Paid Labor vs. Slave Labor

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 15th, 2013

Economics 101

Paid-Laborers are Rented as Needed while Slave-Laborers are Owned even when not Needed

There is a common misconception that slave labor was free labor.  The argument goes that the United States got rich because of all their free slave labor.  They’ll say this despite knowing of the immense suffering of African slaves on the slave ships.  Who came to the New World where slave traders auctioned them off.  This was the slave trade.  The key word in this is ‘trade’.  African slave traders sold them to European slave traders.  Who auctioned them off in New World slave markets.  To feed a labor-hungry market.

People bought and sold slaves.  And anything you buy and sell is not free.  So slave labor wasn’t free.  It was a capital cost.  Let’s explain this by comparing leasing and owning.  Businesses can buy buildings.  Or lease them.  If they buy them they own them.  And are responsible for them.  They add a large asset on their balance sheet that they depreciate.  And add new debt that they must service (making premium and/or interest payments).  They also must pay expenses like taxes, insurance, maintenance, supplies, utilities, etc.  Things owners are responsible for.  When they lease a building, though, they don’t add an asset to depreciate.  And they don’t pay any expenses other than a lease payment.  The owner, the lessor, pays all other expenses.  When you lease you pay only for what you use.  When you buy you pay for what you use now.  And what you will use for years to come.  We can make a similar comparison between paid-labor and slave-labor.

Paid vs Slave Labor 1 of 3

For this exercise let’s take a factory today with 125 employees.  We’ll look at the costs of these laborers as paid-laborers versus slave-laborers.  We assume that the total labor cost for everything but health care/insurance is $65,000 per paid-laborer.  And an annual health care expense of $5,000.  Bringing the total annual labor and health care/insurance costs for 125 paid-laborers to $8,750,000.  For the slave laborers we assume 47 working years (from age 18 to 65).  But we don’t multiple 47 years by $65,000.  Because if we buy this labor there are a lot of other costs that we must pay.  Slave traders understand this and discount this price by 50%.  Or $32,500 annually for 47 years.  Which comes to $1,527,500 per slave-laborer.  Bringing the annual total cost for all 125 slave-laborers to $4,062,500.  And, finally, because they own these laborers they don’t have to offer premium health insurance to attract and keep employees.  So we assume health care/insurance expense is only half of what it is for paid-laborers.

Slave-Labor Overhead included Food, Housing, Clothing and Interest on Debt that Financed Slave-Laborers

If we stop here we can see, though not free, slave-laborers are a bargain compared to paid-laborers.  But if they own these people they have to take care of these people.  They have to provide a place for them to live.  They have to feed them.  Clothe them.  As well as pay interest on the money they borrowed to buy them.  And the building to house them.  For if they are not fed and protected from the elements they may not be able to work.

Paid vs Slave Labor 2 of 3 R1

A slave-owner will try to keep these overhead costs as low as possible.  So they won’t be feeding them steaks.  They will feed them something inexpensive that has a high caloric content.  So a little of it can feed a lot of people.  In our exercise we assumed a $1.25 per meal, three meals daily, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.  For a total of $170,625 annually.  We assumed a $500,000 building to house 125 slave-laborers and their families.  The depreciation expense (over 40 years), taxes, insurance, supplies (soap, toilet paper, laundry detergent, etc.) and utilities come to $24,100 annually.  For clothing we assume a new pair of boots every 5 years.  And 7 inexpensive shirts, pants, tee shirts, underwear and socks each year.  Coming to $10,094 annually.

Then comes one of the largest expense.  The interest on the money borrowed to buy these slave-laborers.  Here we assume they own half of them free and clear.  Leaving $95,468,750 of debt on the book for these slave-laborers.  At a 4.25% annual interest rate the interest expense comes to $4,057,422.  We also assume half of the debt for the housing still on the books.  At a 4.25% annual interest rate the interest expense comes to $10,625.

