• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How did rich Southerners convince poor Southerners to support slavery?

swing_voter

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
13,042
Reaction score
8,463
Location
'Murica
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
1864, how did rich Southerners convince poor Southerners to support slavery?

You know how hard it is for the working man to compete with a slave? It's impossible. Slaves work for free. You can't under bid free.

Slavery depressed the wages of working people. Poverty led to lack of education, teen pregnancy, and all the other ills poverty leads to. You can still see the effects of that poverty in the South today, with the Southern states doing the worst on standardized school tests.

And yet poor working class Southerners died in the hundreds of thousands trying to save the institution of slavery. Not only did working people not benefit from slavery, slavery actively harmed working people.
 

1. The non-slaveholder of the South is assured that the remuneration afforded by his labor, over and above the expense of living, is larger than that which is afforded by the same labor in the free States. . . .

2. The non-slaveholders, as a class, are not reduced by the necessity of our condition, as is the case in the free States, to find employment in crowded cities, and come into competition in close and sickly workshops and factories, with remorseless and untiring machinery. . . .

3. The non-slaveholder is not subjected to that competition with foreign pauper labor which has degraded the free labor of the North, and demoralized it to an extent which perhaps can never be estimated. . . .

4. The non-slaveholder of the South preserves the status of the white man, and is not regarded as an inferior or a dependant
. He is not told that the Declaration of Independence, when it says that all men are born free and equal, refers to the negro equally with himself. It is not proposed to him that the free negro’s vote shall weigh equally with his own at the ballot-box, and that the little children of both colors shall be mixed in the classes and benches of the schoolhouse, and embrace each other filially in its outside sports. It never occurs to him that a white man could be degraded enough to boast in a public assembly, as was recently done in New-York, of having actually slept with a negro. And his patriotic ire would crush with a blow the free negro who would dare, in his presence, as is done in the free States, to characterize the father of the country as a “scoundrel.” No white man at the South serves another as a body-servant, to clean his boots, wait on his table, and perform the menial services of his household! His blood revolts against this, and his necessities never drive him to it. He is a companion and an equal. When in the employ of the slaveholder, or in intercourse with him, he enters his hall, and has a seat at his table. If a distinction exists, it is only that which education and refinement may give, and this is so courteously exhibited as scarcely to strike attention. The poor white laborer at the North is at the bottom of the social ladder, while his brother here has ascended several steps, and can look down upon those who are beneath him at an infinite remove!

5. The non-slaveholder knows that as soon as his savings will admit, he can become a slaveholder, and thus relieve his wife from the necessities of the kitchen and the laundry, and his children from the labors of the field. . . .

6. The large slaveholders and proprietors of the South begin life in great part as non-slaveholders. . . .

7. But, should such fortune not be in reserve for the non-slaveholder, he will understand that by honesty and industry it may be realized to his children. . . .

8. The sons of the non-slaveholder are and have always been among the leading and ruling spirits of the South, in industry as well as in politics. . . .

9. Without the institution of slavery the great staple products of the South would cease to be grown, and the immense annual results which are distributed among every class of the community, and which give life to every branch of industry, would cease.

10. If emancipation be brought about, as will, undoubtedly be the case, unless the encroachments of the fanatical majorities of the North are resisted now, the slaveholders, in the main, will escape the degrading equality which must result, by emigration, for which they have the means, by disposing of their personal chattels, while the non-slaveholders, without these resources, would be compelled to remain and endure the degradation. . . .”

 
1864, how did rich Southerners convince poor Southerners to support slavery?

You know how hard it is for the working man to compete with a slave? It's impossible. Slaves work for free. You can't under bid free.

Slavery depressed the wages of working people. Poverty led to lack of education, teen pregnancy, and all the other ills poverty leads to. You can still see the effects of that poverty in the South today, with the Southern states doing the worst on standardized school tests.

And yet poor working class Southerners died in the hundreds of thousands trying to save the institution of slavery. Not only did working people not benefit from slavery, slavery actively harmed working people.

Most poor white southerners lived in the Appalachins. During the election year Lincoln won, the slavery party won by a 1 percent margin, no doubt a ballot rigged election in favor of the 2,500 wealthy families who ran the south then. Many southern states sent units to fight for the north as well, even from Alabama, though they were few; it's a myth that both sides were made up of partisans. The only real abolitionist politician of note in the Republican Party was New York's Seward, and he opposed going to war over slavery, and said so. Most don't know New York City came very close to seceding along with the south, as did many in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. They weren't fighting for slavery, they were fighting against being taxed to death by tariffs and other taxes when the entire revenue structure of the Federal govt. was being radically changed from land sales and liquor taxes to free land for railroads and the like that would all be spent in the northern states and benefit nobody in the south.

They had clear choices: the south's 10% tariffs or the north's 300% tariffs and bankruptcy.
 
