Racist Democrats and Desegregationist Republicans

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 29th, 2013

Politics 101

The Way to Great Wealth in the South was King Cotton

At the recent 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech most if not all of the speakers were liberal Democrats.  As if the Republicans were not welcomed there.  Funny.  As it was the Republicans who battled the Democrats to end slavery, Jim Crowe Laws and discrimination.

America’s original sin, slavery, was a part of the Old World southern planters did not want to give up.  It was very similar to the manorial system of Europe.  Where peasants were tied to the land.  On a manor.  Unable to leave.  Land that a rich landowner owned.  The lord of the manor.  Property and status were hereditary.  And the peasants at the bottom of the ladder had neither.

The lords belonged to the aristocracy.  The nobility.  They lived in glorious mansions.  Gave magnificent parties.  And enjoyed the best of everything.  Courtesy of owning land.  The peasants worked the land.  And produced the greatest wealth in the kingdom for their lord.  Food.  In the American South this soon became cotton.  King Cotton.  The way to great wealth in the South was growing cotton.  And the more slaves you had the more noble your life was.

The Founding Fathers wanted to Eradicate Slavery at the Time of the Founding

Things were different in the North.  Years of growing tobacco had depleted the land.  So they diversified.  Grew different crops.  And rotated the crops around.  This required a more specialized workforce as things changed from year to year.  And few farms grew one large cash crop anymore.  So they turned to paid-labor.  Which was more efficient.  So while the South held on to the Old World the North became more egalitarian.

The Founding Fathers knew that a nation based on all men being equal could not include the institution of slavery.  They wanted to eradicate it at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.  But that created a problem with the South.  At the time of the Founding their economy was dependent on slavery.  And because it was they had more slaves than the North.  So freeing the slaves would not only destroy their economy it would force the South to live in a biracial society that was unheard of at that time.  Nowhere in the world were there biracial societies.  Not to mention the fact that the freed blacks would outnumber the whites.  The very same whites that once brutally oppressed the blacks.

To form a more perfect union they needed the southern states.  Which they had to take as-is.  With the institution of slavery.  It was a bitter pill to swallow.  As some of these Founding Fathers, especially the ones that didn’t own slaves, were conscious of the history books that would one day be written.  As well as being truly opposed to slavery.  But the choice was a new nation with slavery.  Or no new nation.  And continued sectional disputes.  Even hostilities.  Making them ripe for European intrigue.  Especially from the Old World Empires who wanted to expand their empires into North America.

The Republicans Freed the Slaves, Fought against Jim Crowe Laws and Desegregated the South

So the Founding Fathers tabled the subject of slavery for 20 years.  Sure that in 20 years time the South would adopt paid labor as they did in the North.  Sadly, a great invention changed all that.  The cotton gin.  Which could process cotton faster than slaves could pick it.  King Cotton promised more wealth than ever before.  All you needed was a lot of slaves.  Dashing the hopes of the Founding Fathers.

Wealth.  Nobility.  Life was good for the privileged few in the South.  The planter elite.  The southern Democrats.  Who used the power of the federal government to return fugitive slaves.  Then bitched about the federal government after they lost control of it.  The planter elite brought the nation to civil war.  To preserve the institution of slavery.  To keep the Old World in the South.  To keep the nobility in the South.  With them sitting at the top of the aristocracy.  But then came the Republicans.  And Abraham Lincoln.  Who issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  Freeing the slaves in the states in open rebellion.  Then Ulysses S. Grant won the American Civil War.  The Republicans pushed for and ratified the Thirteenth Amendment.  Abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude.  Then Republican President Grant sent federal troops into the South to protect the freed blacks.  As the racist southern Democrats resisted integrating the freed blacks into the South.  Eventually passing Jim Crowe Laws.  Making the freed blacks a permanent underclass with the Democrats’ separate but equal status of the freed blacks.

Democrat Storm Thurmond has the record for the longest filibuster in U.S. history.  He talked for 24 hours and 18 minutes in his opposition of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  For he wanted to keep blacks separate but equal.  The southern Democrats opposition to civil rights was so strong that it prevailed through JFK’s administration.  Who did nothing for civil rights lest he go against the powerful southern Democrats.  Despite all the Republicans did the Democrats kept the black man down in the South.  Dr. King fought against segregation in Albany, Georgia, in 1962.  And suffered brutal police oppression in Birmingham, Alabama, that same year.  Things were so bad during JFK’s administration that Dr. King helped organized the 1963 March on Washington.  Where he gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.  But real change would have to wait until Republican Richard Nixon became president.  Who implemented the first large-scale desegregation of public schools in the Democrat-controlled South.  And Nixon implemented the first affirmative action plan.  The Philadelphia plan.