George Washington was Greatly Bothered by the Contradiction of the Declaration of Independence and American Slavery

These overhead expenses bring the cost of slave-laborers nearly to the cost of paid-laborers.  Almost making it a wash.  With all the other expenses of owning slaves you’d think people would just assume to hire paid-laborers.  Pay them for their workday.  Their health insurance.  And nothing more.  Letting them go home after work to their home.  Where they can take care of their own families.  Provide their own food.  Housing.  And clothing.  Which they pay for out of their paycheck.  Of course, this wasn’t quite possible in the New World.  There weren’t enough Europeans living there to hire.  And the Native Americans in North, Central and South America were more interested in getting rid of these Europeans than working for them.  Which left only African slaves to exploit the natural resources of the New World.  But that slave-labor could grow very costly over time.  Because when you own people you own families.  Including children and elderly adults who can’t work.  By the time of our Founding this was often the case as some slave owners owned generations of slave families.

Paid vs Slave Labor 3 of 3 R1

In our exercise we assume an equal number of men and women working in the factory.  Assumed these men and women married.  And half of these couples had on average 3 young children.  We’ve also assumed the current working generation is a second generation.  So their surviving parents live with them.  We assumed half of all parents are surviving.  These children and the surviving parents cannot work.  But they still must eat.  And require medical attention.  Using the costs for the workers these non-workers add another $845,469 to the annual labor cost.  Brining the cost of the slave-laborers greater than the cost of the paid-laborers.

George Washington was very conscious of history.  Everything he said or did was with an eye to future generations.  And their history books.  One of the things that greatly bothered him was the contradiction of the Declaration of Independence declaring all men equal while the institution of slavery existed.  But to form a new nation they needed the southern states.  And they wouldn’t join without their slaves.  So they tabled the subject for 20 years.  Sure by then that the institution would resolve itself and go away.  Washington believed this because he had many generations of slaves on his plantation.  And desperately wanted to sell them and replace them with paid-laborers.  Because he was feeding so many slaves that they were eating his profits.  But people wanted to buy only those who could work.  Not the children.  Or the elderly.  Unable to break up these families he did what he thought was the honorable thing.  And kept using slaves.  To keep these families together.  Making less money than he could.  Because slave-labor was more costly than paid-labor.  Contrary to the common misconception.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT176: “The left instigates and exacerbates discrimination to increase their power.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 28th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The Institution of Slavery was Dying Out in the U.S. before Eli Whitney and his Cotton Gin

Discrimination is wrong.  And it doesn’t belong in a meritocracy.  Which is what the United States is.  Here it doesn’t matter who your father is.  There is no nobility.  No aristocracy.  Here everyone is equal.  It’s why people came here with pennies in their pocket.  So they could work hard and live the American dream.  Having the liberty to do whatever they wanted to do.  Which many did.  Starting out sweeping floors for a boss.  And going on to be boss in their own business.

The Founding Fathers weren’t perfect.  But they were as close to perfect as you can get.  Selfless.  Disinterested.  Principled.  And, yes, some were slave owners.  But they didn’t invent slavery.  Or bring it to the New World.  It was part of the times they lived in.  And already well entrenched in the colonies before they entered into the history books.  The southern economy was already dependent on slave-labor during the writing of the Declaration of Independence.  And the U.S. Constitution.  Some of the Founding Fathers wanted to get rid of the institution.  But to form a new nation they needed the southern states.  And they wouldn’t join without their slaves.  So they tabled the subject for 20 years.  Trusting that it would resolve itself by then.  But then Eli Whitney gave us the cotton gin.  And, well, the rest is history.

The institution of slavery was slowly dying out before the cotton gin.  George Washington wanted to replace his slaves with paid-laborers.  For he wanted to change up his crops.  Grow many different crops instead of one large cash crop.  Something paid-labor was ideally suited for.  As he could hire people with a particular crops’ skill-set and they could hit the ground running.  But when you had slaves working the same large cash crop year after year such as tobacco change didn’t come easy.  For you had to retrain your slaves.  And with training there is a learning curve.  It was just so much easier to hire well-skilled paid-laborers.  And the fact that they wanted to work for you helped, too.  For when forcing people to work for you against their will all you’ll get from them is the bare minimum that lets them escape brutal punishment.  Which does not bring out a person’s latent talents.  It just prevents these talents from ever seeing the light of day.  No.  Slave-labor as an economic model was a horrible one.  As well as being immoral.

