<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Dear James,
<p>Yeah, wasn't it great! One change of clothes a year. A shack
to live in---the animal barns were better. Oh yeah! When your
not busy working for the "massa" you get to grow your own food.
<p><b><font color="#000000">Speaking of modern day innovations</font></b>.
Many of the slaves used in the ante-bellum iron and steel business were
leased to the ironmasters. Sort of like using contractors today.
A smart southern ironmaster wouldn't have to keep a big labor force on
hand. He could contract for slave labor as business conditions warranted.
<p>Sincerely,
<br>Tom L.
<p>James Farmelant wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:59:09 -0500 Tom Lehman <uswa12@lorainccc.edu>
<br>writes:
<br>>
<br>>--------------B9B124A5A006DFC577307320
<br>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
<br>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<br>>
<br>>Dear Mike,
<br>>
<br>>I don't buy any of this bs about slavery being unprofitable. I guess
<br>>that is why
<br>>the southern states decided to split at the slightest hint that
<br>>slavery should
<br>>be abolished. Don't forget that westward expansion meant that
more
<br>>people could
<br>>get in on slavery.
<br>>
<br>>Another thing that people like to forget about is that the southern
<br>>states were
<br>>rapidly industrializing in the 20 years prior to the civil war.
These
<br>>were
<br>>industries that relied primarily on slave labor, even in skilled
<br>>positions.
<br>>There are a couple of interesting studies of the iron and steel
<br>>industry in the
<br>>ante-bellum south that come to mind.
<br>>
<p>I doubt that industrialization based on slave labor would have
<br>proven to be very efficient and hence very competitive. First
<br>of all slaves like free workers still had to be clothed, housed
<br>and fed. In the case of free labor, workers are paid money wages
<br>and so the responsibility for their being fed, clothed and housed
<br>is passed onto the workers themselves. In the case of slave
<br>labor these things are the responsibility of the masters who
<br>own them. So even though they may not be receiving wages
<br>for their work it is not self evident that unit labor costs for
<br>industrial production using slave labor would be much lower
<br>than in the case of production using free labor. Furthermore,
<br>if business falls off it is generally much easier to get rid
<br>of free laborers than slave laborers. Free laborers could be
<br>laid off or fired if business conditions got bad. In the case
of
<br>slave labor, if business conditions got bad then the slaves
<br>had to be sold which was a more difficult undertaking than
<br>the discharging of free laborers. If business conditions were
<br>sufficiently bad then it would become much more difficult to
<br>sell off the now unnecessary slaves. They might have to be
<br>sold at a loss. And in the mean time they still had to be fed,
<br>clothed, and housed at their owners' expense.
<p>Also, there is the little matter of incentives and productivity.
<br>When free labor was used in industry, employers could
<br>devise various schemes to peg wages to productivity in
<br>order to improve incentives. If slave labor is used what kinds
<br>of incentives can be provided to the slave laborers in order
<br>to improve their productivity? Even in the case of agricultural
<br>production such issues cropped up. Sometimes masters would
<br>pay cash wages to slaves for increased production but if they
<br>had to resort to such means to get more work out of their slaves
<br>then slavery would appear to have few advantages over free labor.
<p>In short I sell little reason to think that Marx was wrong in supposing
<br>that slavery could not be economically viable over the long run
<p>
Jim Farmelant
<p>>Sincerely,
<br>>Tom L.
<br>>Michael Perelman wrote:
<br>>
<br>>> > I read a book last year called "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving
<br>>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
<br>>of
<br>>> > abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and let the south go;
<br>>that
<br>>> > without the "enforcement subsidy" of the fugative slave laws,
<br>>slavery
<br>>> > was uneconomic and would die on its own.
<br>>> >
<br>>>
<br>>> A good number of commentators thought that the slave economy was
<br>>profitable
<br>>> only because of the expansion of cotton to new territories, that
<br>>required an
<br>>> infusion of new slaves. Since slaves could not longer be imported,
<br>>the
<br>>> plantations acted as [indirect and sometimes direct] breeders.
The
<br>>profits
<br>>> from selling "surplus" slaves allowed the old plantations to be
<br>>profitable.
<br>>>
<br>>> Also, Karl Marx used Fredrick Law Olmstead's articles on slavery
<br>>[the 2
<br>>> corresponded with each other] to show how that slavery would
<br>>necessarily be
<br>>> unprofitable in the long run.
<br>>>
<br>>> Here is an echo of Olmstead in modern economics:
<br>>>
<br>>> Kauffmann, Kyle. D. 1993. "Why Was the Mule Used in Southern
<br>>Agriculture?
<br>>> Empirical Evidence of Principal-Agent Solutions." Explorations in
<br>>Economic
<br>>> History, 30: 3 (July): pp. 336-51. He shows that,
even in the
<br>>twentieth
<br>>> century, mules were more frequently used where sharecropping was
<br>>most
<br>>> common, since croppers tended to use the landlord's work stock.
<br>>> 340: Olmstead, Frederick Law. 1904. A Journey
in the Seaboard
<br>>Slave
<br>>> States in the Years 1853-1854 (NY: Putnam): p. 51 "When I ask why
<br>>mules are
<br>>> so universally substituted for horses on the farm, the first reason
<br>>given
<br>>> ... is, that horses cannot bear the treatment that they get from
<br>>negroes."
