On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:59:09 -0500 Tom Lehman <uswa12 at lorainccc.edu>
writes:
>
>--------------B9B124A5A006DFC577307320
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Dear Mike,
>
>I don't buy any of this bs about slavery being unprofitable. I guess
>that is why
>the southern states decided to split at the slightest hint that
>slavery should
>be abolished. Don't forget that westward expansion meant that more
>people could
>get in on slavery.
>
>Another thing that people like to forget about is that the southern
>states were
>rapidly industrializing in the 20 years prior to the civil war. These
>were
>industries that relied primarily on slave labor, even in skilled
>positions.
>There are a couple of interesting studies of the iron and steel
>industry in the
>ante-bellum south that come to mind.
>
I doubt that industrialization based on slave labor would have proven to be very efficient and hence very competitive. First of all slaves like free workers still had to be clothed, housed and fed. In the case of free labor, workers are paid money wages and so the responsibility for their being fed, clothed and housed is passed onto the workers themselves. In the case of slave labor these things are the responsibility of the masters who own them. So even though they may not be receiving wages for their work it is not self evident that unit labor costs for industrial production using slave labor would be much lower than in the case of production using free labor. Furthermore, if business falls off it is generally much easier to get rid of free laborers than slave laborers. Free laborers could be laid off or fired if business conditions got bad. In the case of slave labor, if business conditions got bad then the slaves had to be sold which was a more difficult undertaking than the discharging of free laborers. If business conditions were sufficiently bad then it would become much more difficult to sell off the now unnecessary slaves. They might have to be sold at a loss. And in the mean time they still had to be fed, clothed, and housed at their owners' expense.
Also, there is the little matter of incentives and productivity. When free labor was used in industry, employers could devise various schemes to peg wages to productivity in order to improve incentives. If slave labor is used what kinds of incentives can be provided to the slave laborers in order to improve their productivity? Even in the case of agricultural production such issues cropped up. Sometimes masters would pay cash wages to slaves for increased production but if they had to resort to such means to get more work out of their slaves then slavery would appear to have few advantages over free labor.
In short I sell little reason to think that Marx was wrong in supposing that slavery could not be economically viable over the long run
Jim Farmelant
>Sincerely,
>Tom L.
>Michael Perelman wrote:
>
>> > I read a book last year called "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving
>Free Men"
>> > by Jeffrey Hummel. He comes at things from a right-libertarian
>> > viewpoint, but his grasp of the literature is amazing. It's his
>> > contention that the North should have followed the recommendations
>of
>> > abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and let the south go;
>that
>> > without the "enforcement subsidy" of the fugative slave laws,
>slavery
>> > was uneconomic and would die on its own.
>> >
>>
>> A good number of commentators thought that the slave economy was
>profitable
>> only because of the expansion of cotton to new territories, that
>required an
>> infusion of new slaves. Since slaves could not longer be imported,
>the
>> plantations acted as [indirect and sometimes direct] breeders. The
>profits
>> from selling "surplus" slaves allowed the old plantations to be
>profitable.
>>
>> Also, Karl Marx used Fredrick Law Olmstead's articles on slavery
>[the 2
>> corresponded with each other] to show how that slavery would
>necessarily be
>> unprofitable in the long run.
>>
>> Here is an echo of Olmstead in modern economics:
>>
>> Kauffmann, Kyle. D. 1993. "Why Was the Mule Used in Southern
>Agriculture?
>> Empirical Evidence of Principal-Agent Solutions." Explorations in
>Economic
>> History, 30: 3 (July): pp. 336-51. He shows that, even in the
>twentieth
>> century, mules were more frequently used where sharecropping was
>most
>> common, since croppers tended to use the landlord's work stock.
>> 340: Olmstead, Frederick Law. 1904. A Journey in the Seaboard
>Slave
>> States in the Years 1853-1854 (NY: Putnam): p. 51 "When I ask why
>mules are
>> so universally substituted for horses on the farm, the first reason
>given
>> ... is, that horses cannot bear the treatment that they get from
>negroes."