Yet despite all of this the Democrats claim the title of champion of civil rights.  And dominated the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  Even though it was the Republicans who freed the slaves, fought against Jim Crowe Laws and desegregated the South.  While the Democrats fought them every step of the way.  Yet the Democrats are civil rights champions.  While Republicans are racists.  What’s wrong with this picture?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #61: “The political elite has always exploited blacks.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 12th, 2011

Mercantilism brought Slaves to the New World

Slaves were useful in more ways than one.  As a source of labor.  And a political pawn.  The political elite has oppressed and exploited them for a couple of centuries in the New World.  Though the oppression has stopped, the exploitation continues today with their descendants.

Colonization isn’t easy.  It takes a long time.  Longer in a hostile land.  You start out by establishing colonies.  The colonists first figure out how to survive.  Then they sow the seeds of future generations.  But there was a problem with this in the New World.  A hostile environment.  And the long time it took to raise a generation or two.  And this was a big problem.  For the European monarchies that were supporting these colonists did so for economic reasons.  And time was money.  They were to exploit the New World’s resources and ship these raw materials back to Europe.  That’s how mercantilism worked.  You raced around the world to find sources of raw material, establish colonies and then ship the raw material back to Europe.  Where the Europeans processed them into finished goods.  These goods were then sold back to the colonists.  Or other export markets.  To establish a positive balance of trade.  Finished goods out.  Gold, bullion, silver, etc., in.

That was the European model then in use.  So unskilled labor was in great demand in these new colonies.  Enslaving the local indigenous populations didn’t prove too successful.  They could escape and disappear into a familiar environment that was friendly to them.  So that’s why they imported Africans into the New World.  They were a long way from home.  And the local environment was just as hostile to them as it was to their white slave owners.  With these Africans, the colonists were able to exploit their resources far quicker than they could have had they waited for their own numbers to multiply sufficiently to do the same work.  Of course, this lead to a skewed population.  Where a white minority ruled over a black majority.  Worse still, slavery was only growing in the South.  And that created a problem in the distribution of political power in the new federal government.  Slaves didn’t vote or pay taxes.  But there were a lot of them.  If they were not counted to determine congressional representation, the non-slave holding North would dominate the new federal government.

The Planter Elite gets the 3/5 Compromise and an Unfair Advantage

First the African slaves were used as pawns by European monarchs to enrich their mercantile empires.  Then they were used by politicians in a fledgling new nation to obtain an unfair advantage in political power.  These Africans just couldn’t catch a break.  Slavery was concentrated in the Deep South.  In the hands of the planter elite.  Though few in numbers they dominated political power in their states.  And they planned on doing the same in the new federal government.  To protect their interests.  Wealth.  And power.

But to do that there was that pesky problem getting in their way.  The fact that the planter elite was a small minority of the population.  It was different in the north.  Political power was representative of the population.  Where most of the population paid taxes and voted.  And they were going to extend this theory of representative government to the new federal government.  The North wanted to count all people (including slaves) in determining the states’ tax obligations.  The South didn’t.  The South wanted to count all people (including slaves) in determining representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College (that elected the president).  The North didn’t.  So they compromised.  They would count slaves as three-fifths of a person.  This compromise favored the North on the tax obligation issue.  But it favored the South on the political representation issue.  As a result of the compromise, the South would dominate the House of Representatives and the presidency until the Civil War.

So you see why slavery was so important to the South.  It gave them an unfair advantage in the new federal government.  Thus empowering them to protect their peculiar institution of slavery.  Their interests.  Wealth.  And power.

The Founding Fathers had to Accept Slavery to Establish a Nation based on Liberty

The Founding Fathers saw the inconsistency of slavery and their founding ideal.  Liberty.  Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were northerners.  Some were already abolitionists.  Some would eventually join that movement.  George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were southerners.  They owned plantations.  Worked with slave-labor.  Washington actually looked into converting to paid-labor but the realities of the day made the continuation of slave-labor the humane thing to do on his plantation (changing to paid-laborers would have broken up the slave families).  He is the only Founding Father that freed his slaves (after the death of his wife Martha).  And his will stipulated that his heirs help the newly freed people integrate into free society.

Jefferson and Madison clearly prospered on the institution of slavery.  (Well, the Jefferson family had.  Jefferson was a genius in so many ways.  Except in the way of making money.)  Their wealth came from the plantations.  And their political power rested with their brethren planter elite.  Should they move against them they would fall from power.  And should these ‘moderates’ fall from power, southern extremists would replace them.  Who wished to see no restrictions on slave owning or on the slave trade.  They were expansionists.  They wanted to see their way of life, and their slavery, expanded into the new territories.  They would never have gone to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.  They would never have ceded any power to the northern interests.  There would have been no compromise between North and South.  And the new nation might never have been born.   

Jefferson and Madison were tainted by America’s original sin.  There’s no disputing that.  But there would have been no America without them.  They were the bridge to the Deep South.  So to make this new nation based on liberty possible, the Founding Fathers had to accept that keeping some of the people in bondage was necessary.  For awhile, at least.  The North promised the South they wouldn’t talk about the issue again for twenty years.  And Jefferson and Madison reassured the planter elite that their way of life would not change.  In more private conversations, they assured them that the new federal government would forever speak with a Southern accent.  In 20 years time, the North hoped the southerners would have fixed this southern problem.  Or that the institution itself would just fade away.  While the Deep South hoped it would become so entrenched that it would be impossible to have these discussions again.

