Tea Party: Teach the good about slavery too

[UnderAGreySky]

Tea Party Group Wants To 'Soften' Slavery In Textbooks

Yes, Really.

BRISTOL, Tenn. -- Some political groups are asking Tennessee lawmakers to re-write history, or at least how it is taught. Some members of the Tea Party say what's in your kid's textbook may be giving them a negative opinion about our nation's founding history.

What do you remember about American History class? Chances are you took away the basics; the birth of a democracy and a roller-coaster of ups-and-downs. But some Tea Party members say those basics are flawed when it comes to textbooks.

"My biggest concern is that important information is being omitted, which creates a negative light on our Founding Fathers," said Tea Party activist Brian Rieck.

Many members of the group are asking Tennessee lawmakers to tweak textbooks so that doesn't happen. Notably, they're hoping to make changes in how slavery and encroachment on Native Americans are portrayed to students. "Slavery is of course portrayed in the textbooks nowadays I'm sure as a totally negative thing. Had there not been slavery in the South, the economy would've fallen," Rieck said.

Rieck told News 5 without offering that balance, the Founding Fathers, many of whom were slave owners, could be slighted for their contributions in the eyes of students.

But when teaching her grandchildren about our past, Jackie Leonard says that's not something that goes through the mind. "I think it was a bad thing, and I think that our children today need to know that," said Leonard.

It's also a worry for educators like C.J. Manahan who teach from those textbooks. "I feel they do a pretty good job of presenting [history] objectively already," said Manahan.

Manahan, an eighth-grade American History teacher, tells us making these types of changes could send mixed signals on what it means to be an American. "We can't create opinions from history. You know, [many Founding Fathers] were slaves owners, yes. That's true, and if people choose to have an opinion of that being negative, that is their right. So, it's not anybody's place to decide what everyone's opinions happen to be," Manahan said.

(emphasis mine)

Sure, Slavery was not a totally negative thing. After all, it led to full employment of black people didn't it?

[Alyrium Denryle]

BRISTOL, Tenn. -- Some political groups are asking Tennessee lawmakers to re-write history, or at least how it is taught. Some members of the Tea Party say what's in your kid's textbook may be giving them a negative opinion about our nation's founding history.

Heaven forbid out Glorious Founding Fathers are not portrayed as Gods Among Men

There are aspects of our nation's history that should be sources of personal reflection on what being an american means, if not outright national shame. Slavery and the genocide of native americans are among them. Attempting to whitewash the brutality and horror of slavery is like trying to claim that the holocaust was not all that bad, because building the concentration camps employed people.

Fuck that.

[D.Turtle]

I know that this is an outrageous thing, but still: If your only contribution is a metaphorical "fuck you", then just don't post.

Two posts split to the Bottom of the Barrel thread.

[Darksider]

Why the fuck does this moron think the southern economy would've collapsed without slavery? Rich white landowners were wealthy enough to buy hundreds of black people to toil in their fields, surely they were wealthy enough to pay poor southern people to do the same. Less unemployment in the south, Thousands don't get kidnapped from Africa and forced into horrible servitude. I'd call that win-win.

[Block]

Why the fuck does this moron think the southern economy would've collapsed without slavery? Rich white landowners were wealthy enough to buy hundreds of black people to toil in their fields, surely they were wealthy enough to pay poor southern people to do the same. Less unemployment in the south, Thousands don't get kidnapped from Africa and forced into horrible servitude. I'd call that win-win.

There weren't enough poor white people in the South to make up for the number of slaves, certainly not for the first 100 or so years.

[Korto]

Even if you accept the argument that their economy would have collapsed without slavery (which I don't, my impression from what the learned say is that slavery holds an economy back, but I'm not arguing that), it begs the question of whether the economy deserved to survive if it so depended upon slavery in the first place.
It's like arguing that werewolves tearing out peoples hearts and eating them isn't all bad, because without that the werewolves wouldn't survive.

Why can't they figure out a way to explain that while the "Founding Father's" were good, well-meaning and intelligent men, they were also a product of their culture, a culture that did some bad things, and with the benefit of increasing cultural enlightenment, we're able to see how bad some of those things were? Or would that cast doubt on their divinity and omniscience?

