Turns out, slavery is good ... for the slaves

[GroverCleveland]

Was a huge chunk of the GDP of the USA pre-CW, specifically 1855-1860, from cotton exports?

No. The Northern states were far wealthier than the South. The South grew about 90% of the world's cotton at the time.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Did some more research on this. On the eve of the CW, cotton accounted for 61% of total value of exports in the USA. So, perhaps America was not wealthy before the CW BUT a major amount of its wealth at the time came from cotton? What's wrong with that statement?

Again, conflating exports with wealth. GDP != exports.

 

[mrorange211]

No. There’s several reasons that’s wrong.

1. Like I said earlier the north was wealthier than the south. So you’d have to first tackle this question. If slavery in the south was the main contributor to US wealth, why wasn’t the south wealthy?

2. You’re confusing exports and wealth. Exporting something does not make you wealthy. Typically it’s those buying the thing that are the actual wealthy ones (Britain in this scenario).

3. You have the fact that all countries have participated in slavery, yet there’s not a country people would call wealthy that still has open slavery. Is Libya on its way to becoming a world power due to their open slave markets or does it only work here?

4. The original claim was slavery built America’s wealth. Yet America wasn’t considered wealthy until roughly 50 years post the start of the civil war. Why not if the wealth was built by slavery?

Edit: The claims that slavery generates wealth and gross and misinformed. The south was behind economically which is why they lost the war. They lacked railroads and manufacturing and even their agricultural was behind the times because it relied on slave labor rather than machinery. Slavery doesn’t have a net benefit

Your response doesn’t make sense. If it generated wealth on a national level that wealth would have to be generated “per capita”. A few rich people doesn’t make a country rich. So you can’t proclaim it made our nation wealthy while saying “of course it didn’t generate per capita wealth”.

A simple example would be if you’re my slave and we profit 100k but I keep it all or if you’re my partner and we make 200k but divide it evenly. Clearly the version where we made 200k generated more wealth (100k per capita vs 50k). So you have to look at this per capita. But even if you don’t look at per capita, the north had a much larger population too. So they would win that battle also

Slavery does not build wealth in general. It’s an inefficient model. That’s why you don’t see wealthy slave countries today. One of the biggest reasons the south lost is because slavery is an ineffective model.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying it made America wealthy. I'm saying it was the primary method of wealth for a country not yet wealthy. I think my argument is that it did generate wealth, but not to the level that America was wealthy per se. The wealth that was generated stayed in the hands of the planter ellite and floated north to manufacturing facilities. If it didn't generate anything of value, then why would the Confederates attempt to use it as a bargaining chip to get the UK to join. That's one thing about this argument that is confusing to me. It HAD to generate some kind of wealth ottherwise the South would've pivoted to something else.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Empire of Cotton

I understand that the average income was higher. The wealth of the country, however, was generated, especially with tariff policies of that time, through exporting of products, 61% was cotton. Apparently the cotton industry of the South was one of the biggest in the world and directly influenced our ability to borrow money for other expenditures. So, it seems to me that it is accurate to state that America's wealth pre-CW was largely gnerated through slave labor and its products. No?

No. It was not.

 

[Vol8188]

Let me be clear: I'm not saying it made America wealthy. I'm saying it was the primary method of wealth for a country not yet wealthy. I think my argument is that it did generate wealth, but not to the level that America was wealthy per se. The wealth that was generated stayed in the hands of the planter ellite and floated north to manufacturing facilities. If it didn't generate anything of value, then why would the Confederates attempt to use it as a bargaining chip to get the UK to join. That's one thing about this argument that is confusing to me. It HAD to generate some kind of wealth ottherwise the South would've pivoted to something else.

All economic productivity generates some level of wealth. You raising a tomato garden generates some level of wealth. That’s not the question.

The question would was slavery the primary driver of America’s wealth

 

[mrorange211]

No. The Northern states were far wealthier than the South. The South grew about 90% of the world's cotton at the time.