Last edited:
1864, how did rich Southerners convince poor Southerners to support slavery?

You know how hard it is for the working man to compete with a slave? It's impossible. Slaves work for free. You can't under bid free.

Slavery depressed the wages of working people. Poverty led to lack of education, teen pregnancy, and all the other ills poverty leads to. You can still see the effects of that poverty in the South today, with the Southern states doing the worst on standardized school tests.

And yet poor working class Southerners died in the hundreds of thousands trying to save the institution of slavery. Not only did working people not benefit from slavery, slavery actively harmed working people.

Slaves were just as expensive to keep as the indentured servants or paying the poor Irish/Chinese who were the equivalent to today's undocumented workers. In fact, the Irish and Chinese were cheaper alternatives for many big projects in the 1800's because there was no initial investment, food costs, or the many other cost related areas in keeping them.


 
1864, how did rich Southerners convince poor Southerners to support slavery?

You know how hard it is for the working man to compete with a slave? It's impossible. Slaves work for free. You can't under bid free.

Slavery depressed the wages of working people. Poverty led to lack of education, teen pregnancy, and all the other ills poverty leads to. You can still see the effects of that poverty in the South today, with the Southern states doing the worst on standardized school tests.

And yet poor working class Southerners died in the hundreds of thousands trying to save the institution of slavery. Not only did working people not benefit from slavery, slavery actively harmed working people.


Perhaps there was a lot of unemployed poor white folk

What was the pay to be in the southern army?
 
Slaves were just as expensive to keep as the indentured servants or paying the poor Irish/Chinese who were the equivalent to today's undocumented workers. In fact, the Irish and Chinese were cheaper alternatives for many big projects in the 1800's because there was no initial investment, food costs, or the many other cost related areas in keeping them.




A slaveholder has to pay for the room and board, food, clothing, and medical treatment of his slaves. Of course, this can be incredibly minimal—even dehumanizing—but costs nonetheless he would not incur if he did not treat them as living property. A wage reflects value added and is not meant to compensate workers for the food and board they need to survive. With slavery, instead of paying a low wage commensurate with the value created, the slaveholder pays for these living expenses directly.


I don't believe the author of the article you referenced knows what he is talking about.

Slaves built their own homes and raised their own food.

There might be a few exceptions to this, but just as poor white Southerners built their own homes and raised their own food, so did slaves.



.
 
A slaveholder has to pay for the room and board, food, clothing, and medical treatment of his slaves. Of course, this can be incredibly minimal—even dehumanizing—but costs nonetheless he would not incur if he did not treat them as living property. A wage reflects value added and is not meant to compensate workers for the food and board they need to survive. With slavery, instead of paying a low wage commensurate with the value created, the slaveholder pays for these living expenses directly.


I don't believe the author of the article you referenced knows what he is talking about.

Slaves built their own homes and raised their own food.

There might be a few exceptions to this, but just as poor white Southerners built their own homes and raised their own food, so did slaves.



.

Slaves built their own homes and raised their own food.

Which took time away from what the Slave owners wanted them to do
 
A slaveholder has to pay for the room and board, food, clothing, and medical treatment of his slaves. Of course, this can be incredibly minimal—even dehumanizing—but costs nonetheless he would not incur if he did not treat them as living property. A wage reflects value added and is not meant to compensate workers for the food and board they need to survive. With slavery, instead of paying a low wage commensurate with the value created, the slaveholder pays for these living expenses directly.


I don't believe the author of the article you referenced knows what he is talking about.

Slaves built their own homes and raised their own food.

There might be a few exceptions to this, but just as poor white Southerners built their own homes and raised their own food, so did slaves.



.

You lack the total picture and want to come off as the authority on the subject?
 
Why would a non slave owner fight to protect slavery?' Well, if you didn't own slaves you could rent them if the need arose. More importantly African slavery, to the Southern mind, wasn't merely an economic system or a social construct. No, it was a Religious Sacrament. Just about every Sunday those that owned slaves and those that did not would gather at a church where the congregation would be harangued by the preacher with the message the slavery was God's Ordained Plan for African People. Those that fought to defend the institution of African slavery were doing the Lord's Work.
 
To the OP

Easy

1) White people were afraid of blacks not held down by slavery.

2) White people also were afraid of competing with millions of freed black slaves for land and other resources.
 
Which took time away from what the Slave owners wanted them to do

They were kept busy year round, as the weather allowed; they were busy growing their own food, plowing, maintenance, and making clothes, clearing land, etc. Slavery wasn't economically viable unless they were producing year round.
 
Slaves were just as expensive to keep as the indentured servants or paying the poor Irish/Chinese who were the equivalent to today's undocumented workers. In fact, the Irish and Chinese were cheaper alternatives for many big projects in the 1800's because there was no initial investment, food costs, or the many other cost related areas in keeping them.