Abraham Lincoln and the new Republican Party ended Slavery in the United States

Slavery in the United States was concentrated in the South.  On the plantations.  Where they had a single, large cash crop.  And thanks to Eli Whitney that crop was cotton.  Because the cotton gin could so quickly comb the cotton fiber to remove the seeds and stems the sky was the limit.  The only thing holding back your profits was the amount of land you put in production.  And the only limit on that was the number of slaves you had to make land productive.  Which is why the institution of slavery didn’t die out in 20 years time.  Which really wasn’t overly optimistic.  Because in the grand scheme of things there weren’t that many slaves in the United States to begin with.

Of all the slaves brought to the New World only about 6.5% ended up in British North America (according to Wikipedia).  Another 18% went to other British colonies.  Another 18% went to Spanish colonies.  About 14% went to French colonies.  While the vast majority of those slaves went to Portuguese colonies in the Americas.  Approximately 39% of all African slaves.  Most landing in Brazil.  Which is why the Portuguese language is one of the top ten most spoken languages in the world today.  Because Brazil is a very large country.  Thanks to all of those slaves the Portuguese brought there.

Slavery was wrong.  And it is America’s original sin.  But it wasn’t what made America great.  Or rich.  Contrary to what our public schools are teaching our kids.  If it was the South would have won the American Civil War.  But they didn’t.  The industrial North did.  With her factories filled with paid-laborers.  This was the New World.  The South that lost the Civil War was the last remnants of the Old World in the New World.  Where it mattered who your father was.  Abraham Lincoln and the new Republican Party ended slavery in the United States.  And the Republican Party would eventually put an end to Jim Crowe laws in the south.  And passed the Civil Rights act (a larger percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats).

The Racial Divide has never been Greater despite electing a Black President Twice

So the Republicans have done more to end discrimination in the United States than the Democrats have.  Who have actually spent more time opposing civil rights.  But you wouldn’t know that.  Not with all the disinformation the left puts out.  Today the left claims they are the party that fights discrimination.  When in actuality they instigate and exacerbate discrimination.  Because it gives them power.  For trying to end discriminations is very lucrative.  Some have made careers and have grown quite wealthy trying to end discrimination.  You know who they are so there’s no point in naming them here.  But these people never end discrimination.  For while there’s money in fighting discrimination there’s no money in ending it.

If there are always examples of discrimination in our society then there is always a need for those who fight it.  There’s always a reason for new legislation.  To right past wrongs.  And make things fair.  So the Democrats increased the size of the welfare state.  To make the discriminated dependent on the state.  To keep them on the plantation.  Concentrating them in housing projects.  In the inner city.  Away from the Democrats’ nice neighborhoods.  They broke up their families with AFDC.  Replacing fathers with the state.  Who failed these kids miserably.  They implemented affirmative action.  Where some game the system and get a free pass.  Because of lower standards.  Getting entrance to a college or a job over someone more qualified.  Fomenting new racial unrest.  As some complain about being passed over despite being more qualified.  Which the left jumps on as proof of overt racism.  And the need for them to do something more to end it.

But they never end anything.  Because ending it would take away their power.  Which is why despite everything they’ve done since the Sixties things have never been worse.  And more policies and legislation to end discrimination have never been needed more.  Because the racial divide has never been greater.  Despite this country electing a black president.  Twice.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Aristocracy, the Old World, the New World and the American Civil War

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 6th, 2011

History 101

General Robert E. Lee represented the Old World, General Ulysses S. Grant represented the New World

General Robert E. Lee represented the Old World.  The last of a long line of wealthy landowners.  The finest of inherited wealth.  With a lineage that went back to George Washington.  The Father of our Country.  On his wife’s side.  Through the Custis ancestry.  Lee fought to continue the old ways.  Magnificent landholdings.  Grand mansions.  Servants.  Balls.  Gentlemen.  And ladies.  None who worked.  But who enjoyed the very best of lives.  Because of a very good last name.  And Lee wanted to pass this life on to his heirs.