>> He gives other sources. 336: Mules are consistently more
>expensive than
>> horses. 337: Mules were used more extensively in the South since
>> sharecroppers did not own the farm animals. They had little
>incentive to
>> conserve the stock. 339: Mules resist injury more than horses.
>They
>> resist overwork and require less grooming than horses.
>> 348: In the North, mules were used more by the lumberman, again
>> suggesting a principal-agent situation.
>> 349-50: He uses data from Georgia to show that mules were used
>more
>> frequently in counties where sharecropping was more common.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Michael Perelman
>> Economics Department
>> California State University
>> michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>> Chico, CA 95929
>> 530-898-5321
>> fax 530-898-5901
>
>--------------B9B124A5A006DFC577307320
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
>Dear Mike,
><p>I don't buy any of this bs about slavery being unprofitable. I
>guess
>that is why the southern states decided to split at the <b>slightest
>hint</b>
>that slavery <b>should </b>be abolished. Don't forget that
>westward
>expansion meant that more people could get in on slavery.
><p>Another thing that people like to forget about is that the southern
>states were rapidly industrializing in the 20 years prior to the civil
>war. These were industries that relied primarily on slave labor,
>even in skilled positions. There are a couple of interesting
>studies
>of the iron and steel industry in the ante-bellum south that come to
>mind.
><p>Sincerely,
><br>Tom L.
><br>Michael Perelman wrote:
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>> I read a book last year called "Emancipating
>Slaves,
>Enslaving Free Men"
><br>> by Jeffrey Hummel. He comes at things from a
>right-libertarian
><br>> viewpoint, but his grasp of the literature is amazing.
>It's
>his
><br>> contention that the North should have followed the
>recommendations
>of
><br>> abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and let the south go;
>that
><br>> without the "enforcement subsidy" of the fugative slave laws,
>slavery
><br>> was uneconomic and would die on its own.
><br>>
><p>A good number of commentators thought that the slave economy was
>profitable
><br>only because of the expansion of cotton to new territories, that
>required
>an
><br>infusion of new slaves. Since slaves could not longer be
>imported,
>the
><br>plantations acted as [indirect and sometimes direct]
>breeders.
>The profits
><br>from selling "surplus" slaves allowed the old plantations to be
>profitable.
><p>Also, Karl Marx used Fredrick Law Olmstead's articles on slavery
>[the
>2
><br>corresponded with each other] to show how that slavery would
>necessarily
>be
><br>unprofitable in the long run.
><p>Here is an echo of Olmstead in modern economics:
><p>Kauffmann, Kyle. D. 1993. "Why Was the Mule Used in Southern
>Agriculture?
><br>Empirical Evidence of Principal-Agent Solutions." Explorations in
>Economic
><br>History, 30: 3 (July): pp. 336-51. He shows
>that,
>even in the twentieth
><br>century, mules were more frequently used where sharecropping was
>most
><br>common, since croppers tended to use the landlord's work stock.
><br> 340: Olmstead, Frederick Law. 1904. A Journey in the
>Seaboard
>Slave
><br>States in the Years 1853-1854 (NY: Putnam): p. 51 "When I ask why
>mules
>are
><br>so universally substituted for horses on the farm, the first
>reason
>given
><br>... is, that horses cannot bear the treatment that they get from
>negroes."
><br>He gives other sources. 336: Mules are
>consistently
>more expensive than
><br>horses. 337: Mules were used more extensively in
>the South since
><br>sharecroppers did not own the farm animals. They had little
>incentive
>to
><br>conserve the stock. 339: Mules resist injury
>more
>than horses. They
><br>resist overwork and require less grooming than horses.
><br> 348: In the North, mules were used more by the
>lumberman,
>again
><br>suggesting a principal-agent situation.
><br> 349-50: He uses data from Georgia to show that mules
>were
>used more
><br>frequently in counties where sharecropping was more common.
><p>--
><p>Michael Perelman
><br>Economics Department
><br>California State University
><br>michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
><br>Chico, CA 95929
><br>530-898-5321
><br>fax 530-898-5901</blockquote>
></html>
>
>--------------B9B124A5A006DFC577307320--
>
>
___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]