery) that they did not provide for the future and the posibility that the free labor could be taken away.
Chase Conklin
ReplyDeleteJenny, I agree that the south was hurt by slavery more than it was helped. Not only did it deplete the land as you said, but the use of cheap labor viz. slavery provided little economic benefit. "As well as can be determined, mills that hired or purchased slave labor were just as profitable and efficient as those paying wages to whites," (Textbook, p. 150). The southern economy was based on agriculture which, as you said, made the south dependent on the North and other countries for processed goods. At the same time, however, the rest of the world was dependent on the south, and the sale of cotton was valuable to the United States. "By that time [1850's], three-quarters of the world's supply of cotton came from the American South, and this single commodity accounted for more than half the total dollar value of American exports," (Textbook, p. 149). To me, that means that while the south was dependent on the north, the rest of the world was dependent on the south, making the production of cotton essential for the southern and American economies. Because of that, perhaps slavery was a necessary evil.
Sean Foster
ReplyDeleteSlavery should not have been allowed in the early 1800’s because any economic benefits that slavery provided were greatly outnumbered by the negative impacts the institution had on the America. The South’s economy was based around slavery, and the money that the slaves brought it was limited and short lived. Large plantation owner’s monopolized the cotton industry over small farms that lacked resources to grow enough cotton. With a limited number of people actually benefiting from slavery, the South lacked an economy that encompassed every person. Also, the South was using all the fertile land to grow the cotton at an alarming rate resulting in limited areas for farming. With no cotton, this would get rid of any practicality of having slaves. Since the South’s economy was based on slavery, and slavery was used primarily for cotton, the entire economy of the South was dependant on this one single resource. Lacking any sense of diversity in ways of obtaining money prohibited any expansion to more economical growth. The South was confined to the economy of the plantations, and by being unwilling to accept industrialization it greatly restricted their ability to prosper as a whole.
Also, the video helped highlight the lack of development that the South had compared to the North. The plantation owner claimed all slaves were emotionally and intellectually inept, which was an entirely false assumption. The immoral treatment of the slaves just showed how inhumane and less civilized the south was compared to the North. The wrongdoings of slavery did not outweigh any slight economical advantage that it may have offered.
Connor Kilian
ReplyDeleteSlavery should not have been allowed in the South. Majority of people often associated slavery with the cultivation and production of cotton which was the South’s main crop. However many planters would work their land until it was unable to produce a suitable crop anymore. Then they would move everything to more fertile grounds leaving a barren and desolate patch of land behind them. Or if the planter did not want to move then they would sell their slaves and use the money to buy fertilizers or fund crop rotations. To have an economy run by these types of actions was not very practical. The southern planters had a crop that was cultivated by slaves but left the land devastated. The fluctuations in the cotton market which that caused did not condone a stable economy and ruined farming lands. The other option was to sell slaves in order to buy or fund equipment or techniques that allowed a plantation to stay where it was while producing enough of a sufficient cotton crop to stay profitable. Looking back one could argue that the step of buying slaves seems unnecessary. The money that originally went into buying the slave could have been used for the superior agricultural processes. It seems obvious to me that slavery should not have been allowed in the South because it did not promote a stable economy and slaves would just be sold again for better farming equipment.
The textbook made a valid point to compare the profit and efficiency of hired labor and slave labor. ", mills that hired or purchased slave labor were just as profitable and efficient as those paying wages to whites." (page 150) Given this finding, along with the above stated argument by Jenny, slavery should not have been allowed in the country in that time. If hired white workers we just as efficient and profitable as purchased slaves, why should the inhumane practice be allowed, especially if the freedom of man was the reason for separation from Great Britain. this coupled with the large increase in slave prices made the custom impractical.
ReplyDeleteSlavery also detracted from the common man's will to work hard for results and successes. "the South was an underdeveloped region in which much of the population had little incentive to work hard."(page 151) The slave labor in the south robbed the people of the will to work for themselves. The reliance on slaves made them dependent and lazy to an extent. This dependency impeded the South from growing and becoming as industrialized as the North as well as emphasizing the devision between the two cultures.
