Could the Confederacy have won the US Civil War? What might then have happened?

[Bronzeage]

I agree that mechanization of agriculture would eventually have ended slavery, by reducing the amount of farm labor necessary.

I disagree. If I recall correctly, slavery was becoming less important back in the very late 1700s until some guy named Whitney invented a particular machine called the cotton gin.

Actually no. The cotton gin made slave picked cotton profitable. Before the Whitney machine, cotton was carded(the process of removing seeds from the cotton bolls) by hand. It was labor intensive and kept the price of raw cotton very high. It could not compete with wool as a textile. The cotton gin made it possible for sugar cane and indigo plantations to switch to more profitable cotton, which increased the demand for slaves.

If modern economic principles were applied to a typical southern cotton plantation in the slave era, very few would be profitable. The fertility of land was quickly depleted, which reduced production and land value. If this loss of value were shown on a financial statement, it would put most plantations in the red. It would be no different than a gold mine with a depleted gold vein. It took more work to produce more gold, and with every bucket of ore removed, the mine's net worth dropped. This is the reason for the constant pressure to move plantations westward. The Atlantic states, especially South Carolina had come to terms with the loss of agricultural production. SC's surplus of trade came from selling slaves to the western states, not agricultural products. If slavery were abolished, the former slaves were not going anywhere. They would still be agriculture works, at least for the time being. The old unproductive eastern states would be economically devastated by loss of the slave trade.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I disagree. If I recall correctly, slavery was becoming less important back in the very late 1700s until some guy named Whitney invented a particular machine called the cotton gin.

Actually no. The cotton gin made slave picked cotton profitable.

Wouldn't that be an "actually you are correct"?

If modern economic principles were applied to a typical southern cotton plantation in the slave era, very few would be profitable.

Huh? So the South didn't make money using slaves to pick cotton?

 

[Bronzeage]

Actually no. The cotton gin made slave picked cotton profitable.

Wouldn't that be an "actually you are correct"?

If modern economic principles were applied to a typical southern cotton plantation in the slave era, very few would be profitable.

Huh? So the South didn't make money using slaves to pick cotton?

That should be "Actually, yes." good catch.

Imagine you buy an oil well. It produces a lot of oil for a year or two and then tapers off. There will be a point where no one will buy your oil well from you and it is worth zero, in accounting terms. The loss in value comes off the top of your net worth.

There was money to be made by cotton plantations, but as I pointed out, if a full accounting is taken, the land lost value at greater rate than profits would be able to replace. Before the advent of chemical fertilizers, it was not possible to rehabilitate the land and maintain fertility. When this is combined with the fact most large scale agricultural business operated on credit, interest rates and fluctuations in commodity prices worked to keep planters in debt. Inefficient production at high operating costs is a poor business model.

 

[Sarpedon]

I was bored this weekend, so watched a bit of Ken Burns' documentary: North had population of 20 million. South had 11 million, 4 million of whom were slaves. So right off the bat the north had 3 times the available manpower.

To emphasize Bronzeage's point, the lack of profitability of the southern system was marked in the lack of capital available in the south. Lots of people, like Alexis de Tocqueville, observed that there was little commerce and trade in the south, compared to the north. Plantations were basically self-sufficient, with sale of products basically unable to exceed costs. The effect of this was a largely stagnant economy, with few industries or tradesmen. There was simply no money left over from the plantations to invest in other ventures. One could make money off the system, but the system itself did not create much wealth. There was little net gain.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was bored this weekend, so watched a bit of Ken Burns' documentary: North had population of 20 million. South had 11 million, 4 million of whom were slaves. So right off the bat the north had 3 times the available manpower.

To emphasize Bronzeage's point, the lack of profitability of the southern system was marked in the lack of capital available in the south. Lots of people, like Alexis de Tocqueville, observed that there was little commerce and trade in the south, compared to the north. Plantations were basically self-sufficient, with sale of products basically unable to exceed costs. The effect of this was a largely stagnant economy, with few industries or tradesmen. There was simply no money left over from the plantations to invest in other ventures. One could make money off the system, but the system itself did not create much wealth. There was little net gain.