Yes, Slaves were almost two thirds of capital investment in the south, while 'free' casual labor wasn't, and therefore thy got the dangerous crappy jobs. It cost about $60 a year out of pocket to maintain a slave, according to the economist Robert Vogel.
 

1. The non-slaveholder of the South is assured that the remuneration afforded by his labor, over and above the expense of living, is larger than that which is afforded by the same labor in the free States. . . .

2. The non-slaveholders, as a class, are not reduced by the necessity of our condition, as is the case in the free States, to find employment in crowded cities, and come into competition in close and sickly workshops and factories, with remorseless and untiring machinery. . . .

3. The non-slaveholder is not subjected to that competition with foreign pauper labor which has degraded the free labor of the North, and demoralized it to an extent which perhaps can never be estimated. . . .

4. The non-slaveholder of the South preserves the status of the white man, and is not regarded as an inferior or a dependant
. He is not told that the Declaration of Independence, when it says that all men are born free and equal, refers to the negro equally with himself. It is not proposed to him that the free negro’s vote shall weigh equally with his own at the ballot-box, and that the little children of both colors shall be mixed in the classes and benches of the schoolhouse, and embrace each other filially in its outside sports. It never occurs to him that a white man could be degraded enough to boast in a public assembly, as was recently done in New-York, of having actually slept with a negro. And his patriotic ire would crush with a blow the free negro who would dare, in his presence, as is done in the free States, to characterize the father of the country as a “scoundrel.” No white man at the South serves another as a body-servant, to clean his boots, wait on his table, and perform the menial services of his household! His blood revolts against this, and his necessities never drive him to it. He is a companion and an equal. When in the employ of the slaveholder, or in intercourse with him, he enters his hall, and has a seat at his table. If a distinction exists, it is only that which education and refinement may give, and this is so courteously exhibited as scarcely to strike attention. The poor white laborer at the North is at the bottom of the social ladder, while his brother here has ascended several steps, and can look down upon those who are beneath him at an infinite remove!

5. The non-slaveholder knows that as soon as his savings will admit, he can become a slaveholder, and thus relieve his wife from the necessities of the kitchen and the laundry, and his children from the labors of the field. . . .

6. The large slaveholders and proprietors of the South begin life in great part as non-slaveholders. . . .

7. But, should such fortune not be in reserve for the non-slaveholder, he will understand that by honesty and industry it may be realized to his children. . . .

8. The sons of the non-slaveholder are and have always been among the leading and ruling spirits of the South, in industry as well as in politics. . . .

9. Without the institution of slavery the great staple products of the South would cease to be grown, and the immense annual results which are distributed among every class of the community, and which give life to every branch of industry, would cease.

10. If emancipation be brought about, as will, undoubtedly be the case, unless the encroachments of the fanatical majorities of the North are resisted now, the slaveholders, in the main, will escape the degrading equality which must result, by emigration, for which they have the means, by disposing of their personal chattels, while the non-slaveholders, without these resources, would be compelled to remain and endure the degradation. . . .”

This post is far too wordy and convoluted for the average reader.
 
This post is far too wordy and convoluted for the average reader.

It's a strawman to avoid the states' rights issue, the only one that matters. The southern states has already won all the Supreme Court cases, and the real threat was the Morrill Triffs and the Land Acts. Congress and the Senate focused on logrolling the Railroad acts and Land Grants bills for three years after the war started,and not a peep over slavery was ever brought up, which is a big giant clue as to what the war was all about; southerners opposed all that since none of it benefitted them and the tariffs would have been pure extortion of them since they imported most of their manfactured goods.
 
Last edited:
It's a strawman to avoid the states' rights issue, the only one that matters.
States might have had rights but unschooled working class White kids had none and were conscripted by the property and slave-owning class to fight their war. Poor kids.

800.jpeg
 
They were kept busy year round, as the weather allowed; they were busy growing their own food, plowing, maintenance, and making clothes, clearing land, etc. Slavery wasn't economically viable unless they were producing year round.


they were busy growing their own food,

Yes, thanks for confirming my point
 
States might have had rights but unschooled working class White kids had none and were conscripted by the property and slave-owning class to fight their war. Poor kids.

800.jpeg


Spain abolished slavery in 1873, 8 years after America did.




.
 
Spain abolished slavery in 1873, 8 years after America did.
The Laws of Burgos of 1512 and the New Laws of 1543 forbade the enslavement of Native Americans in the early years of the Spanish Empire.
 
The Laws of Burgos of 1512 and the New Laws of 1543 forbade the enslavement of Native Americans in the early years of the Spanish Empire.

Look it up, bro.

Puerto Rico, Spanish abolished slavery there in 1873. Black slaves.
 
Back
Top Bottom