& the racialization of slavery. A ten-mintue taste of what my lectures have to say about post-1500 slavery. This then becomes the lecture introduction when I give the longer lecture...
I would have liked to audit this course. Will you publish the lectures? Looking forward to the syllabus.
On a political note, it’s inescapable to me that MAGA has a serious component of neo-Confederacy. The names of Confederate generals have been restored at a number of army bases, and there were more than a few grievances registered against recognizing the Juneteenth holiday.
Hanging a Confederacy sign around MAGA’s neck may be even more powerful than Fascism. It’s a homegrown model for tolerating non-citizen residents who are denied civil rights.
Trying to put it all together as Econ 113! It is hard!
> Mark Paul: 'I would have liked to audit this course. Will you publish the lectures? Looking forward to the syllabus. On a political note, it’s inescapable to me that MAGA has a serious component of neo-Confederacy...
You’re off to a fine start. The economics of slavery remain compelling for a certain class of capitalists, and with a few tweaks—like that chattel feature—there are plenty of entrepreneurs who would be happy to structure their businesses that way. A lot of firms already outsource menial labor to third parties.
Overall,excellent as usual. Having taught American history for a long time myself, I would add a few points which may or may not be worth considering. One is the considerable use of indentured servitude in the English colonies in North America, more so than anywhere else in the Americas. The relative cheapness of purchasing labor power for a few years made it advantageous. Especially given the high mortality rates in the southern colonies. As life expectancies grew, and the relative cost of slave imports declined due to growing productivity in slave trading, the turn towards slavery expanded. Furthermore, the racialization of slavery and the rise of plantations went hand in hand. Secondly, Indian slavery was an important source of capital in the 17th century. The English were able to use alliances with some native Americans to capture other native Americans, and sell them to the West Indies. Native Americans no longer collaborated in such ventures by the early 18th century. 3rd, the moral revulsion against slavery was slight until maybe 1750? Antislavery too was a product of the Enlightenment. Even the Quakers saw no contradiction between their religious principles and slaveholding before then.
Your depiction of the growth and justification of slavery paints a very terrifying picture. It is made all the more frightening by the realization that slavery has not gone away; it has only changed its name. The Mad King wants us to believe that China stole American jobs, when the reality is that the middle class's desire for cheap goods drove the jobs to China. We elected the Mad King partially because he promised us a return to America of the 1950s and earlier, when women and minorities knew their places. We have a Congress that has given up its responsibilities, a judicial branch that has largely been populated by people who share the Mad King's views, and an electorate that hasn't yet come to the realization that it could be next. The followers of the Cult of the Mad King have voluntarily chained themselves to a leader who will lead them into even greater forms of slavery. His tariffs and utter lack of understanding of even the most basic of economics will severely damage our economy, and those who support him will suffer the most. His policies, if not recinded, are devastating to many farmers, his tariffs are bankrupting many small business owners, and his anti-science actions will condemn many to death by preventable diseases. Unless you are a white male with substantial wealth, his destruction of our economy will only further your enslavement to the upper 1% of our country. We already have a significant portion of our population living paycheck to paycheck with no savings. This modern-day servitude is clothed to appear to be different, but the reality is that it is just another form of salvery.
Was Englightenment a misprint or a new concept? Scotlightenment fairer to Hume and Smith. But interesting article, and key point about the beneficiaries.
> Charles Young: Was Englightenment a misprint or a new concept? Scotlightenment fairer to Hume and Smith. But interesting article, and key point about the beneficiaries.
I envy your students! One question I have concerns the gradual rise in the price of slaves before the Civil War. This is followed by a decline in the price. Were plantation owners buying slaves in anticipation of the war? Perhaps fearing they'd lose the ability to purchase slaves. Or was slave state agricultural output increasing at this time and thus driving up the demand for slaves and therewith the price?
So would the 2 alternatives ro the Civil War have been 1, buy them+40 acres, and 2, secession (and maybe a space race fot tech improvements to make slavery less valuable)? With 2025 hindsight, would either of these have (likely) turned out better?
Stephen Douglas tried to maintain a middle ground—that slavery required the active support of the state's police power, or it would collapse. He was, of course, talking the book he had to make. Mostly.
And he was right and Lincoln surely did not disagree.
My question is different. Was it necessary for the Federal government to prevent the expansion of slavery? Could it survive without a Federal support like the Fugitive Slave law (which seems like an infringement of state sovereignty, anyway). Why was the election of Lincoln so threatening to the Slave States that they woud succeed? Looking ahead for abolitionist policy when they would be even weaker militarily?
This makes me think of a possible counter history. If these economies did not create a slave cast for the production of cotton, sugar and tobacco, would the result have been inventions to increase the productivity of paid laborers. The cotton gin created a new economy of mass cotton supply. It made slaves more valuable. But, without slavery, if we upheld the "all men are created equal" idea, would there have been other inventions that increased labor output?