General Ulysses S. Grant represented the New World.  His father was middle class.  A tanner.  And Grant worked in his father’s shop.  But hated the blood.  And the horrific odors.  He left and went to West Point.  Saw combat in the Mexican War.  After the war he served in some lonely posts.  Away from his family.  And started to drink.  He missed his family so much that he eventually left the Army.  Tried and failed in some business ventures.  And ended up a clerk back at his father’s tannery.  Working for his younger brother.  To support his family.

Grant and Lee actually met once in the Mexican War.  When Lee visited Grant’s unit.  Lee remembered the visit.  But he didn’t remember Grant.  For Grant was a rather plain soldier.  When war came between the states the North offered Lee command of all Union forces.  But Lee could not draw his sword against Virginia.  His beloved country/state.  So he resigned his commission and joined the Confederate Army.  Grant raised a regiment so he could rejoin the army.  Lee won many victories against the Army of the Potomac.  Grant advanced Union forces to a series of victories in the West.  His successes earned him command of all Union forces.  And he travelled east.  To ride with General George Meade and the Army of the Potomac.  As it pursued General Lee’s Army of the Northern Virginia.

The Planter Elite had Poor White Southerners who did not Own Any Slaves Fight to Maintain the Institution of Slavery

Until Grant took over Lee had many successes besting the Army of the Potomac.  In Virginia it became routine.  After the Union suffered yet another defeat the Army would turn and head back north.  Not so with Grant.  When he came to that fork in the road, he turned south.  To try and outflank Lee.  And face him in battle again.  And again.  Until Appomattox Courthouse.  Where Lee found himself outmanned.  And surrounded.  Lee and Grant met to discuss terms of surrender.  Lee arrived first.  Expecting to be taken prisoner and possibly hung for treason, he arrived resplendent in his finest uniform.  Grant arrived later.  Muddied.  And wearing a private’s jacket.

Grant offered very generous terms.  Which had a very positive effect on Lee.  And his men.  There would be an end to the war.  And there would be no guerilla war.  Instead, Lee would do everything within his power to help bring the South back into the Union.  With Lee being more important than the president of the Confederacy, this mattered.  The people respected Lee.  And if he said the war was over the war was over.  It was time to be good citizens of the United States again.

The South fought valiantly.  For what turned out to be a dying cause.  Old World aristocracy.  Based on the institution of slavery.  Which is why the cause failed.  But before we get to that consider who fought for the confederates.  Like in the Old World, the majority of the people in the South were those who worked the land.  Black slaves.  Unlike feudalism, though, these black slaves did not fill the ranks of the armies led by their landowners.  So those responsible for war, the Planter Elite, did not risk their ‘property’ during the war.  Instead, they had poor white southerners who did not own any slaves fight to maintain the institution of slavery.  Who they lied to.  By saying the war was about states’ rights.  Or that it was to repel the Northern aggressors who wanted to change the Southern way of life.  But that’s not why the Planter Elite seceded from the Union.  It was to maintain their way of life.  An Old World-style of aristocracy.  Perhaps the greatest lie in all U.S. history.  Considering the Planter Elite killed some 618,000 trying to maintain that way of life.  Which was 2% of the total population.  Today 2% of our approximate 312 million population would be 6.2 million dead.  Just to give you an idea of how big killing 2% of your population is.

The American Civil War was the Final Battle between the Old World and the New World in the United States

So why did the South lose?  Because the world changed.  There was now a middle class.  Creating and innovating.  Expanding the Industrial Revolution to the New World.  In the northern states.  Where factories hummed with efficiency.  And produced a modern economy.  Whereas the South stayed primarily an agricultural economy.  Based on King Cotton.  With the majority of their population being slaves working in the fields.