<br>>> He gives other sources. 336: Mules are consistently
more
<br>>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
<br>>incentive to
<br>>> conserve the stock. 339: Mules resist injury more
than horses.
<br>>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
<br>>more
<br>>> frequently in counties where sharecropping was more common.
<br>>>
<br>>> --
<br>>>
<br>>> Michael Perelman
<br>>> Economics Department
<br>>> California State University
<br>>> michael@ecst.csuchico.edu
<br>>> Chico, CA 95929
<br>>> 530-898-5321
<br>>> fax 530-898-5901
<br>>
<br>>--------------B9B124A5A006DFC577307320
<br>>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<br>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<br>>
<br>><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<br>><html>
<br>>Dear Mike,
<br>><p>I don't buy any of this bs about slavery being unprofitable.
I
<br>>guess
<br>>that is why the southern states decided to split at the <b>slightest
<br>>hint</b>
<br>>that slavery <b>should </b>be abolished.&nbsp; Don't forget
that
<br>>westward
<br>>expansion meant that more people could get in on slavery.
<br>><p>Another thing that people like to forget about is that the southern
<br>>states were rapidly industrializing in the 20 years prior to the civil
<br>>war.&nbsp; These were industries that relied primarily on slave
labor,
<br>>even in skilled positions.&nbsp; There are a couple of interesting
<br>>studies
<br>>of the iron and steel industry in the ante-bellum south that come
to
<br>>mind.
<br>><p>Sincerely,
<br>><br>Tom L.
<br>><br>Michael Perelman wrote:
<br>><blockquote TYPE=CITE>> I read a book last year called "Emancipating
<br>>Slaves,
<br>>Enslaving Free Men"
<br>><br>> by Jeffrey Hummel.&nbsp; He comes at things from a
<br>>right-libertarian
<br>><br>> viewpoint, but his grasp of the literature is amazing.&nbsp;
<br>>It's
<br>>his
<br>><br>> contention that the North should have followed the
<br>>recommendations
<br>>of
<br>><br>> abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and let the south
go;
<br>>that
<br>><br>> without the "enforcement subsidy" of the fugative slave laws,
<br>>slavery
<br>><br>> was uneconomic and would die on its own.
<br>><br>>
<br>><p>A good number of commentators thought that the slave economy
was
<br>>profitable
<br>><br>only because of the expansion of cotton to new territories,
that
<br>>required
<br>>an
<br>><br>infusion of new slaves.&nbsp; Since slaves could not longer
be
<br>>imported,
<br>>the
<br>><br>plantations acted as [indirect and sometimes direct]
<br>>breeders.&nbsp;
<br>>The profits
<br>><br>from selling "surplus" slaves allowed the old plantations to
be
<br>>profitable.
<br>><p>Also, Karl Marx used Fredrick Law Olmstead's articles on slavery
<br>>[the
<br>>2
<br>><br>corresponded with each other] to show how that slavery would
<br>>necessarily
<br>>be
<br>><br>unprofitable in the long run.
<br>><p>Here is an echo of Olmstead in modern economics:
<br>><p>Kauffmann, Kyle. D. 1993. "Why Was the Mule Used in Southern
<br>>Agriculture?
<br>><br>Empirical Evidence of Principal-Agent Solutions." Explorations
in
<br>>Economic
<br>><br>History, 30: 3 (July): pp. 336-51.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
He shows
<br>>that,
<br>>even in the twentieth
<br>><br>century, mules were more frequently used where sharecropping
was
<br>>most
<br>><br>common, since croppers tended to use the landlord's work stock.
<br>><br>&nbsp;&nbsp; 340: Olmstead, Frederick Law. 1904. A
Journey in the
<br>>Seaboard
<br>>Slave
<br>><br>States in the Years 1853-1854 (NY: Putnam): p. 51 "When I ask
why
<br>>mules
<br>>are
<br>><br>so universally substituted for horses on the farm, the first
<br>>reason
<br>>given
<br>><br>... is, that horses cannot bear the treatment that they get
from
<br>>negroes."
<br>><br>He gives other sources.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 336:
Mules are
<br>>consistently
<br>>more expensive than
<br>><br>horses.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 337: Mules were used
more extensively in
<br>>the South since
<br>><br>sharecroppers did not own the farm animals.&nbsp; They
had little
<br>>incentive
<br>>to
<br>><br>conserve the stock.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 339: Mules
resist injury
<br>>more
<br>>than horses.&nbsp; They
<br>><br>resist overwork and require less grooming than horses.
<br>><br>&nbsp;&nbsp; 348: In the North, mules were used more
by the
<br>>lumberman,
<br>>again
<br>><br>suggesting a principal-agent situation.
<br>><br>&nbsp;&nbsp; 349-50: He uses data from Georgia to show
that mules
<br>>were
<br>>used more
<br>><br>frequently in counties where sharecropping was more common.
<br>><p>--
<br>><p>Michael Perelman
<br>><br>Economics Department
<br>><br>California State University
<br>><br>michael@ecst.csuchico.edu
<br>><br>Chico, CA 95929
<br>><br>530-898-5321
<br>><br>fax 530-898-5901</blockquote>
<br>></html>
<br>>
<br>>--------------B9B124A5A006DFC577307320--
<br>>
<br>>
<p>___________________________________________________________________
<br>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
<br>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at <a href="http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html">http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html</a>
<br>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]</blockquote>
</html>