I think the answer is "no". Mechanizing cotton textiles really was one of the major technology sweet spots (alongside railroads and iron production) of the years 1770-1870:
> Jeff Luth: 'This makes me think of a possible counter history. If these economies did not create a slave cast for the production of cotton, sugar and tobacco, would the result have been inventions to increase the productivity of paid laborers. The cotton gin created a new economy of mass cotton supply. It made slaves more valuable. But, without slavery, if we upheld the "all men are created equal" idea, would there have been other inventions that increased labor output?...
Have you ever seen old photos of the wheat harvest in eastern Washington? A combine built of mostly wood with iron strapping and dozens of horses pulling it. An incredible contraption that had to negotiate hills.
I just can’t help think that ingenuity would have interceded if slavery hadn’t made it unimportant.
But this is from a non-economist. And those horse rigs were from a later era of the 1880s.
It's pretty obvious why Blacks remained enslaved in the antebellum South. They were brought to a land far from home where their masters had vast technological superiority. But how to explain the slavery of the Scythians? OK, the enslavers had horses. Big deal. Can't horses be felled with slings and arrows? Can't the Scythians make long spears and skewer the men on horseback? Why did the Scythians on horseback have such a large advantage that they could enslave their fellow Scythians who didn't have horses to ride? (Note that the Romans conquered western Europe with an army that was mostly infantry.) Maybe I'll ask ChatGPT.
People who are born and raised to the saddle have, historically, a fairly easy time grabbing and keeping key slots in a society-of-domination ruling over lots and lots of agrarian peasants. Mind you, they aren't always at the very top (cf. Patricia Crone: "Slaves on Horses"). But when they aren't, those at the very top find them very useful.
And as for the Romans, adversaries with enough horses and riders born to the saddle—Parthians, Skythians, Sassanids, Goths, Huns—gave them lots of real trouble:
> JH: It's pretty obvious why Blacks remained enslaved in the antebellum South. They were brought to a land far from home where their masters had vast technological superiority. But how to explain the slavery of the Scythians? OK, the enslavers had horses. Big deal. Can't horses be felled with slings and arrows? Can't the Scythians make long spears and skewer the men on horseback? Why did the Scythians on horseback have such a large advantage that they could enslave their fellow Scythians who didn't have horses to ride? (Note that the Romans conquered western Europe with an army that was mostly infantry)...
Ping... testing...
I would have liked to audit this course. Will you publish the lectures? Looking forward to the syllabus.
On a political note, it’s inescapable to me that MAGA has a serious component of neo-Confederacy. The names of Confederate generals have been restored at a number of army bases, and there were more than a few grievances registered against recognizing the Juneteenth holiday.
Hanging a Confederacy sign around MAGA’s neck may be even more powerful than Fascism. It’s a homegrown model for tolerating non-citizen residents who are denied civil rights.
Trying to put it all together as Econ 113! It is hard!
> Mark Paul: 'I would have liked to audit this course. Will you publish the lectures? Looking forward to the syllabus. On a political note, it’s inescapable to me that MAGA has a serious component of neo-Confederacy...
You’re off to a fine start. The economics of slavery remain compelling for a certain class of capitalists, and with a few tweaks—like that chattel feature—there are plenty of entrepreneurs who would be happy to structure their businesses that way. A lot of firms already outsource menial labor to third parties.
Overall,excellent as usual. Having taught American history for a long time myself, I would add a few points which may or may not be worth considering. One is the considerable use of indentured servitude in the English colonies in North America, more so than anywhere else in the Americas. The relative cheapness of purchasing labor power for a few years made it advantageous. Especially given the high mortality rates in the southern colonies. As life expectancies grew, and the relative cost of slave imports declined due to growing productivity in slave trading, the turn towards slavery expanded. Furthermore, the racialization of slavery and the rise of plantations went hand in hand. Secondly, Indian slavery was an important source of capital in the 17th century. The English were able to use alliances with some native Americans to capture other native Americans, and sell them to the West Indies. Native Americans no longer collaborated in such ventures by the early 18th century. 3rd, the moral revulsion against slavery was slight until maybe 1750? Antislavery too was a product of the Enlightenment. Even the Quakers saw no contradiction between their religious principles and slaveholding before then.
Your depiction of the growth and justification of slavery paints a very terrifying picture. It is made all the more frightening by the realization that slavery has not gone away; it has only changed its name. The Mad King wants us to believe that China stole American jobs, when the reality is that the middle class's desire for cheap goods drove the jobs to China. We elected the Mad King partially because he promised us a return to America of the 1950s and earlier, when women and minorities knew their places. We have a Congress that has given up its responsibilities, a judicial branch that has largely been populated by people who share the Mad King's views, and an electorate that hasn't yet come to the realization that it could be next. The followers of the Cult of the Mad King have voluntarily chained themselves to a leader who will lead them into even greater forms of slavery. His tariffs and utter lack of understanding of even the most basic of economics will severely damage our economy, and those who support him will suffer the most. His policies, if not recinded, are devastating to many farmers, his tariffs are bankrupting many small business owners, and his anti-science actions will condemn many to death by preventable diseases. Unless you are a white male with substantial wealth, his destruction of our economy will only further your enslavement to the upper 1% of our country. We already have a significant portion of our population living paycheck to paycheck with no savings. This modern-day servitude is clothed to appear to be different, but the reality is that it is just another form of salvery.