The northern population swelled as immigrants filled their factories.  Railroads crisscrossed the North.  Steam-powered ships plied the rivers and coastal waters.  There was economic activity everywhere.  And free laborers earning wages everywhere.  And spending their wages.  Taking part in economic exchanges.  The North became advanced.  Efficient.  And wealthy.  Whereas the only wealth in the South was on the plantations.  Confined to the landed aristocracy.  And King Cotton.  When war broke out there was no way that the economic powerhouse that was the North would not prevail.  Especially when their factories could make rifles and cannon.  And ships to bottle up Southern harbors.  Making all that cotton in the South worthless.  And irrelevant.  As the British just turned to India to feed their textile industry.

The American Civil War was the final battle between the New World and the Old World in the United States.  Between the middle class of Ulysses S. Grant and the aristocracy of Robert E. Lee.  Between free market capitalism and the landed aristocracy.  And capitalism won.  Because it was the better system.  To produce wealth.  And to improve the quality of life.  For those free laborers who participated.   Allowing anyone to have a  better life.  Unlike the peasants, serfs and slaves of the Old World.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #77: “Liberals only call for bipartisan compromise when they’ve lost majority power and can no longer dictate policy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2011

The Liberal Ruling Class hails from the Ivy League

Liberals hail from the Ivy League.  Where they’re taught important life skills.  Arrogance.  Conceit.  And condescension.  It is here at these universities that they learn to hold everyone in contempt.  Yes, there are some out there with true liberal bona fides that didn’t go to the Ivy League, but they are the exception.  Not the rule.  These people may bleat the liberal line as well as the Ivy Leaguer, but they are not going to ascend to the Ruling Class.  And though they won’t admit it, the Ruling Class holds most of these liberals in contempt, too.

Amassing wealth and power in a few, elite hands is nothing new.  Even in early America.  The Planter Elite of the Deep South were a small minority of the population.  But they held the wealth and power in the Deep South.  And they wielded it during the Philadelphia Convention.  They held the founding of the new nation hostage.  Unless the land where all men were created equal had slavery there would be no new nation.  So there was slavery.  And the Ruling Class of the Deep South gave themselves extra political clout in the new federal government.  Thanks to the Three-Fifths Compromise.  The minority planter elite were able to inflate their numbers by counting 3/5 of each slave.  Thus inflating their numbers in the House of Representatives.

So for the first 50 years or so of the new nation the new federal government spoke with a decidedly southern accent.  And often dictated policy in the new nation.  And for those 50 or so years the Deep South was happy to be part of the union.  Because they sort of ran the show.  Then all that immigration into the north started to change the balance of power in the House of Representatives.  Which left the presidency (where they did whatever they could to make sure the president would be sympathetic to southern views and willing to compromise to save the union).  And the Senate.  And to maintain power in the Senate they had to hold on to slavery. 

The Planter Elite used Slavery to Concentrate Wealth and Power in their Hands

The Ruling Class, the Planter Elite (approximately 5% of the Southern population), used slavery to concentrate wealth and power in their hands.  It was truly an old-school aristocracy in the Deep South.  The ‘landed aristocracy’ in these states owned these states.  And up to the mid 19th century they took this disproportionate power to Congress.  They advanced and blocked legislation to protect their slaveholding interests.  To maintain their minority rule.  Their power.  And their wealth.

As immigration began to tip the balance of power away from them they turned their focus to the Senate.  Each state got two senators.  Population numbers didn’t matter.  What mattered was that there wasn’t more ‘free’ states than ‘slave’ states.  And that there was no prevailing antislavery sentiment.  As there was throughout the northern states at the time.  Not only did they eschew slavery, they weren’t even returning runaway slaves to their rightful owners.  So while they could the Planter Elite would use the power of the federal government to override any state law they felt counterproductive to their interests.  And dictate policy to these recalcitrant northern states.

For you see, slavery is a lot like socialism.  It doesn’t work well when those trapped in it can escape it.  And that was a problem for the Deep South.  Their slaves were escaping to these northern states.  And these uppity northern state governments refused to return this southern ‘property’.  Not only were they taking a financial loss on these runaway slaves, but this northern sanctuary was encouraging more slaves to run away.  This would not do.  So they passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 compelling them to return these slaves to bondage.  Or be fined and/or jailed.  This did not go over well in the North.  And it placed the country on the road to civil war.