Sean I agree that since the South's economy was based off of slavery, which was used primarily with cotton, the planters were unable to expand their economic horizons. The major land owners had found a niche that worked for them so they felt no need to change anything or invest in any new ventures. However this left the economy of the entire South up to one single crop. During times of economic depression they had no other resources to fall back on. The Planters were completely at the mercy of their cotton. Also the lack of diversity in commodities isolated the planters as the most successful business men of the South. However they were still only making as much profit as the farms in the North. Because of the planters’ monopoly on fertile land in the South, any Southerner wanting to try to diversify the regions’ economy could simply not compete with the cotton plantations. Overall slavery did not promote a diverse and dependable economy.
ReplyDeleteNathan Fritz
ReplyDeleteChase, I agree that slavery was only suitable to the wealthier of the southern society, but I have to point out that a failed season of crops would wound any plantation owner or farmer alike. Although the plantation owner would most likely survive and the farmer would be his harder, a lost season would affect both. The only "pro" I see to slavery was the held investment that they held. If a scenario like the one you mentioned, Chase, were to occur, then the sale of slaves would help to bring the farm or plantation back to its feet, while if labor was hired out, no money could be gained and the investment in the workers would be non existent.
Sean Foster
ReplyDeleteNate, I agree that the South was dependent upon the slaves, and this ultimately led to their inability to prosper. The South were stuck on the notion that slaves were the only way that their economy would be able to stay strong. Wealthy plantation owners didn't have any interest in experimenting with new ways to make a profit. By not looking for alternative ways to increase the economy these people weren't looking out for the entire nation, but simply their own benefits. They became selfish and as you said "lazy to an extent." This clear division of having the industrialized North and the unwilling to change South seems to show opposing ideas, which could show significant steps that led to the Civil War.
Nate I agree with you that why would something so inhumane be allowed a country who's founding was due to the desire to be free. Not only was this practice inhumane but it also debilitated the South's economy and society. Almost all of the United States land had been developed, used and made unusable by 1860. Planters had to move around from place to place with their slaves just to keep their business going "Hence slavery had allegedly reached its natural limits of expansion and was on the verge of becoming so unprofitable that it would fall of its own weight in the near future." (Chapter 11, America Past and Present) Not only was slavery going to collapse the economic state it was in, but it kept the south from progressing as an industrial region because there simply was no land for it. The difference between the rich white man and the poor white man along with the freed slaves and the current slaves divided the southern classes immensely. Thus relating back to Nate’s point on the break from Britain for freedom, the social classes were becoming so divided, it was another society constructed of 1st, 2nd and 3rd estates (citation:Ms.Babins CSC History Class).
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to the conclusion that Sean also mentioned, the south’s dependence on slavery came not from their lack of other resources, but their sheer laziness and lack of motivation to get on their feet and actually look for alternatives.
Conor Helfrich
ReplyDeleteI honestly just typed the longest comment and when I hit post comment it all got erased.
On another note, slavery should not have been allowed in our country in the early 1800's. By that time, slavery was unnecessary and irrelevant. "Thus, in comparison to the industrializing North, the South was an underdeveloped region in which much of the population had little incentive to work." The North welcomed industrialization and that is why their economy flourished. By the 1800's, white Southerners were barely holding on to slavery, and they were holding on because they did not want to do the work themselves. There was no incentive for them to work either because they just figured that slaves would always be there to make them their money. "The South's economy was probably condemned so long as it was on slavery." The longer the South depended on slavery, the worse their economy became. Inventions like the cotton gin replaced slaves because it could extract seeds from short-staple cotton faster and more efficiently than slaves could. By the 1800's, the South needed to move on from slavery and get on board with industrialization.