[Civil War Man]

Not only would the Southern economy probably not have collapsed without slavery, the only reason slavery persisted as long as it did was because of racism and cultural inertia. The only thing stopping the Southern landowners from mimicking the North's business practice of hiring poor expendable workers for a below subsistence wage was that they wanted to own people as property.

[Stark]

There weren't enough poor white people in the South to make up for the number of slaves, certainly not for the first 100 or so years.

If slavery was not used the economy might not have been built on labor-intensive plantation farming.

[Block]

There weren't enough poor white people in the South to make up for the number of slaves, certainly not for the first 100 or so years.

If slavery was not used the economy might not have been built on labor-intensive plantation farming.

Oh I agree, it probably wouldn't have been.

[Panzersharkcat]

Going off of what Darksider said, and why I said they failed economics forever, slave labor was also a lot more inefficient than free labor. To quote Thomas Sowell's Conquest and Cultures: An International History,

Both conservative apologists and radical critics of Western civilization have attempted to make the case that the institution of slavery made an important contribution to the economic and cultural development of the West.
No nation in the Western Hemisphere... so prodigally consumed so many millions of slaves as Brazil. Yet, when Brazil became the last nation in the hemisphere to abolish the institution of slavery in 1888, it was still an economically underdeveloped country. Its later industrial and commercial development was largely the work of European immigrants, who accomplished a more general and enduring transformation of the Brazilian economy within two generations than had occurred during centuries of slavery. ... In Europe, it was the nations in the western regions of the continent, where slavery was abolished first, that lead the continent into the modern industrial age.

Apologists may cite the fact that the market value of a "prime" male slave in New Orleans from 1820 to 1856 rose from $850 to $1200 as evidence of slavery doing fine. That is refuted in part by the fact that nominal daily wages in South Central states for unskilled labor rose from 73 cents to 95 cents. Of the 41% increase in the price of slaves, 30% could be explained by growing productivity of labor in general. In short, they have no leg to stand on in apologizing for slavery.

[Simon_Jester]

They wouldn't have a leg to stand on if slaves were worth their weight in gold- injustice is injustice.

[Darksider]

My point is that they seem to be implicating that the South's economy would've collapsed without slavery, which is bullshit.

[Panzersharkcat]

Well, I was tackling the claim that the Southern economy would have collapsed without the institution of slavery. I didn't think the immorality of slavery needed to be mentioned because it should be a given. The economic aspect tends to be what apologists focus on and I wanted to disprove even that.

[Simon_Jester]

Eh, sorry, true.

It's just that slavery apologetics are one of the "zombie lies," people have been retelling and rerefuting it ever since the Civil War, but it just will not die because there's a certain clique of people constitutionally unwilling to accept that there's anything bad in their past. I find it rather annoying, although less so than the zombie lies which influence American politics more directly in the present day.

[Baffalo]

Actually most slaves were originally bought not for the Southern cotton plantations but the richer Caribbean sugar plantations. That's what got the initial interest in a cheap labor force of slaves started. Washington owned slaves, but at the time they were mainly used as household laborers and not the cheap labor we typically associate with slavery. In fact, Washington often went riding with his favorite slave during the War. Like many Founding Fathers, Washington knew that slavery, which had been a divisive topic during the drafting of the Constitution, was a horrendous institution for a nation that prided itself on freedom, but didn't want to make a public statement of emancipating his slaves during his lifetime. And yes, Washington posthumously emancipated his own slaves, but this led to having the decision overturned by his relatives in court after the invention of the cotton gin. Prior to the cotton gin, even with a cheap and plentiful labor force, cotton was simply too time consuming to devote slaves to.

The relationship between the Founding Fathers and the slaves they owned is much different than the rich white plantation owner ideas we have during the 19th century. This in no way condones slavery, but the slaves at he time were considered an investment like many farmers today consider a tractor or a farm animal.

