Thesis: slavery in the American south was not phasing out on its own.

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
I agree, slave/forced labor can be effective (though inefficient) as long as you are making low value added products. Beyond that, it does not work well

I don't think that the amount of value added really matters. Slaves are more useful in situations where labour costs must be very low, thereby making marginal activities profitable, but they can operate in any situation.
 
About the American miniseries Roots (1977) . . .

The producers went all out and used a number of actors who had played good guy dads in TV shows, such as Chuck Connors who played the dad in The Rifleman, Robert Reed who played the dad in The Brady Bunch, and Ralph Waite who played the dad in The Waltons. The miniseries also had Ed Asner who had twice played the character Lou Grant and who, although not a dad, was a gruff exterior good-at-heart character. Well, he wasn’t so much in Roots.

I think this really heightened the question in viewers’ minds, how can an otherwise decent person talk themselves into believing slavery isn’t so bad or is somehow necessary?
 
The North may have had the numbers, but it looks like the South acted more like a solid block. For example, I’m going to look for a James McPherson quote to the effect that the south had the presidency for the majority of the time pre-Civil War and had a majority on the Supreme Court the entire pre-Civil War period.

* James McPherson the history professor, and not James McPherson the Union officer during the Civil War

Anti-slavery and free soil Northerners called it the Slave Power.
 
For the south the problem was even though the south was solid, and the north split republican/democrat, the northern numbers for both the house and senate will get to the point where the republicans, possibly with a few democrats, will outweigh the south. Sooner or later the ability the south had to have the final say on legislation (in most cases) was going to go away.
 
About the American miniseries Roots (1977) . . .

The producers went all out and used a number of actors who had played good guy dads in TV shows, such as Chuck Connors who played the dad in The Rifleman, Robert Reed who played the dad in The Brady Bunch, and Ralph Waite who played the dad in The Waltons. The miniseries also had Ed Asner who had twice played the character Lou Grant and who, although not a dad, was a gruff exterior good-at-heart character. Well, he wasn’t so much in Roots.

I think this really heightened the question in viewers’ minds, how can an otherwise decent person talk themselves into believing slavery isn’t so bad or is somehow necessary?


Lorne Green (Ben Cartwright in Bonanza) also appeared as a slaveowner in Roots.
 
. . . will get to the point where the republicans, possibly with a few democrats, will outweigh the south. Sooner or later . . .
strategically from the viewpoint of the south, their decision to secede was too quick and abrupt. The old system still had a lot of years left to run.
 
The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Dueling Visions to Shape Tomorrow's World, Charles C. Mann, 2018.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0...toxic ammonia and potassium chloride"&f=false

' . . . a chemist in Peru informed the government that guano had very high nitrogen levels. . . . . concessions to European companies . . . . . importing bondsmen from China . . . . . Guano dust is laden with toxic ammonia and potassium chloride; slaves wrapped their faces in cloths but still died in droves [Emphasis added]. . . . . as much as three-quarters of government revenue. . . '
This was in Peru in the 1860s. They're mining bird shit because it makes great fertilizer, and don't forget the bird urine which adds the nitrogen.

So, there's no way there's no way Peru can use their own managers and employees, perhaps take advantage of prevailing winds for safer working, wet down the guano, pack it with something moist and absorbent? And if the bags of fertilizer are heavy, they might appear more valuable and sell for considerably more. Just pack it with regular dirt, but it has very enhanced nitrogen content.

Although perhaps, with the technology of the times, the answer is no.
 
Last edited:
strategically from the viewpoint of the south, their decision to secede was too quick and abrupt. The old system still had a lot of years left to run.

With 20/20 hindsight, things might have got easier for the South once slavery in the Territories dropped off the agenda.

That achieved, the Republican Party's more radical members would have pushed for further action against slavery, and the party would either have to

a) Adopt their policies and lose its more moderate members to the Dems.

b) Refuse to and have Radicals breaking away to form a new "Liberty Party".

Either way a Democratic recovery would seem likely.
 
. . . not because it claims CSA would eventually abolish slavery, but because it usually claims it'd do so within decade. In Guns of South, they initiate gradual abolition in 1868. Which is absurd. . .
Turtledove had one character defend it as a “safety valve.” And the plan was for abolitionists to put their money where their mouth was, and they could free a slave at a price set by a qualified appraiser.
 
strategically from the viewpoint of the south, their decision to secede was too quick and abrupt. The old system still had a lot of years left to run.
Yes, they could drag it for decades before North would decide to outright invade South to end slavery.
Seceding was mistake, but one that could still be salvaged. If they waited a year or so, Corwin Amendment would be passed, and they could rejoin with their influence in DC greatly increased.
Attacking Fort Sumter did nothing for military position of Confederacy, but give North excuse to invade.
 
