That only makes sense if you think slavery should’ve never been abolished. How would it have ended under the Articles of Confederation?
Modern capitalists prefer seasonal labor for agriculture. They don't have to feed/clothe/house people year round, and have no personal investment. Seasonal migrant agriculture labor cheap and easily exploited, with little legal protection. Slaves, like domestic a nimals (reprehensible as that simily is), must be treated well enough to keep working productively. There is no such need with migrant labor. If they are abused or killed it is easy to sweep under the rug. There'll be new migrants available next year.
NOTE: I'm not saying slavery is good, or even better than migrant labor. They are both highly unethical if you consider how corporations treat migrant labor today.
And just notice how often the writers mention not having enough food, or basic clothing. Then get back to us on the idea that slave owners would have taken even minimal care of slaves.
You’ve written how you think it ought to have worked. But that’s not how it actually worked.
If they were too harsh with slaves they'd spend a lot more time and energy managing their behavior. Even in prison privileges are given so they can be taken away. Slave owners probably treated their slaves well enough, in aggregate, that they were capable to work productively and did not have immediate cause for revolt. The slave owners had to live in close proximity to their slaves after all.
The Hollywood portrayals of slavery as essentially unrelenting cruelty and sadism don't make sense, except for on TV. Any farmer would have known that you don't get the best work out of your horses or mules by abusing and starving them. There's a knee point of optimal treatment for all labor arrangements. The EVIL fact that slaves were property of their masters does not change this.
Many types of slaves existed and still exist in the history of humanity.
The slaves around Julias Ceasar probably had a different life than the average native Columbus slave (they where almost all quickly worked to death genocide style and he was a total sadist).
Fredrick Douglas didn't have motivation to treat slavery fairly either. (few writers of the day did - thus making it hard for historians to figure out the truth, though in this area there is a lot more data than historians studying something of several thousand years ago).
You might want to check on accounts from e.g. Haiti where slaves' lives were considered very cheap and that's precisely why they were used for the dangerous labour around sugar production.
> Fredrick Douglas didn't have motivation to treat slavery fairly either. (few writers of the day did - thus making it hard for historians to figure out the truth, though in this area there is a lot more data than historians studying something of several thousand years ago).
How does an ex-slave treat slavery "fairly"? He lived that shit, he knows how despicable it is. What other side is there to present? The economic interests of the slaveowners?
>How does an ex-slave treat slavery "fairly"? He lived that shit, he knows how despicable it is.
He can exaggerate how bad it was for one thing. It is well known that people's memories are not exact to what happened, and it is likely he would remember dramatic incidents and not the day to day reality.
Try reading "uncle tom's Cabin" - a book that was written with the intent to start the civil war to end slavery. Despite that intent to presents a picture of slavery that was in general much nicer for the slave owners.
Don't take anything of the above as statement that slavery was good. Only that it wasn't in general as bad as what you see on TV.
Read the history of the cotton gin and then how steam power made larger transportation easier and expanded populations to consume cotton and tobacco. Industrially produced guns and other tools helped "manage" slaves and later prisoners.
Post-civil war, industrial prison system instituted chain gangs to recreate "legal" slavery and forced prison labor still exists in many states.
The US south ended slavery with the civil war, but most places in the world had a peaceful end. It wouldn't have been peaceful if it was economical as the rich would have fought to keep it.
It's weird that you think that they had it better than migrant laborers.
An (immigrant) worker gets none of that and might barely be able to get by even without counting the healthcare (in the US).
Sounds to me like a slave might indeed be cheaper in some/many situations than a minimum wage worker. I'm not convinced either way.
A slave also needs more management. Migrants and free workers will get themselves to the job and in general work. A slave has no motivation to work harder so you need some form of "slave driver" to keep them working. If you try to move your slaves around like migrants move, then you need a manager to go with the slaves to keep them working - migrants manage themselves.
A slave is cheaper if you have a lot of repetitive, low-skill, year round work that must be done by hand. However most of that type of labor is easy for the industrial revolution to automate.
…except slavery still exists all over the place in industrialized countries? There’s nothing incompatible between industrialization and slavery, as myriad historic and contemporary examples have shown.
https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global-estimates-of-modern-...
2) Migrant labor is the replacement for slave labor in the USA. These are workers who do not legally exist and thus are subject to the worst of exploitations by employers and criminal concerns.
3) Human beings of all races have a pretty bad record of how they may treat other races/tribes/outgroups. Genghis Kahn killed and raped so many people that he altered the genetic profile of humans. African tribes routinely enslaved each other. Arabs took white slaves. People can be dicks. The list goes on and on: cruelty is a part of the universal human condition.
As bad as the USA, it's the only country to go to civil war to free slaves of another race, even if that wasn't the complete reason for the Civil war.
"free slaves of another race"? Some of those going to war were people of that race. On both sides.
This is also a bit ahistorical as Lincoln was willing to allow slavery in order to keep the union. It was really the south who chose to go to war in order to guarantee slavery would stay; the north chose to go to war in order to keep the union. The slavery issue was used by the north, initially, to keep the anti-slavery UK from siding with the south.
Of course there was some lead up to that but the actual flashpoint is that the south started it and they didn't do so to free northern slaves. Northern congressmen were not pushing for any bills that removed slavery from the south and etc; there wasn't an imminent (i.e. during Lincoln's presidency) existential threat that the North would end slavery in the South except the one the South manufactured.
Yeah, that's even better than what I stated.
Even at that, the steam engine was in the process of replacing slaves for many tasks. There were just a lot of tasks left that the steam engine wasn't yet practical to replace slaves - but that would have happened anyway.
And I forgot to mention that some of those slaves were blonde-haired and blue-eyed with skin lighter than most Caucasians. Maternal inheritance of slavery rule. https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/white-slave-children-photog...