The Civil War was a Battle between Privileged Aristocracy and the Equality of Self-Government

All during the run up to the Civil War, the Ruling Class, the planter elite of the Deep South, participated in the democratic process.  Because for a long time they were free to dictate a lot of U.S. policy.  From a stacked deck (thanks to the Three-Fifths Compromise).  And repeated threats of secession if they didn’t get their way.  Politicians on both sides of the slavery issue made compromise after compromise to keep the union together.  But that all changed with the election of Abraham Lincoln.  A Republican.   Which was the party taking a moral stance on the issue of slavery.  This did not bode well for the Ruling Class. 

South Carolina seceded first.  Then the rest followed.  The planter elite in these states led their states out of the union.  And into civil war.  Arguing that Lincoln’s federal government was going to infringe on their states’ rights (in particular their right to continue the institution of slavery).  They called it the War of Northern Aggression even though they fired the first shot at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.  And they told their brave soldiers to fight these Yankee invaders to protect their country (i.e., state), their families and their way of life.  And they did.  Some 300,000 dying in the process.  But not to maintain the institution of slavery.  For 95% of all Southerners didn’t own any slaves.  They fought to protect their country, their families and their way of life.  Most of which was a life of backbreaking labor on a small patch of land they called the family farm.  That was in no way threatened by the North.  But the Ruling Class lied.  To protect their interests.  Their wealth.  And sacrificed a generation of their own people.  Because to them, they were as expendable as the slaves on their plantations.  Actually, they were more expendable.  For Confederate soldiers didn’t show up on their balance sheets.  But slaves did.

The Confederate soldier fought valiantly.  But lost.  In what was a battle between the Old World.  And the New World.  Between the privilege of aristocracy.  And the equality of self-government.  Between the Ruling Class.  And ordinary Americans.  The balance of power shifted.  Away from the Deep South.  But, alas, not to the people.  Instead, to the North East.  To the Ivy League.  Where another Ruling Class would rise.  And take over the reins of government.  Keeping class warfare alive and well in the United States.

Tea Party Republicans are Decidedly Anti-Ruling Class

The players may change but the Ruling Class lives on.  Those who feel entitled to an elevated position because of their birthright.  Or wealth.  Most often both.  Which is what you need to get into the Ivy League.  And you have to think correctly.  Which isn’t too much of a problem for they make sure you do so in their curriculum.  Which is heavy on liberal progressivism.  And light on staying out of other people’s business.

Case in point, Obamacare.  Universal health care.  The holy grail of liberalism.  The people didn’t want it.  Based on the polling.  And the town hall meetings.  They didn’t want the government intruding into their health care.  But they had both houses of Congress.  So they could do just about anything they wanted.  Dictate policy.  And sneak things through in the dead of night.  Which they did to make Obamacare law.  Strictly along pure partisan party lines.  Some of their members paid the ultimate price and lost in the following election.  But they take care of their own.  The Ruling Class.  Though out of office, they’re never out of power.

That is until a bunch of uppity freshmen Republicans descended on Congress.  Tea Party Republicans we call them.  And decidedly anti-Ruling Class.  And they’ve become a problem.  For they won’t accept the established order.  They can’t be bought.  And they don’t care if they get reelected.  The boobs.  All they care about is keeping their campaign promises.  Which is anathema to the Ruling Class.

And soon the shoe was on the other foot.  The Ruling Class lost the House in the 2010 midterm election.  And had to deal with obstructionism.  And by obstructionism I mean responsible governing.  Per the will of the people.  From that contemptible Tea Party.  For they are interfering with the natural order of things.  That is, letting liberals do whatever they want.  So now the liberals cry foul.  And demand bipartisan compromise.  Until they can dictate policy again.  They way it should be.  According to the Ruling Class.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #60: “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me again shame on public education.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 8th, 2011

Slaves were Costly and Inefficient

George Washington made a profit on his plantation.  Better than some of his fellow Founding FathersThomas Jefferson couldn’t make a profit and was forever in debt.  But Washington could.  And did.  And would have been more profitable had he split up his slave families.  You see, he wanted to sell his slaves and use paid-laborers instead.  Why?  Because paid-labor was more profitable than slave-labor?  “What?!?” you ask.    Yes, that’s right.  Paid-labor was more profitable than slave-labor.  For a couple of reasons. 