Looks like that despite the massive amount of cotton harvested (you said 90%) it only accounted for about 5% of GDP based on some things I just read via interwebz. So to your point it seems that cotton didn't generate that large of a wealth impact. I guess the Confederates were hoping that removing that large of an amount of cotton from manufacturing would force the Brits into action, when in reality they just pivoted to other sources.

 

[mrorange211]

It's v odd to think about having 90% of the world's supply of an item and it only being 5% of a nation's GDP, but I guess it certainly depends on what that product is, and in this case it just wasn't that valuable in comparison. So in other words, it seems you gentlement are correct.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Let me be clear: I'm not saying it made America wealthy. I'm saying it was the primary method of wealth for a country not yet wealthy. I think my argument is that it did generate wealth, but not to the level that America was wealthy per se. The wealth that was generated stayed in the hands of the planter ellite and floated north to manufacturing facilities. If it didn't generate anything of value, then why would the Confederates attempt to use it as a bargaining chip to get the UK to join. That's one thing about this argument that is confusing to me. It HAD to generate some kind of wealth ottherwise the South would've pivoted to something else.

You really need to read some books on the topic. Not trying to be ugly about this, but this post demonstrates a gross misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of economics in the antebellum United States.

 

[Vol8188]

No. The Northern states were far wealthier than the South. The South grew about 90% of the world's cotton at the time.

Yep. The south didn’t realize it, but slavery was holding them back economically

 

[mrorange211]

I think I always assumed that since cotton was such a large export that it was the driver of much GDP. Bad assumption obvi.

 

[Carl Pickens]

You're saying Europeans treated slaves in a colony like Trinidad worse than they treated slaves in America, so the slave trade was good? The "slavery wasn't so bad" crowd is embarrassing themselves even more than usual today

Who is saying “slavery wasn’t so bad”? I’ve yet to see anyone make such a comment.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Sure, if that's what you want to believe.

How have they not?

 

[GroverCleveland]

Looks like that despite the massive amount of cotton harvested (you said 90%) it only accounted for about 5% of GDP based on some things I just read via interwebz. So to your point it seems that cotton didn't generate that large of a wealth impact. I guess the Confederates were hoping that removing that large of an amount of cotton from manufacturing would force the Brits into action, when in reality they just pivoted to other sources.

Well it was not that easy to pivot. I have read (years and years ago, so forgive me if not quite correct) that it virtually ruined the textile industry in Liverpool. Egypt was not a large producer. The Union tried to grow cotton in southern Utah (see Dixie, Utah) and Hawaii, where today you will see vestiges of that attempt in the form of wild cotton that grows alongside the roads (yes, I have seen it on Mauii).

I do not recall what exactly England did. Possibly used a lot more wool, don't recall, although i have read about it.

However, after WW1, the British set about ensuring their supply, buying tens of thousands of acres and acquiring Delta, Pine and Land Company and controlled serious chunks of land in the Delta. Italian immigrants were brought to the Delta to work in the cotton industry and you have significant communities in Mississippi of Italian descent. With regards to DP&L, it eventually wound up in the hands of a New Yorker. They became the premier breeder of cottonseed in the world and were eventually acquired by Monsanto.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Sure, if that's what you want to believe.

Statistics and data of all countries in Africa.
The standard of living is considerably below average. Life expectancy is well below 60 years and large sections of the population have neither adequate sanitation nor medical care. Even the water supply is inadequate in many populated areas.

 

[GroverCleveland]

It's v odd to think about having 90% of the world's supply of an item and it only being 5% of a nation's GDP, but I guess it certainly depends on what that product is, and in this case it just wasn't that valuable in comparison. So in other words, it seems you gentlement are correct.

The US, at least until a few years ago, still led the world in mfg output. We build Boeing jets, not TVs. A gross oversimplification, but illustrates the point.

 

[RockyTop85]

I think I always assumed that since cotton was such a large export that it was the driver of much GDP. Bad assumption obvi.

Was the South Poor Before the War? – Abbeville Institute

 

[GroverCleveland]

I think I always assumed that since cotton was such a large export that it was the driver of much GDP. Bad assumption obvi.