If anyone wants to investigate the viability of slavery in a modern economy, look at the Burj Khalifa. Or just the US prison system.
 
Prison labor, and the "indentured"/contract labor in the Gulf and elsewhere is NOT the same as chattel slavery. Most prisoners go free at some point, and while the innocent do get convicted most are criminals. As crappy as things are for foreign laborers in the Gulf they go there and send money home because it is better than what they can do at home. Nobody is having sex with their wives or selling their children far away. In the Gulf, for example, the foreign workers living in crap conditions are doing the grunt work, the conditions of employment for heavy equipment operators, electricians etc are much better certainly not slave like.
 
Prison labor, and the "indentured"/contract labor in the Gulf and elsewhere is NOT the same as chattel slavery. Most prisoners go free at some point, and while the innocent do get convicted most are criminals. As crappy as things are for foreign laborers in the Gulf they go there and send money home because it is better than what they can do at home. Nobody is having sex with their wives or selling their children far away. In the Gulf, for example, the foreign workers living in crap conditions are doing the grunt work, the conditions of employment for heavy equipment operators, electricians etc are much better certainly not slave like.

I'm not arguing the moral differences, but the practical ones. Prison labor is profitable, even though it is forced. Gulf migrant labor is forced labor, as they are not allowed to leave or change employers. And yet the firms that hire them are profitable. Although you cannot force the more skilled labor, you can have most of the manual labor be done under duress.
 
. . . As crappy as things are for foreign laborers in the Gulf they go there and send money home because it is better than what they can do at home. . .
With the high probability, and I think almost the certainty, of the companies and recruiters lying about both conditions and how much money they’re likely to make, I’m not at all prepared to accept that as a given. And of course add to this, the very human tendency to hear what you want to hear and to wax optimistic and to rather assume that a high payday is the norm, instead of an outlier.
 
Gulf migrant labor is forced labor, as they are not allowed to leave or change employers.
Are you sure about not being able to leave? As far as I can tell, it's ridiculously easy to get deported from Gulf States, not even having your passport taken away is problem (they take away your passport so you won't swap employer for another, not so you won't leave). They are allowed to leave, that's not the problem, their problem is that if they do, it'll be near impossible for them to go back for another job.
 
Are you sure about not being able to leave? As far as I can tell, it's ridiculously easy to get deported from Gulf States, not even having your passport taken away is problem (they take away your passport so you won't swap employer for another, not so you won't leave). They are allowed to leave, that's not the problem, their problem is that if they do, it'll be near impossible for them to go back for another job.


"Human Rights Watch issued a report in 2014 on the abuse of domestic workers in the UAE. Most of the 99 domestic workers interviewed said that their employers had confiscated their passports to ensure they would not escape. Many said that their employers forced them to work long hours, up to 21 hours a day, with no rest breaks and no day off; did not pay them their full salaries, if they paid at all; gave them little or spoiled food; shouted at them daily; and in some cases, even physically or sexually abused them. Some of these abuses amounted to forced labor or trafficking."
 
"Human Rights Watch issued a report in 2014 on the abuse of domestic workers in the UAE. Most of the 99 domestic workers interviewed said that their employers had confiscated their passports to ensure they would not escape. Many said that their employers forced them to work long hours, up to 21 hours a day, with no rest breaks and no day off; did not pay them their full salaries, if they paid at all; gave them little or spoiled food; shouted at them daily; and in some cases, even physically or sexually abused them. Some of these abuses amounted to forced labor or trafficking."
Okay, then enlighten me, because there is something I don't get here. What stops them from going outside, walk to nearest cop, and say "I am illegal immigrant, deport me".
Because as far as I can tell, it's because if they're deported rather than leave by normal channels upon their workers visa expiring, is that they'll never be able to get another workers visa. Am I wrong? If so, where?
 
Okay, then enlighten me, because there is something I don't get here. What stops them from going outside, walk to nearest cop, and say "I am illegal immigrant, deport me".
Because as far as I can tell, it's because if they're deported rather than leave by normal channels upon their workers visa expiring, is that they'll never be able to get another workers visa. Am I wrong? If so, where?

That seems naïve.

In the event of a dispute between a Citizen Employer, and a foreign indentured servant, whose side do you think the lawful authorities will take?

I wouldn't risk that bet in the United States, where there is the alleged impartiality of the law. It seems foolhardy to make such assumptions in the Gulf states, particularly where so much of the economy is dependent upon managing foreign labour.
 
Last edited:
Top