U.S. Continental Congress not primarily lawyers, + good luck gives early phase out of slavery?

The fact that early legislatures are not primarily lawyers gives a reshuffle of sorts. And combined with some good luck along the way provides an early phase out of slavery.

Please paint me a picture. :)
 
Who else are you going to send to make laws then lawyers?
Thank you for an excellent straightforward question, in fact, it’s the obvious question.

And my answer is that maybe businessmen, and perhaps progressive businessmen and later progressive businesswomen tend to get elected more often? And/or a mix of regular citizens.

And one substantial advantage is that the law is kept simpler and more straightforward, with a heck of a lot fewer Latin phrases! :cool:
 
Last edited:
The US's inequality rate has risen since the 1970s as businessmen have become more "progressive"/the new left has discovered it <3s big business so I'd rethink the premise.
 
runup to ARW plays out differently. . .
Or maybe, Rev. War is the same but . . .

maybe three brothers in Mississippi are highly effective at both manufacturing and business. And when other southern states see that Mississippi has solid ten year lead in manufacturing, are happy to clip its wings by agreeing to gradual phase out.
 
If you want gradual phaseout there's always Virginia doing it in the 1820s or 1830s, or make political butterflies lead Delaware to do it sometime in 1800-20 and have a domino effect. Make your businessmen delawarean or virginian if you insist on that gimmick.
 
. . . if you insist on that gimmick.
And it’s a good gimmick, right?

I mean, it is surprising that the U.S. was so far behind Britain on industry, and that the southern states were so behind the northern.

Plus, we have the example of Birmingham, Alabama being a steel center.
 
If you want gradual phaseout there's always Virginia doing it in the 1820s or 1830s, . . .
I still like the example of Mississippi leading on industry, because then the motives aren’t all good, but also include regional jealousy and a chance to hurt Mississippi more than the rest. Even if gradual emancipation is “wave of the future,” it’s maybe more abrupt than what we in the rest of the South would have voted for otherwise.

Alright, so three brothers in Mississippi become early Andrew Carnegies in steel and industry. Maybe they’re only 5 to 8% more effective than other businessmen, but that’s plenty enough. And their example encourage other energetic go-getters to dive into manufacturing, first and foremost and early on in their home state of Mississippi.

Again, giving Mississippi a lead which is hard to catch up to.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for more diversified career paths for politicians, but I don't see any special connection to the law profession and slavery. Could you please explain your reasoning? Also, lawyers are a type of businessmen. They all either run law firms, or are high-ranking members of businesses. And what sort of "businessmen" do you want in the continental congress? The term "businessmen" implies you want wealthy leaders of businesses. During the time of the Continental Congress, among the wealthiest leaders of businesses were leaders of plantations and shipping companies, shipping companies that were involved in the slave trade. A much earlier industrial revolution requires a very different POD entirely, which could lead to an earlier end to slavery, regardless of the number of lawyers in the Continental Congress.
And who are these three brothers in Mississippi you're referring to? And do you know what the status of steel manufacturing and Mississippi iron mining was in the 18th century? And wouldn't the industry at the beginning be dependent on foreign loans, which would be hard to come by during the war? And where would they find all these unoccupied workers who aren't slaves?
 
. . . but I don't see any special connection to the law profession and slavery. . .
Firstly, it simply provides a reshuffle.

And then, business people are more about looking forward to the future, whereas the law profession is more about justifying a current system.

Plus, law students and lawyers are really proud of being smart, and that dovetails all too easily with justifying slavery by saying that the “race” we relegate to slavery are less intelligent that we are.
 
. . . And who are these three brothers in Mississippi you're referring to? . . .
Three imaginary brothers for purposes of AH! :) And why would they not use slaves for their factories?

Here again, not necessarily the best of motives. Let’s say the oldest brother believes you’d have to use the most intelligent slaves, but if you group them, you fomenting revolution.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, it simply provides a reshuffle.

And then, business people are more about looking forward to the future, whereas the law profession is more about justifying a current system.

