Trivia Factoid of the Day
-
By June 30, 1879 the Civil War, plus attendant pensions and the cost of occupying portions of the South until 1877, had cost the federal government $6,187,243,385 and some cents, about three times the estimated cost of human beings held as slaves in the United States in 1860. War be eks-PEN-sive! :omg:
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
-
By June 30, 1879 the Civil War, plus attendant pensions and the cost of occupying portions of the South until 1877, had cost the federal government $6,187,243,385 and some cents, about three times the estimated cost of human beings held as slaves in the United States in 1860. War be eks-PEN-sive! :omg:
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
Which always begs the question : Why didn't the US consider just offering to buy slaves and set them free. By all accounts, most small slave owners in the South would have been happy to trade slaves for green backs (they generally did it every chance they got). Also, by 1860, with the frontier era nearing an end, the big slave owners were already beginning to realize that slaves were much more expensive to maintain than exploiting free labor and were increasingly using disposable Irish laborers for dangerous work rather than expensive slaves. It seems that a far less bloody end to slavery could have been achieved with a little imagination. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Which always begs the question : Why didn't the US consider just offering to buy slaves and set them free. By all accounts, most small slave owners in the South would have been happy to trade slaves for green backs (they generally did it every chance they got). Also, by 1860, with the frontier era nearing an end, the big slave owners were already beginning to realize that slaves were much more expensive to maintain than exploiting free labor and were increasingly using disposable Irish laborers for dangerous work rather than expensive slaves. It seems that a far less bloody end to slavery could have been achieved with a little imagination. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
I suppose they could then turn around and hire those newly freed back to continue doing the labor required to keep the economy from totally falling under. Down the road the economy would've picked up enough to possibly even compete with the North's. BW The Biggest Loser
"And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun" -
Which always begs the question : Why didn't the US consider just offering to buy slaves and set them free. By all accounts, most small slave owners in the South would have been happy to trade slaves for green backs (they generally did it every chance they got). Also, by 1860, with the frontier era nearing an end, the big slave owners were already beginning to realize that slaves were much more expensive to maintain than exploiting free labor and were increasingly using disposable Irish laborers for dangerous work rather than expensive slaves. It seems that a far less bloody end to slavery could have been achieved with a little imagination. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: Which always begs the question : Why didn't the US consider just offering to buy slaves and set them free. Have you forgot the dot com bubble already? If the owners knew the government was going to buy and free all slaves, the price of slave would sky-rocket quickly. In the end the slave owners would be rich enough to buy anything including the whole country. Yeah, let the capitalism do its work. No offence, but what a dumb idea.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Which always begs the question : Why didn't the US consider just offering to buy slaves and set them free. Have you forgot the dot com bubble already? If the owners knew the government was going to buy and free all slaves, the price of slave would sky-rocket quickly. In the end the slave owners would be rich enough to buy anything including the whole country. Yeah, let the capitalism do its work. No offence, but what a dumb idea.
