Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Vermont Lt
Slavery as an institution would have been the economical thing for he south to do.

Actually, economic analysis in the 1850s by Frederick Law Olmsted and others indicated that paying people wages was more economical than slavery, due to increased productivity of wage workers. The thought at the time was that slavery would disappear in just a few decades.

Note also that slavery seemed to be on the way out in the late 1700s -- then Ely Whitney invented the cotton gin and created a huge industry around a new cash crop. The fact is that slavery was an anomaly. Fifty years after the cotton gin it was once again seen as a sloppy way to run an economy. It was limping along and would have withered away without the war.

25 posted on 07/07/2012 5:39:11 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Roger Taney? Not a bad Chief Justice. John Roberts? A really awful Chief Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: ClearCase_guy
The thought at the time was that slavery would disappear in just a few decades.

Slavery would likely have died out by the early 1900's as a result of industrialization, but few probably foresaw that in the 1860's. The south in general sure didn't see it, and fought hard to keep it. The question is, would you have wanted to be a slave in the south during those few decades?

28 posted on 07/07/2012 5:47:03 AM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (With choices like Palin, Cain, and Bachmann, what could go wrong? Now we know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson