Could the Civil War had been avoided if less profit was acceptable

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
You Never Disappoint; If you read it again, Mr Roman says Cotton isn’t that Important to Louisiana. The most important thing is Commerce, or Trade. Might want to Google New Orleans, Baton Rouge and the Mississippi River. May help with your Understanding, or it might add to your Confusion?

@uaskme,

All your post shows is what it actually says, not what you think it says.

What is amazing is how willing some seem to be at any twist, any glimmer of hope, that supposedly shows their view to be the right one.

Your post did not show that, not even close.

PS: maybe you should Google the Kenner Mission or read the book, Look Away! : History of the Confederate States of America, by William C. Davis. On pages 59, 60, 101, 167, 362-363, 376, 380, 402 and 408, you'll read all about Duncan Kenner and his story.

It's much more informative than Jim's tidbit.

Unionblue
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
No, I won't, as I have done so many times before on various threads and posts, even some of which you have been a participant on. Why the dance, when you know full well what I have said and when I have said such.

No. I'm too tired to play the game anymore. When a sincere question is asked, when a sincere request for a source is requested, then I will answer.

Besides, you've read my sources and answers and are no longer surprised by them.

Game over.

Then don't be surprised when I dismiss them as inaccurate history.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Insight to LA's interest with respect to Cotton and Slavery. It was not as important as Commerce.




Insightful Indeed Even as the thoughts of only one man in La. the grasp of economic reality is obvious, but, of course, if the common thread that ties the economic interests of La. to those of the rest of the confederacy, which are economically incompatible with those of La., why exactly did La. Secede if not Slavery?
 

Stratagemo

Corporal
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
You Never Disappoint; If you read it again, Mr Roman says Cotton isn’t that Important to Louisiana. The most important thing is Commerce, or Trade. Might want to Google New Orleans, Baton Rouge and the Mississippi River. May help with your Understanding, or it might add to your Confusion?

For reference, in 1860 Louisiana produced about one sixth of all cotton grown in the USA and accounted for approximately one third of all cotton exports from the USA. Annual cotton production in Louisiana rose from approximately 375,000 bales in 1840 to almost 800,000 bales in 1860. I think by any estimation cotton is a significant crop in antebellum Louisiana's economy.

Sugar was also another important crop in Louisiana, in fact LA was the principal sugar producer in the antebellum USA. As you are no doubt aware, slaves were the primary labour source for sugar production in LA at the time.

Sugar had a significant impact on Louisiana's commerce, as the vast majority of sugar was not refined in LA, but rather shipped north, via the Mississippi, or by sea to Atlantic ports for refining. I suspect you're also aware that slaves played an important role in the antebellum transportation industry on the Mississippi River and associated ports.

From what I've read, sugar and cotton production were the backbone of Louisiana's antebellum economy (both of which were heavily slave based activities). I'd be very curious to see some data, if you have it, on which economic activities were more important than these in antebellum LA.
 

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
Money was never the issue. President Lincoln had long proposed compensated emancipation, which was totally rejected by the southern states. In fact, Lincoln proposed such a plan in March 1862 to the loyal yet slave border states (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) but that got nowhere.

View attachment 307418
I think that sufficient compensation would have persuaded the owners to free their slaves. $1500 per slave would be an enticing amount. (Not that Congress would have approved it.)
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
I think that sufficient compensation would have persuaded the owners to free their slaves. $1500 per slave would be an enticing amount. (Not that Congress would have approved it.)



The top price for slaves were for Field hands, in prime condition, and declined quickly for other slaves. If slave holders would have demanded top price for all their slaves, then, I would assume that as evidence that their offer to sell was not meant to be serious.
 

jackt62

Captain
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Location
New York City
I think that sufficient compensation would have persuaded the owners to free their slaves. $1500 per slave would be an enticing amount. (Not that Congress would have approved it.)