Was Englightenment a misprint or a new concept? Scotlightenment fairer to Hume and Smith. But interesting article, and key point about the beneficiaries.
It's just a typo, but a fruitful one:
> Charles Young: Was Englightenment a misprint or a new concept? Scotlightenment fairer to Hume and Smith. But interesting article, and key point about the beneficiaries.
…and let’s remember that both Hume and Smith were keen anti-slavers, with Smith referring to slave traders as “the refuse of the gaols of Europe”.
I envy your students! One question I have concerns the gradual rise in the price of slaves before the Civil War. This is followed by a decline in the price. Were plantation owners buying slaves in anticipation of the war? Perhaps fearing they'd lose the ability to purchase slaves. Or was slave state agricultural output increasing at this time and thus driving up the demand for slaves and therewith the price?
So would the 2 alternatives ro the Civil War have been 1, buy them+40 acres, and 2, secession (and maybe a space race fot tech improvements to make slavery less valuable)? With 2025 hindsight, would either of these have (likely) turned out better?
I've fallen behind in my reading of your newsletter, so please excuse the delay in commenting.
Can you think of any way in which Claudia Goldin's purchase could have happened.
I realize asking this question in our current timeline of irrationality is ironic but still...
This needs a broader audience and more engagement. How about an EdX MOOC?
I'm thinking, I'm thinking. Thinking mostly about going emeritus in a year, when I would have more time...
Does not the fact that slavery had to be sustained by coercion imply that it was inefficient? Utility of non-slaves < utility of slaves?
Both North and South seemed to believe that slavery would expand unless stopped by coercion, not permitted in a "free" state.
How true was that? Why could the US not persist half free and half slave (or three quarters free and one quarter slave?
Stephen Douglas tried to maintain a middle ground—that slavery required the active support of the state's police power, or it would collapse. He was, of course, talking the book he had to make. Mostly.
And he was right and Lincoln surely did not disagree.
My question is different. Was it necessary for the Federal government to prevent the expansion of slavery? Could it survive without a Federal support like the Fugitive Slave law (which seems like an infringement of state sovereignty, anyway). Why was the election of Lincoln so threatening to the Slave States that they woud succeed? Looking ahead for abolitionist policy when they would be even weaker militarily?
This makes me think of a possible counter history. If these economies did not create a slave cast for the production of cotton, sugar and tobacco, would the result have been inventions to increase the productivity of paid laborers. The cotton gin created a new economy of mass cotton supply. It made slaves more valuable. But, without slavery, if we upheld the "all men are created equal" idea, would there have been other inventions that increased labor output?
I think the answer is "no". Mechanizing cotton textiles really was one of the major technology sweet spots (alongside railroads and iron production) of the years 1770-1870:
> Jeff Luth: 'This makes me think of a possible counter history. If these economies did not create a slave cast for the production of cotton, sugar and tobacco, would the result have been inventions to increase the productivity of paid laborers. The cotton gin created a new economy of mass cotton supply. It made slaves more valuable. But, without slavery, if we upheld the "all men are created equal" idea, would there have been other inventions that increased labor output?...
Have you ever seen old photos of the wheat harvest in eastern Washington? A combine built of mostly wood with iron strapping and dozens of horses pulling it. An incredible contraption that had to negotiate hills.
I just can’t help think that ingenuity would have interceded if slavery hadn’t made it unimportant.
But this is from a non-economist. And those horse rigs were from a later era of the 1880s.
It's pretty obvious why Blacks remained enslaved in the antebellum South. They were brought to a land far from home where their masters had vast technological superiority. But how to explain the slavery of the Scythians? OK, the enslavers had horses. Big deal. Can't horses be felled with slings and arrows? Can't the Scythians make long spears and skewer the men on horseback? Why did the Scythians on horseback have such a large advantage that they could enslave their fellow Scythians who didn't have horses to ride? (Note that the Romans conquered western Europe with an army that was mostly infantry.) Maybe I'll ask ChatGPT.
People who are born and raised to the saddle have, historically, a fairly easy time grabbing and keeping key slots in a society-of-domination ruling over lots and lots of agrarian peasants. Mind you, they aren't always at the very top (cf. Patricia Crone: "Slaves on Horses"). But when they aren't, those at the very top find them very useful.
And as for the Romans, adversaries with enough horses and riders born to the saddle—Parthians, Skythians, Sassanids, Goths, Huns—gave them lots of real trouble:
> JH: It's pretty obvious why Blacks remained enslaved in the antebellum South. They were brought to a land far from home where their masters had vast technological superiority. But how to explain the slavery of the Scythians? OK, the enslavers had horses. Big deal. Can't horses be felled with slings and arrows? Can't the Scythians make long spears and skewer the men on horseback? Why did the Scythians on horseback have such a large advantage that they could enslave their fellow Scythians who didn't have horses to ride? (Note that the Romans conquered western Europe with an army that was mostly infantry)...