Economic Condition of South Carolina in 1860

Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,442
Location
Denver, CO
#81
The statistical prosperity of the south was due to the fact that the British textile industry had postponed the over production crisis the overtook the northern states, including the border states, in 1857.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,442
Location
Denver, CO
#82
There was no immediate economic problem in South Carolina. The most vulnerable part of the slave economy was the interstate slave trade. The moral and political attacks on the slave trade would accelerate with a Republican administration in charge.
The Republicans would steadily decrease the number of people in the border states willing to participate in trading coerced labor, and the expansion of cotton production would slow down.
The imbalance between demand and supply in forced labor would produce a narrower class of slave owners.
The British would not tolerate that, and cotton production would diversity across the globe, even at substantial cost to the British investors and consular offices.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,442
Location
Denver, CO
#83
The crisis was about continuation of the slave trade, the continuing negation of black family rights, and the rights of blacks to make an African/American culture.
The changes between slavery and Jim Crow did not liberate blacks from having to grow cotton. But slave trading ended. There is significant evidence that was the essence of the crisis.
 

uaskme

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,485
#84
There was no immediate economic problem in South Carolina. The most vulnerable part of the slave economy was the interstate slave trade. The moral and political attacks on the slave trade would accelerate with a Republican administration in charge.
The Republicans would steadily decrease the number of people in the border states willing to participate in trading coerced labor, and the expansion of cotton production would slow down.
The imbalance between demand and supply in forced labor would produce a narrower class of slave owners.
The British would not tolerate that, and cotton production would diversity across the globe, even at substantial cost to the British investors and consular offices.
The British were no Humanitarians. Egypt had Slavery in 1860. The British would eventually Colonize Egypt. For the benefit of the British, not the Egyptians. The British will send the Prize Negroes, recaptured from the Slave Ships, to their Sugar Plantations. 14 years at least, till eternity if the British can make it happen Of Slavery. They were treated worse than the Slaves. Sold to Plantation Masters. A ruse to obtain labor for their Plantations, Placate their Abolitionist, and deny labor to their competitors. The Brits also emigrate Indians to their Sugar Plantations in North Africa and Fuji. Another form of Slavery in effect until WWI. It is a ruse to think the British Government gave 1 scoot about Southern Slavery, other than having to compete with it. Another Yankee Myth.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,442
Location
Denver, CO
#85
There was no immediate economic threat to South Carolina. But the international slave trade was in danger from 1852 onward. The intrastate slave trade would have faced restrictions on using the sea route around Key West. The internal routes through Georgia and Alabama existed: but that involved railroad charges and a lot of stops.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,442
Location
Denver, CO
#86
If you want to discuss British moral and economic reasons for wanting African slavery to end, and some measure of stability to settle on Africa, it seems to be a different subject.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,442
Location
Denver, CO
#87
The pressure on the South Carolina economy would have come from the expansion of cotton production in Texas, which was an entire new region of production, and from persistent British attempts to diversify supply. As soon as the British could get seed from American varieties to India, Egypt and Syria, diversification would occur. It would take a few years, but by 1867 it would have happened.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
164
#89
You read my mind.

Maybe this personification will help. Suppose all of SC's 32,030 square miles were owned by one planter. Question: Could he make enough off those 32,030 square miles --agriculturally and in every other way-- to pay his debts? I am trying to determine if SC were flush, failing or somewhere in between. Where am I going with the answer? I am contemplating adding the factor of debt repudiation as one cause, a veiled at that, of Secession. After all, what chivalrous South Carolnian laced with Sir Walter Scott imagery would want to go to New York factors and say, "Fellows, I am broke and cannot pay my bills." Much easier to say, "Oh No! We are in debt over our heads and can never pay our bills! Let us secede and cite as the cause that Lincoln wanted to end slavery," or words to that effect. You get my drift, I am sure.

Speaking of personification, SC Governor Charles Pinckney comes to mind. In the biography of Robert Hayne, Pinckney's son-in-law, the author states that Governor Pinckney owned 2,000 slaves and made $80,000 off them one year. That's $40 per slave. $40 on a $1,000 investment (reasonable price of a slave) is a whopping 4% per annum --vis a vis double digit percentages on stock certificates in railroads. Yet Pinckney ended up in financial embarrassment anyway, embarrassment that had to be sorted out by Hayne. One question becomes: Was impoverished Pinckney simply symbolic of SC at large? I have no idea. I am asking.
You’re not taking into account that the value of slaves - assuming you buy them at a young age or simply allow nature to take its course and families to be made... increases over time. It’s an asset that grows in value over time because of reproduction.... this increased asset valuation can be used as leverage to take on more debt or sold for cash to be used for whatever.

So your return is not just how much cotton you sell... it’s like a rental house that increases in value over time... your equity grows... that’s ROI as well... not just the rental income.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
824
#90
You’re not taking into account that the value of slaves - assuming you buy them at a young age or simply allow nature to take its course and families to be made... increases over time. It’s an asset that grows in value over time because of reproduction.... this increased asset valuation can be used as leverage to take on more debt or sold for cash to be used for whatever.

So your return is not just how much cotton you sell... it’s like a rental house that increases in value over time... your equity grows... that’s ROI as well... not just the rental income.
Actually, I did take that into account. But thanks for the reminder anyway.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
164
#93
Not at all. If you have, school me with the precise numbers you use
You made the claim that your ROI included both the sale of cotton and the increased equity in slaves. If you are sayin your $40 return / $1000 invested includes both ...,... then you should be able to share the breakdown. I didn’t make the claim. You did.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
824
#94
A good answer, good and useful but not totally complete, to the question of Charleston's and South Carolina's economic condition in 1860 appears on page 178 in Paul Starobin's wonderful book entitled MADNESS RULES THE HOUR: CHARLESTON, 1860 AND THE MANIA FOR WAR, published in 2017. Great book. I have not disagreed with a single sentence in it.

In short: the condition was not good.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top