Besides, slavery was a doomed institution before the civil war and would've eventually died out anyway. The North didn't want anything to do with slavery, Europe was entirely slave free (even Russia had freed the Surfs from their feudal obligations), so the South was going to be isolated in a world that didn't want slavery. I read some of Harry Turtledove's books on loan from a friend into alternate history, and he does point out that even if the South had successfully succeeded, their reliance on slave labor would've resulted in political pressure from England (which was already pushing for emancipation even during the war) and there would've been internal pressure from the poor whites whose only chances at jobs in the burgeoning industrialized factories were taken by slaves. Between the two, slavery would've been doomed, and so the entire thing would've collapsed anyway.

Many southerners tried to keep slavery as an informal institution with share cropping, but even that was eventually doomed by FDR and his New Deal programs, specifically the programs to pay people not to farm. The plans were put into place to encourage moving to urban areas, and also to end the sharecropping that was keeping many blacks tied to the land. Between accepting crops that barely met the bills and a government willing to pay you to kick them out and you still come out ahead, they naturally chose to take the money and run. I have to say it was a good move, because when the program ended, no one wanted to move back out to the farms and work for nothing when factories, whose safety practices were starting to improve, became much more lucrative opportunities. And with a burgeoning middle class, the pressures would've become too great and the entire practice would've broken.

So no, emancipation was not going to ruin the South.

[Haruko]

The day we are too graphic in grade school about the worst manifestation of the institution of slavery in human history is in not here, and has not passed.

[Serafina]

Why can't they figure out a way to explain that while the "Founding Father's" were good, well-meaning and intelligent men, they were also a product of their culture, a culture that did some bad things, and with the benefit of increasing cultural enlightenment, we're able to see how bad some of those things were? Or would that cast doubt on their divinity and omniscience?

I think that might be the crux of the matter.

First of all, people like this divide people into "good or bad", not individual opinions. That view is obviously incompatible with "he was a great and good person who also did some bad things".
Second, the "product of your time, therefore holding some opinions that are now morally wrong"-argument also applies to a lot of views they themselves hold dear - ostracizing the poor, racism, homophobia, sexism etc. So obviously they have to admit that some of the views of todays paragons of their movement are wrong as well, which they don't want to do.
Third, it is essentially an argument founded on an evolving view of morals, something which is decried as evil amongst conservatives. For them, morals are supposed to be the foundation of society, unchanging and eternal - rather than adapting as new circumstances arise.

[K. A. Pital]

Slavery was economically efficient in an agrarian society. Which does not mean this is good.

How did we get to "whatever's economically efficient is morally good" bullshit?

[Broken]

Apologists may cite the fact that the market value of a "prime" male slave in New Orleans from 1820 to 1856 rose from $850 to $1200 as evidence of slavery doing fine. That is refuted in part by the fact that nominal daily wages in South Central states for unskilled labor rose from 73 cents to 95 cents. Of the 41% increase in the price of slaves, 30% could be explained by growing productivity of labor in general. In short, they have no leg to stand on in apologizing for slavery.

Going off of memory, wasn't the importation of slaves to the United States outlawed shortly before the War of 1812? I know it was later declared an act of piracy, plus the Royal Navy had its West Africa Squadron in operation, all of which forced slavery to become more self-sustaining since it was no longer a simple matter of waiting for the next slave ship to arrive. Prices went up because the cheap/easy supply was cut off. Ironic that a smuggler could be hung for slave trading, but not the slave auctioneers in operation within the United States.

[Baffalo]

Apologists may cite the fact that the market value of a "prime" male slave in New Orleans from 1820 to 1856 rose from $850 to $1200 as evidence of slavery doing fine. That is refuted in part by the fact that nominal daily wages in South Central states for unskilled labor rose from 73 cents to 95 cents. Of the 41% increase in the price of slaves, 30% could be explained by growing productivity of labor in general. In short, they have no leg to stand on in apologizing for slavery.

Going off of memory, wasn't the importation of slaves to the United States outlawed shortly before the War of 1812? I know it was later declared an act of piracy, plus the Royal Navy had its West Africa Squadron in operation, all of which forced slavery to become more self-sustaining since it was no longer a simple matter of waiting for the next slave ship to arrive. Prices went up because the cheap/easy supply was cut off. Ironic that a smuggler could be hung for slave trading, but not the slave auctioneers in operation within the United States.