First of all, slaves weren’t free.  People bought them at auction.  And anyone familiar with an auction knows that people sell to the highest bidder.  So there was an initial ‘investment’ in a slave that you didn’t have with a paid-laborer.  Think of this as the difference of buying or renting a house.  If you buy you pay a lot of money to own the house.  And you are responsible for all of the maintenance and upkeep on the house.  It’s different with renting.  You pay just a little bit each month for as long as you stay in the house.  It’s similar with paid-labor.  You rent people for the time they work.  Then they go home and feed and house themselves.  Slaves didn’t go home.  Because they were home.  And planters had to feed and house them.  And attend to their other needs.  These costs added up.  Especially if you had a lot of slaves out of their working prime (old men and young children) that you still had to feed and house.  And these are what Washington had a lot of.  Many generations of non-working slaves that he had to feed and house.  Which is why he wanted to sell them.  But people only wanted the workers.  Not the rest of the family.  But he refused to break up the slaves families.  So he kept them.  Even though it was a poor business decision.

Now Washington was no abolitionist, but he saw the conflict between the institution of slavery and the American ideal.  But his motives were financial at first.  His large crop of tobacco was not a money-maker.  So he wanted to diversify his crops.  And his risks.  Which meant different labor skills for different crops.  And this favored paid-labor.  Because you can always hire skilled laborers to grow these different crops.  Which was the great disadvantage of slave-labor.  Their advantage was in the large, single-crop plantation where a diverse skill-set was not required.  Trained in one skill, they kept repeating that single skill on a grand scale.  It was the best you could hope for from slave-labor.  Where people did the minimum to avoid punishment.  For that was their only incentive.  Paid-laborers, on the other hand, you can fire them.  Or reward them for bumper crops.  So they have an incentive to hone their skills and become the best at what they do.

King Cotton Abdicates

But Washington couldn’t break up the slave families.  And there was no way to give them the many years of farming skills overnight in these new skill areas and turn them into proper paid-laborers.  Who could take care of themselves and their families while integrating them into free society.  Unless he gave up his day job.  So he continued to use slave-labor.  However, his will freed his slaves after his wife passed away.  He and his wife were the last generation to live the old way of life.  His successors were to live the new way of life.  His will further instructed to teach the newly freed slaves trade skills and help them integrate into free society.

Many critics of the United States like to point to the institution of slavery and say that is why we became a great nation.  That we grew rich on slave-labor.  That we reaped huge profits because slaves were free.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  First of all, as noted above, slave-labor was not free labor.  It was costly.  And inefficient.  It was such a bad business model that it had almost died of its own accord.  As many of the Founding Fathers had earnestly wished.  But something happened.  Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin.  Now machines could separate the seeds from the cotton faster than they could pick it.  All of a sudden the large, single-crop, cotton plantations in the south needed to plant, grow and pick more cotton than ever before.  To feed these new, hungry machines.  Cotton was the new high-demand fabric.  The textile markets in Great Britain couldn’t buy enough of it.  And the Southern economy flourished like it had never did before.  Southern planters grew rich.  As did the Southern economy.  King Cotton they called it.  Because cotton was king.

And that is why the South lost the Civil War.  For if cotton was king that meant the South was a monarchy.  And for all intents and purposes, it was.  Most Southerners didn’t own slaves.  Most were poor.  Working on family farms.  The institution of slavery didn’t tarnish them.  No.  The rich planters owned the vast majority of the slaves.  The planter elite.  The planter aristocracy.  And it was an aristocracy in every sense of the word.  Just watch the classic Gone with the Wind and tell me what that world reminds you more of.  America?  Or European feudalism?  That wasn’t America.  America was the poor southerner working the family farm.  And the poor northerner working the family farm.  It was not inherited wealth passed from generation to generation.  Wealth created by labor bonded in servitude attached to the land (serfs in Europe, slaves in America).  No, this was not America.  It was a charmed life for the privileged few.  But only the privileged few.  Because it mattered what your last name was.