I read that and because you mentioned Ken Burns, I heard Sam Waterson reading it.

More to the point, they went to fucking war over an unsustainable system using slavery?!?! What a bunch of assholes!

 

[Bronzeage]

I was bored this weekend, so watched a bit of Ken Burns' documentary: North had population of 20 million. South had 11 million, 4 million of whom were slaves. So right off the bat the north had 3 times the available manpower.

To emphasize Bronzeage's point, the lack of profitability of the southern system was marked in the lack of capital available in the south. Lots of people, like Alexis de Tocqueville, observed that there was little commerce and trade in the south, compared to the north. Plantations were basically self-sufficient, with sale of products basically unable to exceed costs. The effect of this was a largely stagnant economy, with few industries or tradesmen. There was simply no money left over from the plantations to invest in other ventures. One could make money off the system, but the system itself did not create much wealth. There was little net gain.

I read that and because you mentioned Ken Burns, I heard Sam Waterson reading it.

More to the point, they went to fucking war over an unsustainable system using slavery?!?! What a bunch of assholes!

It's an object lesson of what happens when the wealthiest citizens wield all political power.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

Slaves are more then capable of using farming machines. Mechanization would have lowered the amout of labor needed to operate a farm. That could simply mean less slaves.

I am always mildly surprised when someone makes a premise based on a radical change in human nature.

I will grant that a slave is as capable of running an machine as any other person, but why would he want to? What is his/her incentive to increase productivity. Less whippings? He already has food and clothing. Do we offer shoes, as well? Maybe just more food.

Anyone who has ever supervised a work crew where pay was the same if the machine worked or broke down, can see the problem here. A smaller work force with greater skills and no incentive to produce more is a recipe for bankruptcy.

Your reply can apply to slavery in general. Logically there is no reason for a slave to produce anything for their masters. However you forgot to factor in one very important fact; slaves are property. Slaves do not have to fear only the whip but for their own lives. Slaves can and have experienced torture far worse then being whipped. They can be flat out killed if their master deems it so.

I have read an interesting, but very brutal, first hand account from a slave over at libcom.org. I will dig it up when I can.

As Sarpedon pointed out slavery was just a terrible why to run an economy. Hell, I doubt that the slaver holders would be even able to purchase the machines in the first place.

 

[Duke Leto]

I agree that mechanization of agriculture would eventually have ended slavery, by reducing the amount of farm labor necessary.

I disagree. If I recall correctly, slavery was becoming less important back in the very late 1700s until some guy named Whitney invented a particular machine called the cotton gin.

There's a world of difference between having a slave operated cotton gin and a slave operated tractor.

With the cotton gin, it is infrequently used and stuck in one location. It is a comparatively simple machine without numerous parts and its operation can be watched by a single overseer. It can't be sabotaged without the perpetrator getting caught immediately.

The tractor, or worse still the combine, has numerous complex parts and needs regular maintenance in the form of lubrication checks and the like, same as a car. If it breaks down, is your illiterate slave going to fix it no matter how hard you whip him? And while they might not possess the education needed to maintain or repair your tractors, if they have exposure to them they are going to figure out and pass around methodologies for sabotage that can't be easily proven, and share them around. Introducing an oil leak, tainting the fuel, putting rocks in the machinery. You quickly find yourself in the possession of broken piece of machinery.

Why do you think there were (virtually) no slave run factories?

 

[Sarpedon]

The Nazis ran lots of slave factories during world war 2. Sabotage was a huge problem.

Allegedly, a US bomber returned after a mission, with several unexploded shells lodged in it. One of them was opened a a note from a Czech slave laborer was found.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

Duke Leto and Sarpedon,

Your posts are good reasons why slavery in general is terrible through an economic point of view. Slavery is terrible at motivating the Laborers to work. Furthermore it encourages sabotage.

During the American civil war, slaves fled en mass the moment their overseers left to fight the North. The confederacy could not have maintained its economy during warfare.