A truely capitalistic system would be deteramental to the institution of slavery, even if it were permitted to exist in the US.

[Lannan13]

Greetings P&W, I know you are all tired of seeing threads on ISIS, USSR, and Vietnam, so I decided to change pace a little and talk about Slavery and the free market. 

 

King Cotton and Slavery

During the 1800's and even before then Cotton was key to many early industries. The first known factories that were established were that of Texile mills to help produce clothing. The key ingrediant in it was between wool and cotton. We have all known wool to be itchy and hot if you wear it in the summer time, so cotton is actually softer and a lot cooler to wear. This was one of the main reasons as to why it was so popular to Brittish manufactures. [1] This brings us to a key issue here of the slave and cotton. First we have to look at the production of cotton. Leading up to the Civil War and even into it soil depleation became a huge issue. This was actually the same exact issue that plagued farmers in the Midwest during the dust bowl. [2] Cotton needs furtail soil and crop circulation in order to keep its growth healthy and this led to a key flaw in the economics of the time. 




Another key issue to look at here is that of the price of a slave. With soil depletion and falling prices mean less and less profit for the south. When we observe the above graph we can see that the prices of slaves would rise dramatically and continue to do so. Many have even gone as far to state that slavery would end itself by this price differential. Slaveholders wouldn't make enough profit and the value of holding a slave skyrockets it appears that soon it would be nearly impossible to own a slave. [4]



If we observe the chart above we can see that this backs the issue at the time. Not only was cotton issues causing price fall, but we were beginning to see prices fall dramatically. Why is this you may ask? It was based on over production. [3] At the time plantation owners had to make key profits in order to stay in business and in order to compete at the time. How was this achieved? By producing more and more cotton. This was done by more and more plantation holders and this caused overproduction of cotton which caused a price failure. With that mixed with the soil deplition issue we can see that it would only spell disaster for slavery.

 Merchantilism and Capitalism

The first key issue here that we have to observe is that of merchantilism which was a key economic system in which the South was rooted in for a long time. Merchantilism is an economic system in which although capitalistic, it still has barriers to free trade. A key barrier to this system was that of tarrifs. As shown bellow. We can see how dangerous these tariffs were to cotton prices. we could see that many people would have a hard time in the North and South of purchasing these products due to the high increase of cotton prices. Another key economic crisis that would occur here is that of a retalitory tariff that many nations would tend to place on each other when a tariff was placed. This would rise prices even further. At this point we would have to see that the US would have to raise tariff prices high so that it may compete internally with that of Indian cotton. In a free economic system of that of Adam Smith's we would have to see that a truely Capitalistic system would have no tariffs and complete free trade. This would decimate cotton and other key US industries causing a call to end Slavery. 







Another key issue we'd have to look at here was the Abolition movement in the British Empire. This was a key reason that Britan didn't get involved in the American Civil War was due to the Anti-Slavery movement that was occuring and that they were pushing for no support for nations that foster slavery. [5] This would cause a dramtic increase in tariffs on American Cotton or even an Embargo. Which, once again, would cripple the Slavery system in the United States. Indian cotton was key for Britian at this time so it was starting to ease the cotton pain and thus a decrease in demand for American cotton. [6] This would lead to an even further price drop in profits for platation owners. Not to mention that another key thing for production is incentive. Alexis De Tocqueville wrote in his book, Democracy in America, that when he observed America he saw slavery. He stated that slavery deprived the value of the product due to there being no incentive to produce well. This was seen in Soviet Russia. When Kolkoy, or collective farming, became the norm, farming fell dramatically and Russia began to starve. It wasn't until an incentive for the farmers became law that farming production exploded. Slaves have no incentive and thus they produce a bad product. Why trust American cotton why you are paying for some one who has done a better job, due to incentive, from India.




Sources
1. Beverly Lemire, Fashion’s Favourite: The Cotton Trade and the Consumer in Britain, 1660-1800 (Oxford: 1991).
2. Craven, Avery O. Soil Exhaustion as a Factor in the Agricultural History of Virginia and Maryland, 1606–1860. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
3. Stephen Yafa, Big Cotton: How a Humble Fiber Created Fortunes, Wrecked Civilizations, and Put America on the Map (NY: Viking, 2005).
4. Robert William Fogel, Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), Chapter 3
5. Oldfield, John. "Brittish Anti-Slavery." BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2015.
6. Engl1101, Student: John Mays, and Instructor: Nathan Camp. â€œMaharaj Cotton†How the Death of “King Cotton†Led to Increased British Interests in India (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 13 Aug. 2015.

[Alex]

I'm no expert, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on this so I'm not going to cite sources, but instead just offer my conjectures based on what I read in your post.

 

After Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin, the price of slaves exploded because their increase in productivity (they could produce a lot more wealth, and so they were worth a lot more.) This change was near overnight, and it caused a huge increase in demand of slaves. Obviously more slaves could have been produced, and I expect (if it wasn't happening already) that people would have begun to breed and sell the slaves like livestock to sell to farmers.

