Slavery was never a good business model

[obsidian]

When you think about it, slavery really offered minimal benefits. Sure, your cotton gets picked but now you're surrounded by dark faces and have to look at them everyday. That alone cancels any benefits it offered.

The best farmers, brick layers, electricians, plumbers, roofers etc. were always white. There really was no need to use Africans for labor. It was very shortsighted on the slave traders part to bring them over on a boat. They should have been left in Africa and they should have declined when the black masters offered their African slaves to the Europeans.

The Jewish slave traders probably took them over by boat not only for cheap labor but also to facilitate their divide and conquer agenda.

The European slave traders did it for profit and were shortsighted.

[_aj_]

Aside from your humorous racist commentary, it's very true that slavery was a terrible business model. Having "employees" that are not fairly compensated for their work is not a model to achieve quality and efficiency. In the case of agricultural workers, a lazy shiftless lot of slaves can ruin a harvest. Then what? You can't beat the slaves for food.

Markets were always and will always be the answer to almost every question that modern society has.

[Teutonic Knight]

Slavery still exists  

Just imagine America without Wiggs & Belgium without 'baby mama'  

[mr.turbo]

yes agreed that's why the english invited the irish over to work for free

best thing is you get to look at a nice white face in around the house

[Boost]

I hope you find what you're looking for.

Until your heart is warm forever more

[The True Adonis]

Aside from your humorous racist commentary, it's very true that slavery was a terrible business model. Having "employees" that are not fairly compensated for their work is not a model to achieve quality and efficiency. In the case of agricultural workers, a lazy shiftless lot of slaves can ruin a harvest. Then what? You can't beat the slaves for food.

Markets were always and will always be the answer to almost every question that modern society has.

You are all wrong.

1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom.  After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own. 

2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist.  Nothing like that existed in the North.  It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them. 

3. Slaves were far from lazy.  It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly.  They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like.  The white children played with the black children and so on.

4. Harvests were never ruined.

[_aj_]

You are all wrong.

1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom.  After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own. 

2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist.  Nothing like that existed in the North.  It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them. 

3. Slaves were far from lazy.  It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly.  They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like.  The white children played with the black children and so on.

4. Harvests were never ruined.

Please cite your revelations. Something aside from the Sons of the Confederacy website. Thanks.

[obsidian]

You are all wrong.

1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom.  After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own. 

2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist.  Nothing like that existed in the North.  It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them. 

3. Slaves were far from lazy.  It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly.  They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like.  The white children played with the black children and so on.

4. Harvests were never ruined.

It offered no benefit to whites or blacks. Blacks today are unhappy because of slavery and rightfully so and whites are dealing with black crime and division and unhappy about it and rightfully so.

Whites also taught blacks how to farm. Ever seen proper farming in Africa? No, all they end up with is erosion and famine. Whites have always been hugely successful in farming for the most part and blacks were never crucial for success. It was a terrible business model.

[The True Adonis]

Some of the best if not the very best craftsmen were black.  Coach builders, Cabinet Makers and Furniture makers such as Thomas Day, Masons, plasterers, house builders, blacksmiths.  The blacks in the South were some of the best artisans the world had ever seen.  They were able to practice these trades in the South, whereas laws were passed in nearly all states in the North banning blacks from engaging in any trades.  There was no living to be carved or etched out in the North at all.  Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington and many other states in the North even outright banned blacks from entering the state and made it a crime if they remained which resulted in imprisonment and then expulsion.  Blacks had no interest in going to the North and they never bothered to travel north as the racial dot map historically shows as wells as first hand historical accounts prove.  Blacks could not make any kind of living at all in the North, nor could they own any property.

Blacks in the South owned some of the largest plantation houses pre-civil war.  The largest slaveholder in NC at one time was a black man, John Carruthers Stanly.  There were no blacks of any wealth or means in the North at all as they were barred from obtaining anything.  

[Hulkotron]

Adonis:

Were the blacks who were brought over on the slave boats to America also slaves in Africa, or were they free in Africa but forced on the boats and made slaves once they arrived?

[The True Adonis]

It offered no benefit to whites or blacks. Blacks today are unhappy because of slavery and rightfully so and whites are dealing with black crime and division and unhappy about it and rightfully so.

Whites also taught blacks how to farm. Ever seen proper farming in Africa? No, all they end up with is erosion and famine. Whites have always been hugely successful in farming for the most part and blacks were never crucial for success. It was a terrible business model.