In fact, the only successful compensated emancipation program in the US was that enacted for Washington DC in April 1862. It paid DC slaveholders approximately $300 per slave.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
In fact, the only successful compensated emancipation program in the US was that enacted for Washington DC in April 1862. It paid DC slaveholders approximately $300 per slave.
The April 16, 1862, act appropriated $1 million for compensation payments for the 3,185 slaves who were freed. The government employed a Maryland Slave Broker to determine the market value of the slaves.
There was no question concerning the constitutionality of the act since the District of Columbia was governed by Congress.
Interestingly, earlier- in November 1861- Lincoln had proposed that the federal government underwrite a compensated emancipation plan for Delaware. The Delaware Legislature narrowly rejected the proposal.
for more see https://civilwartalk.com/threads/why-did-compensated-emancipation-in-delaware-fail.113139/
Although some nowadays claim secession was not about slavery, Lincoln believed that his proposal was the quickest and easiest way to end the war and reunite the nation.
 
Last edited:

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
In fact, the only successful compensated emancipation program in the US was that enacted for Washington DC in April 1862. It paid DC slaveholders approximately $300 per slave.
$300 does not sound like a fair price for the average slave. Maybe a graduated compensation beginning at $300 for a household slave, $3,000 for a field hand, and $1500 for an artisan, the weighted average being, say, $1500, or even $2,000. Not a problem about the total cost being available in cash because the government can sell long-term bonds guaranteed by tariffs, land sales, etc. We can talk principles until we are blue in the face, but if the price is right, money usually prevails.
 

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
The top price for slaves were for Field hands, in prime condition, and declined quickly for other slaves. If slave holders would have demanded top price for all their slaves, then, I would assume that as evidence that their offer to sell was not meant to be serious.
In reply, see my last post.
 

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
According to the Richmond museum, in 1860, more than 50% of the entire net worth of the South was in the resale value of its slaves.
What is the estimated total resale value of the slaves alone? And one cannot just talk about their resale value. The "new South" ex-slave owners would suddenly have piles of cash from the bond sales that they can invest elsewhere, including hiring free laborers, if they want to stay in cotton, rice, sugar, hemp, etc. The opportunities for profits are unlimited. I can imagine a scenario where they use the money to hire free laborers and build yarn and cloth factories that outcompete the North - fitting justice to those ornery abolitionists!
 

Southern Unionist

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Location
NC
What is the estimated total resale value of the slaves alone? And one cannot just talk about their resale value. The "new South" ex-slave owners would suddenly have piles of cash from the bond sales that they can invest elsewhere, including hiring free laborers, if they want to stay in cotton, rice, sugar, hemp, etc. The opportunities for profits are unlimited. I can imagine a scenario where they use the money to hire free laborers and build yarn and cloth factories that outcompete the North - fitting justice to those ornery abolitionists!

The flaws in this economic analysis... I hardly know where to start. Just... no. None of this was feasible. Without continuation of the status quo, economic collapse was inevitable. Plantation owners were scared, as they should have been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WJC

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
The flaws in this economic analysis... I hardly know where to start. Just... no. None of this was feasible. Without continuation of the status quo, economic collapse was inevitable. Plantation owners were scared, as they should have been.
Scared of what? Planters were not scared of the smell of money. Cash on the barrelhead, free land given by the US in the southern tiers of the Mexican Cession for those who want to continue as planters, experts to show the current ways to spin and weave cloth for those who prefer manufacturing, or opening businesses in other industries. No, it was not feasible because over time hearts had hardened on both sides; what should have been a quid pro quo financial transaction became ideological. There developed on both sides poppycock about "what the Founding Fathers thought", "Constitutionality', "cultural differences", "states rights", "slave rebellions" - all rationalizations and so much humbug.