Would not be surprised it is being taught in colleges now.

Just out of curiosity, your approximate age? Not trying to prove anything, just curious. My guess is either young or out of the Left Coast or Northeast.

 

[mrorange211]

I can't always say I have productive conversations that lead to me learning something new on VN. I love history, so it was cool to explore this a bit further. I'm in my early 40s.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Was the South Poor Before the War? – Abbeville Institute

Thanks for providing. Read through a portion and it began to more and more seem like it was plucking out certain statistical facts to support the notion the country was made wealthy on slavery. Did not finish, but may circle back on it.

One thing that stood out was the emphasis on per capita numbers. Stick Warren Buffet in Tellico Plains and it likely becomes the richest city in America on a per capita basis.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I can't always say I have productive conversations that lead to me learning something new on VN. I love history, so it was cool to explore this a bit further. I'm in my early 40s.

I am always up for an informative conversation! Yes, it can be difficult on here, but there are some really knowledgeable people with different areas of expertise. Enjoyed the convo. Made me think about some things I have not thought of for years. Wish we could have a face to face. Got some really interesting stories out of the Delta that go back 100 years or so.

 

[RockyTop85]

Thanks for providing. Read through a portion and it began to more and more seem like it was plucking out certain statistical facts to support the notion the country was made wealthy on slavery. Did not finish, but may circle back on it.

One thing that stood out was the emphasis on per capita numbers. Stick Warren Buffet in Tellico Plains and it likely becomes the richest city in America on a per capita basis.

Every article I’ve seen, including those co-authored by economics professors, seems to focus on per capita metrics. Most seem to be saying the confederate economy was pretty strong until it got blockaded into oblivion.

E.g. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/StelznerBeckert2021.pdf

 

[GroverCleveland]

Every article I’ve seen, including those co-authored by economics professors, seems to focus on per capita metrics. Most seem to be saying the confederate economy was pretty strong until it got blockaded into oblivion.

E.g. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/StelznerBeckert2021.pdf

Articles I've read were kind of like "yeah, but..."

The South had a strong agricultural economy centered on cotton production and export. And as you say, once the blockade was in place and the Royal Navy was not going to break it, it was game over. Just took a while.

 

[AM64]

Yep. The south didn’t realize it, but slavery was holding them back economically

Seems like the real thing holding the south back was farm machinery that hadn't come into being. Slaves aren't efficient when compared to machinery, and neither were animals to pull plows, wagons, etc. Slavery was a stopgap on the way to farm machinery.

 

[AM64]

Well it was not that easy to pivot. I have read (years and years ago, so forgive me if not quite correct) that it virtually ruined the textile industry in Liverpool. Egypt was not a large producer. The Union tried to grow cotton in southern Utah (see Dixie, Utah) and Hawaii, where today you will see vestiges of that attempt in the form of wild cotton that grows alongside the roads (yes, I have seen it on Mauii).

I do not recall what exactly England did. Possibly used a lot more wool, don't recall, although i have read about it.

However, after WW1, the British set about ensuring their supply, buying tens of thousands of acres and acquiring Delta, Pine and Land Company and controlled serious chunks of land in the Delta. Italian immigrants were brought to the Delta to work in the cotton industry and you have significant communities in Mississippi of Italian descent. With regards to DP&L, it eventually wound up in the hands of a New Yorker. They became the premier breeder of cottonseed in the world and were eventually acquired by Monsanto.

The British may have become more dependent on flax when cotton supply was interrupted. Linen production from domestically grown flax was common in Britain at that time.

 

[creekdipper]

Seems like the real thing holding the south back was farm machinery that hadn't come into being. Slaves aren't efficient when compared to machinery, and neither were animals to pull plows, wagons, etc. Slavery was a stopgap on the way to farm machinery.

Oh, so now you're equating slaves with hay balers!?!

You'll soon be hearing from my attorney, the esteemed Benjamin Crump.

Thanks for ruining "She Thinks My Tractor's Sexy."