The Civil War and Slavery

Here I sit at my laptop pondering what to write in this week’s blog, flipping through the Douglass text coming to one conclusion- I have no idea what more I could say about slavery. I was not enslaved, I didn’t sit on my grandfather’s knee and hear tales of slavery, I am generally unaffected by the past horrors of slavery. Yes, I’ve read the Douglass text several times, and read other slave stories, but I remain rather indifferent. Is that really true? Can I honestly say that as a white female in twenty-first century America I have not felt something that is essentially the product of early U.S. slavery? I look up at the bulletin board behind my desk and see that this is certainly not the case- my eyes fall upon a Gone With the Wind calendar. While still unsure what to write, I start browsing my pictures on my computer and find the pictures I took while visiting the battlefields of Gettysburg. So now I realize that I have a much greater interest in slavery than I at first thought; I am completely a Civil War buff. The Civil War is definitely linked to slavery.

The Civil War was a violent, crude battle focused on the economic and social differences of the North and South. The North was a center of industry with a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. This majority factor played a huge role in the economic benefits given to the North, and the harsh circumstances Southerners faced as a result of high tariffs. While the Northern citizens were able to easily import the many luxury goods they enjoyed from Europe to support their lavish and wealthy lifestyles, the Southern plantation suffered. The Southern planter experienced poor crop prices because of the high exporting taxes as well as soils that were exhausted from cotton. The South wanted independence from the North so that they could control the import and export taxes in a way that would support their economy.

The social issue the North and South most conflicted on was of course slavery. The abolitionist movement was spreading, and even many Southerners were pro-abolition yet still supported secession. While the North was criticizing Southern planters for keeping slaves, they acted quite hypocritically. With the industrial boom came a rising demand for cheap labor. Instead of implementing a policy of slavery, the Northern factory owners maintained sweat shops. The working conditions were often as bad or worse than that of the slaves. The coal industry became larger, and these employees suffered health problems as a result from working in the coal mines without proper accommodations for respiratory health. These laborers may have been free, but they were paid meager wages and forced to endure conditions similar to those of slaves. In many cases the employees would actually live on the factory property in rundown shacks that should have been condemned. Yet despite treating men, women, and children like this, the Northerners had “better” morals.

Looking back at the choice to use the Civil War as a means for ending slavery, it should have guaranteed a certain defeat of the South. The Southern economy was already struggling enough without losing their slaves as the Union soldiers came through and freed slaves or convinced them to join the Union forces in rare cases. The loss of the slaves on a plantation meant the loss of any chance of profit for that seasons crops. No war can be fought without funding. The South was set up for defeat from the start because the North had factories already in operation which could be easily changed into factories for artillery. The South, however, did have a good start because of the skills and knowledge of backcountry living as well as the best military school in the country. The Southern generals were some of the best war strategists to ever live, no competition for the incompetent and numerous generals the North went through in the beginning.

The Civil War was fought over economics and morals. The North felt that they were morally right to try to abolish slavery, choosing sweat shops instead. The South felt that the U.S. government was not treating them fairly, preferring to look after the economic well-being of the North instead of the nation as a whole. Each side had a valid reason for fighting for the cause. The Union forces ultimately won, defeating the Southern culture of slave-worked plantations and further damaging the economically handicapped South. What if slavery had not been one of the issues of the Civil War? Would the tide of the war have turned? Would the North have remained as dedicated to maintaining the Union as a whole?

The Economics of Slavery 2: A response to the previous post

Can slavery Work in a modern society?

Can slavery work in a modern society today such as the U.S or Britain? I don’t think so, these days we have something called human rights and the duties that slavery entails strips a person of these rights. Even as Rodney Allan and Ian Hunt propose chattel (optional) slavery, it is not a rational option to rid the world of poverty, unemployment, inequality, insecurity, or social exclusion. Even if all of these economic problems were solved through slavery it is a step backward in the laissez faire economic society that we have created, and even if the most impoverished people in the world wanted to sell themselves into slavery so that they would be provided healthcare and three meals a day it would not solve the problem of inequality or social exclusion as Allan and Hunt non-convincingly claim.

Instead it worsen these things, people would be even more socially excluded, their lives would be sold away and the incentive system that the United States and other capitalist economies have come to live by would not apply to the slaves. Their standard of living would not increase one bit since the beginning of their commitment to slavery. So they would have no incentive to work hard except for to be fed and receive healthcare. As far as being included more socially, this is also a fallacy. Though it may seem that these people were socially excluded before their term of slavery, at least they had a chance to improve themselves by obtaining education and get out of their previously wretched condition, instead of signing up for a life sentence of wretchedness. Furthermore, my becoming a slave your social standing moves from freeman to slave. You are put into a caste system at the bottom of society with no way out.

It is my opinion that the reason Allan and Hunt promote this social agenda is their attempt to say hey look at all these problems in the world, our idea can fix them and it won’t cost the taxpayers a penny in fact it will make them money. But what this argument really is at its basis is an argument for eugenics. It’s trying to caste out the people who have been stuck at the bottom of society to be slaves for the rest of society. It’s saying that if people are born into a bad situation it is for a reason, and instead of offering the other hand, let’s enslave them and make their whole lives work, make us money while all they earn is the right to breathe another day.

The realistic approach to fighting poverty is not to enslave the population but create programs to help educate, offer Medicare for all, and create a system of opportunities for the under privileged. Yeah this will take social funding, and in most cases be very expensive, but it can bring a lot of good to society. If everyone is educated that’s that many more minds working to solve the problems of the world, which means there’s a better chance for finding cures to cancers and diseases, and more people have a chance to have a good free life, it may not be an equal chance, but at least it’s a chance.