You're viewing a single thread.
Founding Fathers, who were mostly abolitionists: "Slavery is surely a dying institution, we can just put it on the back burner and let it wither away, that way we can avoid a civil war."
In their meager defense, they were correct at the time, slavery was a dying institution. It wasn't until the later invention of the cotton gin that slavery exploded in profit. By then, it was too late. The economic interests of the slavers had grown and entrenched, and the war became inevitable.
Not to defend the slavers, or their advocates among the founders, just to explain the founders' reasoning a little more.
For further reading, the Wikipedia page for the Cotton Gin goes into some detail.
The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the region became even more dependent on plantations that used black slave labor, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of its economy. While it took a single laborer about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day. The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850. The invention of the cotton gin led to increased demands for slave labor in the American South, reversing the economic decline that had occurred in the region during the late 18th century. The cotton gin thus "transformed cotton as a crop and the American South into the globe's first agricultural powerhouse".
Huh. You'd think the cotton gin would've allowed them to get by with fewer slaves.
That would've maintained production at the level it already was (and also reduce prices and profits).
Under capitalism, you can't just maintain production. You gotta EXPAND EXPAND EXPAND.
See Wage Labor and Capital for an explanation for why this must be true, if anyone doubts this statement.
You don't have to subscribe to Marxian economics for this to be true, though Marx and those who listened to him are the only people who dwell on the topic for long.
Part #1 of my statement is pretty much self-evident. Part #2 is the very premise of market competition, no?
You don't have to, no, but Marx makes a compelling case and explains it simply, and thoroughly. It's easy to think that Capitalists can just maintain production, but this doesn't bear out in reality.
Additionally, Marx points out what are the necessary consequences of these forces.
I agree, but quoting Marx is a little counterproductive when the audience is primarily not socialist and, indeed, might be apprehensive towards the concept due to the Leninist dictatorships and Western corporate propaganda.
Lemmy has a very strong leftist base, especially Marxist as the devs are Marxist-Leninists, and there are many progressive liberals who would do well to read theory. I disagree with it being counterproductive to suggest reading Marx.
That's communist thinking. In communism, we only produce as many goods as people actually need, and nobody goes without, so demand is always fixed. But in capitalism, there's always more poor people going without you can sell to, and even if demand is fully met, you can keep producing goods to sell to stores who'll throw them in the garbage, and you still make money.
A lot of very bad decisions have been made by people who expect a capitalist economy to work like a communist economy. This is a completely reasonable mistake to make, because human beings are naturally communist. But it's still important to remember that we don't live in an economy that matches our natural intuitions. We live in capitalism.
The plantation owners sold cotton for a profit, so they were financially incentivized to expand production to increase profit. They could get by making the same profit with fewer slaves, or they could use the same number of slaves to make more profit, and with more profits, they could buy more slaves and make even more profit.
The entire economy of the south quickly became dependent on the institution, as capital investment solely flowed into slave plantations, while the industrial sectors stagnated. It took the war to change that system, and turn investment towards industry.
It wasn't just the cotton gin though.
I don't think the founding fathers realized the sheer agricultural potential of the country, especially if you compare the size of the country's territory to that of what it would be by the Civil War.
Then there's their backgrounds from the British, where an abolitionist movement had already existed for quite some time and the fact that the British were already industrializing and needed slavery even less. Great Britain was fairly liberal in general, so I'm sure that had a lot of influence on the founding father's viewpoints. For context, during the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna in 1815 Castlereagh the main British representative managed to sneak in a handful of statements on slavery, suggesting the other powers should eventually end the practice. This was more so to impress the British people due to the current on-goings of British politics, but it's still only 30ish years after American Independence.
That's an interesting point, about the Founders under appreciating the land itself.
I'm not sure what you were arguing with the second point, about the liberalism of the British. Are you suggesting the British abolitionist ideas influenced the Founders towards abolitionism?
You're right, though, it wasn't just the Cotton Gin. There were a number of factors, and the Founders limited knowledge effected their reasoning. Again, there were also the slavers amongst them, who actively advocated for the maintenance of the system of slavery.
Are you suggesting the British abolitionist ideas influenced the Founders towards abolitionism?
Absolutely. Although we parted ways with the British you can't deny the roots from where we originated. Especially when you look at the founders who were of the first generation during the severed connection.
Of course, as we carved out more of an identity for ourselves some of those roots and beliefs seem to have diminished.
They should have told the gentlemen from Georgia and Carolina to suck it, held the war without them, and proceeded to flatten both colonies once we kicked the Brits out of the other 11 colonies.
We missed starting the country as an abolishonist state because of two men, and one single vote. Had anyone else voted to abolish, we would have told Georgia and Carolina to shut up about it.
I understand the sentiment, but the Union was in no position to fight a civil war immediately after, let alone during, the Revolution. The Union nearly collapsed from debt in the early years, and if the northern states tried subduing the southern states, the British, Natives, and maybe even the Spanish would all take advantage of the disarray to put the rebellion down.
I do think more could and should have been done, but the whole point of the "meager defense" I put up was the lack of foreknowledge on their part.
Yeah. That's the issue with caution, though - especially in the political arena, conditions can change at the drop of a hat.
I think their caution was somewhat warranted, given the relative novelty of the Republican experiment. They were fist and foremost concerned with keeping the union from collapsing, and were horrified at how the French Revolution turned out. They knew perfectly well that conditions would change, which is why they made a system to amend the constitution. If anything, they expected more change, but didn't know just how much entrenched economic interests would mold politics. And to the extent that they did, they didn't have any way of preventing it, at the time.