Did anyone else notice how quickly Toby was able to pick up English? Just because he was black did not mean he was dumb. He didn't answer to Toby because despite the barbaric way he was being treated, he still wanted to have some pride. Slaves were denied any type of literacy because white Southerners did not want them to be able to think for themsleves-- and because they were afraid that black people would be smarter than them.
Sean, I concur. Besides the fact that slavery was wrong in every way possible, it was not even beneficial to the South's economy. That is why is should not have existed in the 1800's. Obviously slavery should have never existed at all, but I understand the argument that it was the starting point of cotton growing and helped the South get off its feet. Industrialization should have replaced slavery by the 1800's because that what was going to boost their economy, but the Southerns could not accept that because they were afraid of a little bit of hard work. And all of this is not even including the fact that no man should be able to own another man.
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey Keane
ReplyDeleteSlavery should not have been allowed in the 1800's due to both economic and moral reasons. The Southerners argued that slaves were crucial to their economic stability, when in fact their economy would not have been stable regardless of slavery. The tobacco, then cotton which formed the main crop of the southern agriculture depleted the soil and the price fluctuations ruined many farmers both with and without slaves. The rapid instability was shown to be countered by “fertilizers use, crop rotation, and diversified farming, all of which increased the need for capital but reduced the demand for labor.” (p.147) additionally it was said “mills that hired or purchased slave labor were just as profitable and efficient as those paying wages to whites.” (p.150) Farms with without slaves could be just as profitable and needed less manpower proving slavery to be an economically undefendable position.
In the episode of Roots the white masters say they had natural right to rule because the slaves have no emotions, only wants and desires, and that they are unintelligent. However, during the episode the slaves, even “Toby” who is fresh of the boat, shows understanding of the actions. Fiddler in particular shows that he know exactly what he is doing when he lets Toby escape from the plantation. A lack of an ability to learn is an additional aspect mentioned, yet Toby clearly adapts and learns the English language and Fiddler learned to play a music instrument somewhere. Essentially all the arguments that said whites were naturally superior and had natural rights to be the master were proven false and there was no moral justification for whites to subject others to slavery.
Conor, I did notice the speed with which Toby was able to completely adapt from his native language to English. This and his recognition of the demeaning nature of the name Toby that you mentioned showed his intelligence that the white masters denied that he had. I agree that the Southerners were afraid of the potential of an educated slave. As education would make the black equal in potential to any of the whites and would be a serious threat that had the potential to undermine the power of the whites who dominated the South. I also agree with you when you say that the South needed to move from their agricultural background into a more industrialized phase. The South only hindered themselves and their potential by staying in the rut of slavery. As for the lazy nature that you say afflicted the southern plantation owners I again agree. I think the long period of slavery made the plantation owners repulsed to the idea of paying their workers wages and they themselves did not appreciate the idea of the white man performing manual labor.
ReplyDeletePutting aside the morality of the concept, slavery should have been allowed in the early 1800s. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 led to short-staple cotton becoming the South's major crop. By the 1850s, three-quarters of the world's supply of cotton came from the southern states in America. This one crop accounted for more than half of the total earnings of American exports. The demand for cotton required slaves to harvest it, making cotton and slavery have an inseparable bond. While depressions and higher prices caused lower prosperity in the lower South preceding the Civil War, cotton represented the South's best chance for a profitable investment. When the land wore out, planters could survive by selling their land and moving west, or by selling their slaves to raise money for fertilization, crop rotation, or other improvements (America Past and Present, 149).
ReplyDeleteWhile the episode of Roots was based on a true story, one has to keep in mind that it is a dramatization. No where in the episode did it mention the necessary aspect of slavery, just the treatment of the slaves. Without slaves there would not have been a decent economy. Without a decent economy, America would have been without money and therefore would not have had an effective government. America would be as it was under the Articles of Confederation, which was a disaster. Therefore, America without slaves would not have made it as a country.