Laissez-Faire Capitalism wins the Civil War

The North won the Civil War because it was more laissez-faire capitalism.  The South had the better generals at the beginning of the war.  And the Southern soldier was a formidable foe in combat.  But factories in the North fed Northern shipyards.  Which built a navy that blockaded southern ports.  Making all that cotton worthless.  Great Britain would then turn to India for her cotton needs.  So much for King Cotton. 

The Southern economy was a cotton economy without a market.  They had factories and shipyards, too, buy not like the industrialized North.  The South never had a chance.  Unless she could strike a winning blow early.  Because they could not win a war of attrition.  Which is what the Civil War became.  Especially after the Confederate ‘high water’ mark.  Gettysburg.  The Confederacy shrank as the Union Army advanced.  Fed by a growing network of railroads.  This relentless advance of man and material made possible by the prudent investment of capital by savvy investors.  The genius of entrepreneurs.  And the drive of industrialists.

This miracle of capitalism would tip the scales again in World War I.  And in World War II.  The Arsenal of Democracy.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Paid-laborers.  Incentive.  And profit.  The best things in life.  They gave us the comforts we now take for granted.  And they took us from a new nation to a superpower in little over one hundred years.

Pliant, Subservient Students grow up to become good Democratic Voters

So that’s history.  But people today still think slavery made us great.  They attack capitalism.  Incentive.  Profits.  And just about everything else that built and made this country great.  Why?  Because they learned somewhere that slavery made us great.  That capitalism is bad and unfair.  That incentive and profits exploit the working class.  Where?  In our public schools.  And our public universities.  Kids in our public institutions learn these things.  Not the things that made us great.  Because these schools indoctrinate.  They don’t educate.  Why?  For the same reason the planter aristocracy fought in the Civil War.  To protect a privileged class.

Today, the liberal Democrats are the descendants of the planter aristocracy.  Not literally.  But figuratively.  Liberal Democrats are not capitalists.  Or industrialists.  They don’t like incentive or profit.  They prefer patronage.  They like rewarding their friends.  And punishing their enemies.  And to have this power they need to have the people vote for them.  So they come across as the champion of the poor and friend of the working man.  Or any other minority or class of people whose vote they need to buy.  But they’re anything but.  For an example just look at one of their favorite cause célèbre.  The black family.  These white liberals want to ease other whites’ guilt over slavery by doing as much as they can for the black family.  To make up for all those years of injustice.  And they dropped a neutron bomb.  Aid to Families with Dependent Children.  AFDC.  A real feel-good thing to do.  But it led to an explosion of single-mother families in the black community.  Because of the incentives of the program.  It encouraged women to have more children.  Stay unmarried.  And not work.  For a young woman with no working skill this was a godsend.  The state would replace the father and provide for her and her children.  But as it turned out, the state was a very poor father figure.  Children need fathers.  We all know this.  That’s why there are big brother programs.  To provide a father figure for these fatherless children.  For they will stray without this strong role model in the family.  And have.  Economist Thomas Sowell blames AFDC for greatly destroying the black family.

But the liberal Democrats don’t look at the destruction they cause.  They look at the political power they’ve gained.  Much like the planter elite.  So they need to tweak history a bit.  To mask their failures.  And accentuate the good they meant to do.  But never did.  And what better way to do that than in our public schools?  So they take care of our teachers.  Pull them into their aristocratic class.  Help them get favorable contracts without allowing the taxpayers a say.  Feed them big salaries.  Some of which is returned to them via their union dues.  Quid pro quo. They live the good life.  The politicians get ‘campaign’ contributions.  And pliant, subservient students grow up to become good Democratic voters.

And thus the lie is sustained.  Those who destroy are portrayed as nurturers.  And those who nurture are portrayed as destroyers.  A political sleight of hand.  That pays dividends in the voting booth.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,