 

Now you talk about a decrease in the price of cotton caused by overproduction, but also a decrease in production of cotton, because of soil depletion. These effects counter each other, and I'm sure one is likely more influential than the other, but I can't say for certain which. In any case, supply and demand would have again corrected for these changes, given enough time. Perhaps some of the cotton farmers would have gone out of business, or perhaps because of poor yields, more would have gone into business. I obviously don't know for sure.

 

The moral of the story is that as long as their was demand for cotton, there would be demand for slavery. As the nation industrialized, labor became more valuable, and that would have only increased the demand for slavery as slaves could have been used in other factory type settings as well. We've seen productivity increase dramatically since the 1800s to today, and it doesn't appear to be slowing down anytime soon, so I would expect in a capitalist world where businesses are intending to make a profit, slaves would become more valuable (business incurs no labor costs) and slavery would become more widespread and prevalent.

 

Obviously some people got their heads screwed on right and said, "hey, slavery is wrong" and luckily they won the war and ended it. But a pure market society would not have eventually ended slavery -- on the contrary, it would have expanded and exploited it just like it did when slavery was in existence. That's my 2 cents anyway.

[Peter Quill]

I'm no expert, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on this so I'm not going to cite sources, but instead just offer my conjectures based on what I read in your post.

 

After Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin, the price of slaves exploded because their increase in productivity (they could produce a lot more wealth, and so they were worth a lot more.) This change was near overnight, and it caused a huge increase in demand of slaves. Obviously more slaves could have been produced, and I expect (if it wasn't happening already) that people would have begun to breed and sell the slaves like livestock to sell to farmers.

 

Now you talk about a decrease in the price of cotton caused by overproduction, but also a decrease in production of cotton, because of soil depletion. These effects counter each other, and I'm sure one is likely more influential than the other, but I can't say for certain which. In any case, supply and demand would have again corrected for these changes, given enough time. Perhaps some of the cotton farmers would have gone out of business, or perhaps because of poor yields, more would have gone into business. I obviously don't know for sure.

 

The moral of the story is that as long as their was demand for cotton, there would be demand for slavery. As the nation industrialized, labor became more valuable, and that would have only increased the demand for slavery as slaves could have been used in other factory type settings as well. We've seen productivity increase dramatically since the 1800s to today, and it doesn't appear to be slowing down anytime soon, so I would expect in a capitalist world where businesses are intending to make a profit, slaves would become more valuable (business incurs no labor costs) and slavery would become more widespread and prevalent.

 

Obviously some people got their heads screwed on right and said, "hey, slavery is wrong" and luckily they won the war and ended it. But a pure market society would not have eventually ended slavery -- on the contrary, it would have expanded and exploited it just like it did when slavery was in existence. That's my 2 cents anyway.

^ What sheepy said

[Hereno]

This was seen in Soviet Russia. When Kolkoy, or collective farming, became the norm, farming fell dramatically and Russia began to starve. It wasn't until an incentive for the farmers became law that farming production exploded. Slaves have no incentive and thus they produce a bad product. Why trust American cotton why you are paying for some one who has done a better job, due to incentive, from India.

This is not true. There were successive droughts for years before collectivization happened, and they continued throughout the early 1930s. Also, in response to collectivization, the kulaks and peasants destroyed massive quantities of livestock, crops, and equipment to keep it from falling into government hands. Still, collectivization massively increased output from the land that was actually good and being used. But mismanagement by the government of the Ukrainian SSR, which was obviously at least in part due to the fact that in like two years collectivization of most of the SSR had happened, also meant that a lot of food ended up getting stolen, lost, or spoiling. A lot of factors - the rural population being against the collectivization efforts, the fact that they were trying something new, and almost a decade of bad harvests - all contributed to the famine. So sure, giving the people an incentive to work harder was one aspect of the Soviet government's plan to remedy the situation, but the claims you're making here are bold and completely ahistorical.

 

And as for slaves in America, they worked hard as !@#$ because they got whipped and beaten and killed. They were treated like shit and literally forced to do what they were told. They lived isolated in a country of foreigners with no hope of rescue, at the mercy of southern plantation owners. Their very livelihood depended on their work - sorta like how it is for all of us today, except there's nobody with a whip there. We have poverty as our whip and consumption as our carrot. But you must have a very, very positive (see: ridiculous) view of slavery in the American south if you think slaves could just be lazy and do nothing. And in America during the same time period as the Ukrainian famine, what you saw was the dust bowl and great depression. Oh, and prohibition, how could I forget?

Edited January 14, 2016 by Hierophant

[Spite]

Now we just have wage slaves, which is the same thing except when your worker dies you lose nothing

[Jack Mcfloyd]

I just have 1 question, wouldn't slaves been used in other markets

[Lannan13]

I'll get to this in a bit. I have a Star Wars debate I must get to first.

[Naruu]

Now we just have wage slaves, which is the same thing except when your worker dies you lose nothing

Pretty much this.

 

All you'll get is oligarchy as buinsesses monopolize the market, from there they can screw with prices and wages how they want, allowing them to mess up a large part of soceity all in the name of profit. And that's why a government is needed.

[Doktor Avalanche]

We hear a lot about cotton, but why do the history books not include the actual largest export from the United States up until the auto industry boom, which is hemp?