The Cotton Gin, the Fugitive Slave Act and Civil War

As it turned out, events would favor the South.  Thanks to an ingenious invention called the cotton ginEli Whitney unwittingly gave the Deep South what they needed.  For slavery was on the decline.  The big slave crops were not very profitable crops (rice, tobacco, indigo and cotton).  Planters were diversifying.  Requiring farm workers with multiple skills.  Which favored the paid-laborer.  But the cotton gin took one of those unprofitable crops and made it profitable.  By turning a labor-intensive chore (separating the seed from the cotton) into an automated process.  And King Cotton was born.

This fanned new life into a dying institution.  The Southern economy became a cotton economy.  And the decline in slave-labor did an abrupt reversal.  Fortunes were built on cotton.  As was political power.  And thanks to the unfair advantage given to the Deep South by the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern way flourished.  Until immigration flooded into the industrialized north, that is.  Even their unfair advantage could not stop the inevitable.  The political power in the House of Representatives shifted to the North.  And this spelled the beginning of the end for the planter elite.   Compromise no longer favored the Deep South.  And there was a lot of secession talk down there.  A series of compromises followed in an attempt to keep the Union together.  Such as the Fugitive Slave Act that forced the federal government to interfere with states’ rights.  In the North.  Forcing these states to return runaway slaves to the plantations from whence they came.  The 1850s saw a march towards Civil War.  And in April of 1861, General P.G.T. Beauregard ordered his cannon to commence firing on Fort Sumter in Charlestown’s harbor.  Some four bloody years later with over 600,000 dead, the South lost.  The slaves were free.  And the Southern economy collapsed.

The great Republican, Abraham Lincoln, saved the Union.  And freed the slaves.  A fact not lost on the slaves.  The planter elite were Southern Democrats.  The party of slavery.  So you can guess how the newly freed slaves voted.  That’s right, the freed slaves voted Republican.  Because Republicans ended slavery.  Despite the Democrats best efforts to maintain their peculiar institution.  Which makes one scratch his head today.  Today, blacks vote predominantly Democrat.  This same party that oppressed and exploited them throughout American history.  So what changed?  Well, the truth is, not much.  Liberal Democrats continue to exploit the blacks.  But with a little political sleight of hand, the exploiter becomes the protector.  Champion of civil rights.  And the corrector of past wrongs.

Liberal Generosity Destroys the Black Family

You see, liberal Democrats have the same problem the planter elite had.  They’re a minority of the population.  Yet they covet political power.  So how do you get political power in a land with free elections?  Without slavery and the unfair advantage of the Three Fifths Compromise?  Simple.  You have to figure out some other way to exploit these slave descendants.  Their answer?  Enslave them to government. 

Government has the power to tax.  Which gives them a lot of money.  And power.  So the liberal Democrat solution is to tax and spend and bestow government benefits in exchange for votes.  And the liberal welfare state was born.  Gave so much to the black family that they soon become dependent on this liberal generosity.  And the black family who survived slavery.  Reconstruction.  Rampant and systemic discrimination.  Was destroyed.  A helping hand (welfare) became a way of life.  Aid to Families with Dependent Children encouraged single women to have children.  And men to abandon these children.  For the state would step in and be father.  Turns out the state was a horrible father, though.  Kids grew up lacking fatherly discipline and guidance.  And they drifted into trouble.  Public housing grouped these fatherless children together.  And sent them to school together.  Spreading that trouble and bad behavior to the schools.  So both the schools and public housing suffered from the new inner city disease.  Blight.  Spawned by the liberal welfare state.  Leaving no escape for these inner city kids. 

Or so says conservative economist Thomas Sowell.  Born in 1930, he lived through much of that rampant and systemic discrimination.  And the creation of the liberal welfare state and its affect on the black family.  He has firsthand experience as a black man.  And a lifetime of academic research and published works on the subject.  The liberals reject him and accuse him of racism.  Because he dares to say the liberal welfare state has done more harm than good.  Worse, he backs that up with some compelling research.  Unable to attack the message, they attack the messenger.  Which is what people usually do when they have lost the argument.

Though their programs proved a failure, all was not lost.  Sure, they destroyed the black family, but they destroyed them with an addiction.  Addiction to the welfare state.  And one thing addicts can’t do is walk away from their addiction.  So they keep voting to maintain their fix of government benefits.  They keep voting Democrat.  Which was the goal all along.  Not to alleviate any of their suffering.  And unlike the planter elite, the liberal Democrat is not getting only three-fifths of a vote from their black population.  They’re getting the whole thing. 

The planter elite would no doubt be impressed by this political sleight of hand.  And kicking themselves for not thinking of it themselves.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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