There is tons of farming in Africa moron.  They end up in famine, not because of lack of farming, they do so because the birth rate is too high to sustain what is produced and available.  Blacks were some of the best farmers in the South and it was not a terrible business model.  It produced more wealth than any other system.  The Federal government was using the money generated by the South, which was more than the North was generating as they produced nothing really, and using it to build post roads, schools, buildings and the South was getting nothing.  Acts such as the Morrill Tariff ensured that the North was going to fill their coffers with Southern money and is one of the main reasons why the South wanted out.  It was not fair at all to pay so much and get nothing other than watch the money be spent on growing the North.

[The True Adonis]

Adonis:

Were the blacks who were brought over on the slave boats to America also slaves in Africa, or were they free in Africa but forced on the boats and made slaves once they arrived?

Slaves sold by black slavers and traded for as well.  They were not forced at all.  Slavery still continues in Africa.  

[El Diablo Blanco]

You are all wrong.

1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom.  After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own. 

2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist.  Nothing like that existed in the North.  It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them. 

3. Slaves were far from lazy.  It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly.  They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like.  The white children played with the black children and so on.

4. Harvests were never ruined.

Right on Arian Brother

[DanielPaul]

Does anyone know what single invention made it more economical to release the slaves than to keep them in slavery?

[Hulkotron]

Does anyone know what single invention made it more economical to release the slaves than to keep them in slavery?

Are you speaking of the cotton gin?  That would be my guess.

[_aj_]

Does anyone know what single invention made it more economical to release the slaves than to keep them in slavery?

The chicken fryolator

[Archer77]

You are all wrong.

1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom.  After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own.  

2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist.  Nothing like that existed in the North.  It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them.  

3. Slaves were far from lazy.  It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly.  They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like.  The white children played with the black children and so on.

4. Harvests were never ruined.

A very small minority of whites owned slaves.  For the rest of the white population, the vast majority, slavery was not beneficial at all and actually had a negative impact on their lives.  A good analogy would be the compare slavery to illegal aliens and their effect on jobs and wages.  Slave owners were the large corporations of their day.

[mr.turbo]

A very small minority of whites owned slaves.  For the rest of the white population, the vast majority, slavery was not beneficial at all and actually had a negative impact on their lives.  A good analogy would be the compare slavery to illegal aliens and their effect on jobs and wages.  Slave owners were the large corporations of their day.

I agree

what in fact is the effect of illegal aliens on jobs a wages?

can't wait to hear this!

[Archer77]

I agree

what in fact is the effect of illegal aliens on jobs a wages?

can't wait to hear this!

It stagnates wages.  Why do you think companies employ illegals?  They like tacos?

[Pray_4_War]

Depending on Negroes to work for you, paid or unpaid, is never a good business model.

[Hulkotron]

[mr.turbo]

It stagnates wages.  Why do you think companies employ illegals?  They like tacos?

I don't understand how undocumented workers compete to drive down wages.  doing what exactly? minimum wage landscape labor?

the point isn't about wages it's about who benefits and if the country gets rich as a result, whoever lives there is a beneficiary.

[Archer77]

I don't understand how undocumented workers compete to drive down wages.  doing what exactly? minimum wage landscape labor?

the point isn't about wages it's about who benefits and if the country gets rich as a result, whoever lives there is a beneficiary.

They aren't paid minimum wage.  They are off the books employees. And many of them work in the agricultural business. No, you are incorrect.  Not all of society members benefits. Much of the wealth generated by slavery in the United States was gone after the Civil War. Individual families got rich, not society.  Would you argue that all of society benefits from big business? If that's the case I assume you support big business interests.  

[mr.turbo]

They aren't paid minimum wage.  They are off the books employees. And many of them work in the agricultural business. No, you are incorrect.  Not all of society members benefits. Much of the wealth generated by slavery in the United States was gone after the Civil War. Individual families got rich, not society.  Would you argue that all of society benefits from big business? If that's the case I assume you support big business interests.  

We are trying to understand the facts about who benefits not my opinions. 

Maybe I don't understand what is meant by "benefit". I'm talking about money. 

There is more money in the system, it came from somewhere, the economy has growth as a result

...maybe you're talking about something else?

[Archer77]

We are trying to understand the facts about who benefits not my opinions. 

Maybe I don't understand what is meant by "benefit". I'm talking about money. 

There is more money in the system, it came from somewhere, the economy has growth as a result

...maybe you're talking about something else?

No no, it was your opinion that everyone benefits in society. That was not true for slavery at all.   Slavery didn't inject wealth into economy.   Slavery did not create more jobs or increase wages on labor.  Families benefited from slavery, not society as a whole. You have to look at the past in the context of the class system.

More money into the system?  Where?  Where does it go? Who generates that wealth and who benefits from it?  And if they do benefit, how?