Geoffrey,
ReplyDeleteYou say that "farms without slaves could be just as profitable and needed less manpower proving slavery to be an economically undefendable position." I'm trying really hard not to sound obnoxious here, but there are two things that don't make sense about this argument. One, undefendable isn't a word. Two, if slaves didn't do the work, who would have? There weren't illegal immigrants back then to do the work for us. There were only four million slaves, and pompous upper class Americans who refused to do any labor.
I think that America should have never used slavery, regardless if it helped the economy or not.If people want something they should have to earn it, not go find people that look different from you to do all your work for you. property owners could of either done their work by themselves, payed people to do it or get their kids to do it or something. America could of figured out how to over come life without slaves especially considering that slavery went against the nations morals. Americans at the time were being extemely lazy and prejuduce. Slaves wworked all the time for basically no rewards comparably to the lives that they had to live. Its embarassing to think that this was how our country was started. What would slavery teach the young people of the future at the time,that every thing in life is effotless and you can just make other people do work for you. Also it would teach future americans to have no hard working ethics, life skills, and certain survival knowlege. The children in the film just sat around everyday, enjoying their harmless and perfect lives while they watched blacks, who they thought were naturally inferior, do all the work that there was to be done. It would have become counter productive any way because if slavery wasnt abolished, the slaves would eventually rebel or refuse to work anymore. If the slaves were gone, white americans who grew upp during the time would have no idea how to work feilds or houses, or even do any kind of labouring job upon which the economies basics relied on. Economy is no excuse for the severe degrading of a race, for forcing people to do work endlessly, to deny someone certain rights and education, and to convince a nation that a different race of people were truely unhumaine.
ReplyDeletejeff i agree that the only reason that whites told each other that blacks were naturally inferior and unintellegant is because they needed a reason to justify there terrible actions. Also they didnt want the blacks to seem like they were able to be educated because they knew that if they were they could very easily overpower the whites due to numbers and potential intellegant blacks who were already phisically stronger due to their life styles.
ReplyDeleteGabe
ReplyDeleteAlthough by today's standards, slavery is considered disgusting and inhumane, it was an absolutely essential part of the South's economy. The video we watched showed the brutality of slavery, and made it apparent that it was indeed inhumane. But we cannot judge the mentality of the Colonists based on our current states of mind. Back then, they did not consider slaves as people. Therefor, by their standards, what was so wrong with treating them the way they did? While the slaves were being treated badly they provided a strong backbone for the Southern economy. They tended to the crops and could work countless hours a day in the ruthless fields. It did not matter to the plantation owners how badly they treated their slaves.
Emily,
ReplyDeleteI agree that slavery was very important to the south. We have to look at the way things in the way people saw the issue back then, and that could be very difficult. The issue of slavery was very relevant back in those times and yere were very persuasive and logical arguments both for and against slavery. The economy was based around slavery, whether it was morally right or not, and we had to deal with the foundation we layed when we first created the country.
Boyd Green
ReplyDeleteMy moral compass alone is enough to conclude that slavery should not have been allowed in the 1800’s. Some will argue that slaves were essential for the cotton industry and therefore were irreplaceable in for the economy. This does not magically make it justified to own another human life. It is clear from the Roots episode and our textbook that the life of a slave was inhumane. “…their living standard was below that of the poorest free people in the United States.” (Textbook, p. 151) If we are to follow the basic rights that the United States were built around, then slavery should have been abolished as soon as the declaration of independence was signed. Every man is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every man who supported slavery was a hypocrite. In the Roots episode, “Toby” was tortured for running away from the plantation. He was simply trying to become free and find his happiness through his lost love. The colonists justified their rebellion against Britain citing pursuit of happiness and liberty. Instead of being true to the constitution, the United States ignored these rights when it “helped” their economy. As others have argued, slavery did not help in all situations. Regardless of the economic impact that slaver had on the US in the 1800’s, I refuse to justify it because no man should be the property of another.