You're right that it was made illegal but I don't know exactly when. Slavery isn't really that profitable even in the best of times, and as Stas Bush said, it works in an agrarian society. Paying $800 to $1200 dollars up front for a slave is a huge initial investment, and that investment comes with a huge risk attached. Many slaves ran away, or at least attempted it, and you have to feed and house and clothe all the slaves. Even if you can get food grown on the plantation, you still have to devote a portion of your labor force just to feed the others. Plus the labor to do things like clothe and maintain items, and you're looking at a hefty turn around on your investment.

If we assume you need 100 workers to maintain your crops, let's compare how long it'll take to return your investment. We'll start with slaves. Assuming you need 10% on top of you 100 (for runaways and tending food crops for their own consumption) that's 110 slaves set at... let's use the 1856 price. 110 slaves at $1200, that's $132,000. Now, if you took that same amount and distributed it among 100 unskilled hired laborers, that's enough money to hire them for 1389 days, or almost 4 years. Now sure, after that four years you start to come out ahead, but that's not taking into account that at any time, if your slaves get sick or hurt or die, you have to pay for a new slave. It's a 4 year return on investment for each slave bought, and each one that you lose is going to end up costing you in the end.

[Zaune]

Slavery was economically efficient in an agrarian society. Which does not mean this is good.

How did we get to "whatever's economically efficient is morally good" bullshit?

I don't think the question of whether something is morally good or not really comes into it for these people. Nobody with any kind of moral scruples would be even asking whether or not slavery is economically efficient.

[Serafina]

Baffalo, all your points are valid. Slavery was a very long-term investment, but so are lots of other things - buying farmland, farming equipment, building houses on it etc., and all not without their own risks of not paying off.
Remember, if you bought a significantly large number of slaves, they'd work for you (or your descendants) the rest of their lives, and so would their children.

So owning slaves (at a time where you needed lots of manpower for farming, especially for cotton) made a lot of economical sense. It was a long-term investment that ensured that your plantation would be tended to, and that your children would still profit from it. Maybe you could not afford all your slaves at once, in which case you simply bought some of them now and hired workers until you could replace them with slaves.

Four years to return your investment isn't really that long, when we're talking about someone who owns a plantation. After all, if he didn't buy them, he'd instead have to hire workers that would cost him more in the long run and who he could not treat however he wanted.

[Simon_Jester]

Slavery was economically efficient in an agrarian society. Which does not mean this is good.

How did we get to "whatever's economically efficient is morally good" bullshit?

I didn't. Did you? If not, then who's "we?"

There can, under some conditions, be a justification for an economically efficient but prima facie immoral act. Sometimes you're stuck with a Kantian rule issue: if you never evict anyone from their home, you risk being besieged by squatters who refuse to maintain the homes or pay for the resources their homes consume. Or there may be a practical issue: if you do not evict people living upstream of a hydroelectric dam, the countryside of your nation may never be electrified, irrigation may remain unreliable, and hazardous floods may afflict people downstream endlessly. In the long run, everyone's grandchildren will be glad the dam was built.

So while on the face of it, it is cruel to drive someone from their home, it may be acceptable from a utilitarian point of view anyway.

But the larger and more universal the evil side of the act becomes, the closer it gets to becoming impossible to justify- you can't really justify putting half the people into agony so that the other half live in happiness. Slavery crosses the line, as do some other things, and many great human tragedies happen when people stop realizing the line is there.

Slavery was economically efficient in an agrarian society. Which does not mean this is good.
How did we get to "whatever's economically efficient is morally good" bullshit?

I don't think the question of whether something is morally good or not really comes into it for these people. Nobody with any kind of moral scruples would be even asking whether or not slavery is economically efficient.

From my point of view, it's worth asking as a counterfactual: do we know that slavery was doomed by its inefficiency? Or could it have survived, had we lacked social willpower to renounce it because it was evil, at bayonet-point where necessary?

[K. A. Pital]

I carefully read the debate surrouding Time on the Cross and from what I gathered, slavery was, under certain conditions, efficient.

[Ahriman238]

To be specific, the British Empire, which had been one of the most major players in the slave trade, outlawed it Febuary 23, 1807. It should be a holiday.