Economic collapse was not inevitable when there is a gradual transition from the old the new ways. Allow 10 years for the money to come gradually from the bonds and into the hands of the planters. Meanwhile, the former owners are being trained by experienced people in their chosen fields to make money without using slaves. What I am suggesting is nothing new: businesses and governments around the world today have retraining programs. Could have been the same 160 years ago.
 

Southern Unionist

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Location
NC
Scared of what? Planters were not scared of the smell of money. Cash on the barrelhead, free land given by the US in the southern tiers of the Mexican Cession for those who want to continue as planters, experts to show the current ways to spin and weave cloth for those who prefer manufacturing, or opening businesses in other industries. No, it was not feasible because over time hearts had hardened on both sides; what should have been a quid pro quo financial transaction became ideological. There developed on both sides poppycock about "what the Founding Fathers thought", "Constitutionality', "cultural differences", "states rights", "slave rebellions" - all rationalizations and so much humbug.

Economic collapse was not inevitable when there is a gradual transition from the old the new ways. Allow 10 years for the money to come gradually from the bonds and into the hands of the planters. Meanwhile, the former owners are being trained by experienced people in their chosen fields to make money without using slaves. What I am suggesting is nothing new: businesses and governments around the world today have retraining programs. Could have been the same 160 years ago.

Wishful thinking. Edited.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
$300 does not sound like a fair price for the average slave. Maybe a graduated compensation beginning at $300 for a household slave, $3,000 for a field hand, and $1500 for an artisan, the weighted average being, say, $1500, or even $2,000. Not a problem about the total cost being available in cash because the government can sell long-term bonds guaranteed by tariffs, land sales, etc. We can talk principles until we are blue in the face, but if the price is right, money usually prevails.
Perhaps to us, who deal in inflated dollars. The 1862 appraisers established the $300 price and it was accepted. In the proposal Lincoln made to Delaware slaveholders, the initial price was $300 but was negotiated to $500. Nonetheless, the Delaware Legislature rejected the proposal by one vote.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Cash on the barrelhead, free land given by the US in the southern tiers of the Mexican Cession for those who want to continue as planters, experts to show the current ways to spin and weave cloth for those who prefer manufacturing, or opening businesses in other industries.
Cash was certainly appealing. The other suggestions probably meant nothing to slaveholders as they required serious disruption in a business that was highly dependent on cash flow. Momentum is powerful and difficult to overcome without concrete potential for improvement.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Allow 10 years for the money to come gradually from the bonds and into the hands of the planters. Meanwhile, the former owners are being trained by experienced people in their chosen fields to make money without using slaves. What I am suggesting is nothing new: businesses and governments around the world today have retraining programs. Could have been the same 160 years ago.
What you are suggesting does not always work today. Although it may be "nothing new" today, it most certainly would have been radically new in the 1860s.
 

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
Perhaps to us, who deal in inflated dollars. The 1862 appraisers established the $300 price and it was accepted. In the proposal Lincoln made to Delaware slaveholders, the initial price was $300 but was negotiated to $500. Nonetheless, the Delaware Legislature rejected the proposal by one vote.
I read in some nameless thread that planters were paying $1000 for a field hand. There must be available today plenty of statistics from slave sales between 1855 to 1860 that indicate precisely what buyers were paying for all kinds of slave labor: domestic, artisan, field hand - by sex, age, and area. It would be valuable for me to review a compendium of these stats.
 

jackt62

Captain
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Location
New York City
$300 does not sound like a fair price for the average slave. Maybe a graduated compensation beginning at $300 for a household slave, $3,000 for a field hand, and $1500 for an artisan, the weighted average being, say, $1500, or even $2,000. Not a problem about the total cost being available in cash because the government can sell long-term bonds guaranteed by tariffs, land sales, etc. We can talk principles until we are blue in the face, but if the price is right, money usually prevails.

Putting a price on a human being in bondage is grotesque no matter what. However, dealing with the realities of the time, Lincoln at least was able to obtain emancipation for the slaves in the federal district even at the lower cost end.
 
Top