Plus, law students and lawyers are really proud of being smart, and that dovetails all too easily with justifying slavery by saying that the “race” we relegate to slavery are less intelligent that we are.


Wasn't that inevitable anyway?

In the DoI you declared that all men were created equal, but hardly anyone, North or South, could seriously see the Negro as an equal. And the only way to reconcile those positions, whether you were a lawyer or not, was to say that the Negro wasn't really a man, but a "being of an inferior order".
 
A minor point, but it’s worth noting that the distinction between lawyer and businessman was a great deal murkier in the time period being discussed. And it’s not exactly a firm line now. Until late 19th century one became a lawyer through apprenticing with a practicing lawyer to develop the skills. There were certainly people who practiced in ways that were very similar to what we currently think of as the practice of law and treated it as a scholarly profession but there were plenty of others who had a much laxer approach to it.

And one substantial advantage is that the law is kept simpler and more straightforward, with a heck of a lot fewer Latin phrases! :cool:
Now I will freely admit that this is a bit of a bugbear of mine, but there is a widespread, and deeply mistaken, obsession with simplifying the legal system. There is, frankly, little to no benefit in simplifying the legal system and rather a lot of disadvantages. People want the legal system to be fair and they usually want it to be flexible. Both of those things necessitate a complex legal system to account for the variety of situations that the law will encounter. The desire for a “simple” legal system seems to come from the belief that “ordinary people” (read non-specialists) should be able to understand and handle the system in it’s entirety. That’s never going to happen. Any legal system that actually does it’s job is going to be complex and is going to require specialists.

And then, business people are more about looking forward to the future, whereas the law profession is more about justifying a current system.

Plus, law students and lawyers are really proud of being smart, and that dovetails all too easily with justifying slavery by saying that the “race” we relegate to slavery are less intelligent that we are.
Honestly, I’m not sure how to address this. To me, the problem with linking these things together is pretty apparent.

I think you have a very interesting idea here of an early start to southern manufacturing and it’s knock on effects regarding the southern slave economy. You just have it bound up here in some mistaken understandings of the legal system that detract from the good premise. I don’t mean to appear dismissive of your ideas here; having others correct our errors is the only way any of us ever learn anything.
 
Firstly, it simply provides a reshuffle.

And then, business people are more about looking forward to the future, whereas the law profession is more about justifying a current system.

Plus, law students and lawyers are really proud of being smart, and that dovetails all too easily with justifying slavery by saying that the “race” we relegate to slavery are less intelligent that we are.

This is nonsense.

Nonsense today, and nonsense in terms of colonial America.
 
Last edited:
. . . declared that all men were created equal, but hardly anyone, North or South, could seriously see the Negro as an equal. . .
And people range at how much they’re bothered by inconsistencies. Persons who gravitate toward the profession of law tend to be among those more bothered.

And I’d maintain that it’s better not to get entrenched in various brainy, seemingly high-minded justifications of the status quo, especially if that status quo includes slavery.
 
It would take several POD's. First, you need to delay the cotton gin. Slaves were being freed in Virginia because tobacco was less lucrative as a cash crop. Find a way to stop slave trade after 1808. Create sentiment so children of slaves are born free.
 
. . . Any legal system that actually does it’s job is going to be complex and is going to require specialists. . .
Thank you for an excellent post, even though I suspect we have a fair amount of disagreement. :)

Okay, let me ask you this, the example from the early American colonies in which a man with no legal experience was asked to accept a judicial appointment. He was advised, listen carefully and sincerely to both sides and come to what in your mind is a fair resolution. You will almost always be correct. But do not give your reasoning, for you’d almost always be incorrect.

Or if a skilled poker player is asked to provide a running commentary of their thinking, he or she is likely to play worse. Or a doctor, if he or she is asked to provide a full running commentary, say on when they’re feeling their way on what to do next with a tricky case of pneumonia, it’s likely to get in the way of their best doctoring.
 
Last edited:
Top