Anonymously wrote: but what a dumb idea Well, obviously, if the government tried to just buy all the slaves at once that would certainly have driven up the price. But that was not necessarily what I was suggesting. First, you have to understand that the economy of the South was cash poor and slave rich. By buying up slaves from the smaller slave holders first, pumping cash slowly into the Southern economy from the bottom up, allowing it to build gradually into a more modern economy might have worked. The small, yoeman farmers would than have had the cash to pay for hired help which would have been more economically efficient all the way around. As I said, the larger slave owners were probably only a decade or two away from abandoning slavery altogether having recognized that it was becoming increasingly unprofitable. (I am aware that there are arguments to the contrary). I'm not saying that it would have been easy or even possible, and obviously any number of economic issues would have been encountered (costs of relocation, for example, if necessary), and would have taken a level of political commitment not seen until the mid-20th century. But there is precious little historic evidence that any such plan was ever even considered. Which, considering the mentioned costs, wasn't very far sighted of anyone at the time. It's just an issue I've always been curious about historically, because it is obvious that the opportunity existed to avoid war. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Which always begs the question : Why didn't the US consider just offering to buy slaves and set them free. By all accounts, most small slave owners in the South would have been happy to trade slaves for green backs (they generally did it every chance they got). Also, by 1860, with the frontier era nearing an end, the big slave owners were already beginning to realize that slaves were much more expensive to maintain than exploiting free labor and were increasingly using disposable Irish laborers for dangerous work rather than expensive slaves. It seems that a far less bloody end to slavery could have been achieved with a little imagination. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Because the causitive factor of the Civil war wasn't slavery, but state's rights. One of the most explosive issues preceding the Civil War wasn't slavery, but trade. Namely, the south resented the tarriffs enacted largely at the urging of the northern states. In 1832, South Carolina unconstitutionally declared those tarriff's void. Later they attempted to negotiate trade agreements directly with England, again unconstitutional. (Short, but okay summary: http://www.ourtimelines.com/zcivwar.html[^]) To the North, slavery offered a clear moral dimension to what was a struggle between federalism and states rights. I believe slavery allowed the North to tolerate the tremendous bloodshed and fiscal cost of the Civil war, especially after the losses of Antietam. Once you look at the history of conflict between the north and south before 1860, the US Civil War seems inevitable. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Anonymously wrote: but what a dumb idea Well, obviously, if the government tried to just buy all the slaves at once that would certainly have driven up the price. But that was not necessarily what I was suggesting. First, you have to understand that the economy of the South was cash poor and slave rich. By buying up slaves from the smaller slave holders first, pumping cash slowly into the Southern economy from the bottom up, allowing it to build gradually into a more modern economy might have worked. The small, yoeman farmers would than have had the cash to pay for hired help which would have been more economically efficient all the way around. As I said, the larger slave owners were probably only a decade or two away from abandoning slavery altogether having recognized that it was becoming increasingly unprofitable. (I am aware that there are arguments to the contrary). I'm not saying that it would have been easy or even possible, and obviously any number of economic issues would have been encountered (costs of relocation, for example, if necessary), and would have taken a level of political commitment not seen until the mid-20th century. But there is precious little historic evidence that any such plan was ever even considered. Which, considering the mentioned costs, wasn't very far sighted of anyone at the time. It's just an issue I've always been curious about historically, because it is obvious that the opportunity existed to avoid war. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
What's amusing to me is that I nearly added the line "Why didn't Uncle Sam buy them all off and free them?" to the original post, but in a unique occurance of PC-behavior (it doesn't happen often), I demurred.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
-
Anonymously wrote: but what a dumb idea Well, obviously, if the government tried to just buy all the slaves at once that would certainly have driven up the price. But that was not necessarily what I was suggesting. First, you have to understand that the economy of the South was cash poor and slave rich. By buying up slaves from the smaller slave holders first, pumping cash slowly into the Southern economy from the bottom up, allowing it to build gradually into a more modern economy might have worked. The small, yoeman farmers would than have had the cash to pay for hired help which would have been more economically efficient all the way around. As I said, the larger slave owners were probably only a decade or two away from abandoning slavery altogether having recognized that it was becoming increasingly unprofitable. (I am aware that there are arguments to the contrary). I'm not saying that it would have been easy or even possible, and obviously any number of economic issues would have been encountered (costs of relocation, for example, if necessary), and would have taken a level of political commitment not seen until the mid-20th century. But there is precious little historic evidence that any such plan was ever even considered. Which, considering the mentioned costs, wasn't very far sighted of anyone at the time. It's just an issue I've always been curious about historically, because it is obvious that the opportunity existed to avoid war. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: Well, obviously, if the government tried to just buy all the slaves at once that would certainly have driven up the price. But that was not necessarily what I was suggesting. ... It's just an issue I've always been curious about historically, because it is obvious that the opportunity existed to avoid war. Thanks for the explanation but I am still not convinced that it would have any remote chance of working. The human nature is, the more you want to take something away from a person, the more likely he/she wants to hold on to it. By the way, you didn't say that the government should outlaw any new slave trade, so we could have grown a government subsidized slave economy here. Speaking of avoiding war, why not buy all illegal drugs, illegal machine-guns, or even WMDs from the bad guys? That would pump enough cash into the poor owners of such property.