|
|
Post by hollie on Jun 4, 2016 14:38:30 GMT
Question 1 To determine whether or not the social construction of slavery was the cause for the Civil War, it is important to grasp the culture of the time and why African slaves were such an integral part of the Southern system of living. Look at the colonization of America when it began...the population was concentrated on the East Coast. Today we still see that evident with much more metropolis cities lining the East. With that being said, it was full of industry, factories, and a multitude of jobs. In the south colonization was later, as the farmers had to move somewhere other than the big cities to grow food. They found that certain crops that were existential to the Northern industries grew well in the South. Namely cotton, as it fueled the Northern textile industry, the South soon became a raw materials manufacturer as the North grew in industry. The farmers were at one point higher tenant farmers to tend the land for them, but that got to be too expensive when the cost came to sell the cotton up North. Slave labor offered a large cost break and that meant that the plantation owner could make more for one harvest of cotton, than he could if he had to pay other farmers. Plantations grew in size and the amount of slaves increased. The industry in the North was growing larger and they needed more cotton, the Southern plantation owners had to expand their fields to accommodate the Northern quotas, and that meant more slaves. The South had become so reliant on slave labor that it fueled their economy. Isn't it funny how this group of people were literally the reason the South had money, but were treated like crap because they had brown skin instead of white? When Lincoln stated his opinion of slave labor the South wanted a way out. If they had to give up their slaves, they wouldn't be able to survive anymore, their economy would plummet and nobody would be there to pick them up when they fell over. If they became a separate nation they could still have their slaves and the fancy way of life, and then export the cotton to the North. They were willing to secede over this system because it saved their economy. I always think of the Civil War as just one big argument between siblings. "You can't have that," "But I want it" mentality spread with slavery and although the North had slaves there were not many large plantations like in the south, and many were house slaves doing chores and duties in the house instead of the house wife doing them. When the North said that the South couldn't have slaves, the South proposed the idea of seceding, the North again said no. So in a weird way the War was also like a bet between the two. If the North won the South would give up their slaves and stay a part of the Union and if the South won they would be able to secede and carry out like nothing had happened. At its core I think the Civil War was caused by slavery because neither party fully understood the impact it had on each economy and how not having it would drastically affect both parties involved. Slavery slowly snowballed into a problem the Union saw needed to be fixed and the war was the eventual frustration of both parties letting everything out. ![]()
|
|
|
|
Post by hollie on Jun 4, 2016 14:40:08 GMT
response to tylorg033
In response, I agree slavery was all about the profitability for slave owners of both the North and South. With the encouragement and guidance of English Crown still deeply embedded into society change was going to seem, nearly impossible. As we witnessed history unfold we saw that it took almost a hundred years for African Americans to have the right to vote let alone attain solid educations or realize descent professions. In today’s American society, we can still economic differences due to the color of people. An example of this would be how the Detroit City Mayor knew and allowed the lead poisoning of water. Again, this economic situation was overlooked because of the demography of the city.
|
|
|
|
Post by wattsajengineer on Jun 4, 2016 15:42:15 GMT
Southern Whites and the Slavery System. As northern states continued to undergo rapid industrialization and saw the growth of large urban areas (NYC, PHilly, Baltimore, etc), the southern economy still relied almost entirely on agriculture. Instead of having cities and towns filled with various careers such as blacksmithing or leatherworkers, these jobs were mostly done by slaves living on the massive plantations of the south. While there were southern cities with growing industry, much of the area remained rural and populated by farmers. In the Antebellum South, the majority of whites did not actually own slaves, and the ones that did rarely had more than one or two. There were around 10,000 slaveowners that had anywhere near enough land and slaves to have something resembling a plantation. The idea of southern nobility and the aristocratic plantation culture is accurate, but it did not occur to the extent that is mostly thought to have. Most southern whites were little more than subsistence farmers living on small plots of land. As these southerns lived meager existences, the wealthy plantation class were successful into convincing them that they were within the same realm of society, and the status quo of slavery was the best thing for everyone. I think you raise an interesting and good point with this. And although Baltimore is more industrialized, that has come about more in the last 50 years than it had in the earlier past. My grandfather (74) remembers walking through the city and it, although being a city, was very reliant on the somewhat local agriculture because of the Eastern shore and the port. It is true that not all southern farmers or families owned slaves, or treated them poorly, but you are also true that the more slaves you had the higher in society you were. It's like this huge circular argument of : I have a bunch of land so I can harvest more crops, so I can make more money, so I can hold more status and property (unfortunately that included slaves), and I have more priority in society, and it continues. The Civil War may have been fought by the average southerner, but it was most definitely started by these high standing masters that had control over a lot of their surrounding society. Over all I think you raise several very interesting and good points with this post and you seem to have a intriguing take on some of these topics. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisdigi on Jun 4, 2016 16:24:00 GMT
Response to question 2 Slavery was a system of social control and a system of economic production depending on whose eyes you’re looking at it. From the slaves eyes it is a system of social control. The person enslaved knows that they are here to do work or whatever their jobs is for their owner. Based on what I have read and watch documentaries on, the slaves were no treat well at all. Instead of being taken care of, they were mistreated and not given the fundamental needs that all humans should be given. That is when the slaves will look at slavery as a system of social control and not a system of economic production. Now on the other hand, through the eyes of the owners, it was a system of economic production. They saw this a great way to make more money and to increase their production output without increasing their input. By providing the bare-necessities, they were able to maximize their production in turn making their profits much larger. From my standpoint and knowledge of the subject, slavery was both a system of social control and economic production. Response: I agree that slavery was a system of social control. However, I think that the economic factor played had more of a factor. I think slavery was a product of economic development. If the economy was still bad at the time, and the white servants were not able to go buy land and grow tobacco, there may have been more uprisings among the low class which wasn't defined much by race and more by socioeconomic status as Breen stated. Once the economy started getting better, I believe those conditions enabled slavery to advance at a far higher rate than before. Once this started, slavery became the method for economic development but was also a product of the primary economic development. In terms of social control, the idea that slaves were property manifested itself and became more than just a way for plantation owners to keep high in the economy and keep their slaves and servants working. The idea spread and turned in something a lot more sinister and inhumane.
|
|
|
|
Post by danielkogan on Jun 4, 2016 16:24:14 GMT
Response to rheajain:
After reading your response, I thought you brought up a very valid point about the idea of slave owners needing to essentially elevate themselves in the society by revealing their status through slave ownership. However, that said, I do not think that that is concrete enough of a reason to not be able to categorize slavery as a form of social and/or economic control. In my opinion, I think that a certain status achievement is basically a byproduct of slavery, not a main motive of it. Meaning, from a social standpoint, slaves knew they were caged—they had to the jobs requested by their owners, were under unfair treatment, and were certainly considered sub-par compared to an average human being. From an economic viewpoint, it is fairly simple: Slave masters literally bought a high yielding, low maintenance workforce. Such an asset enhanced farming production exponentially and allowed for larger profit margins. In all, despite the divided cultural viewpoints and status results associated with slavery, I believe social and economic control was a central dogma of the slavery era.
|
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on Jun 4, 2016 19:06:19 GMT
Response to Question 2: I believe that slavery was primarily a system of social control. While I see how slavery also benefitted economic production I view slavery as a system of social control first, which was then followed by a system of economic production. In the Breen article it talks about how, “After 1660 the Virginia legislature began to deprive black people of basic civil rights”. It also states how, “For the Negroes the original trip from Africa to the West Indies had been a terrible ordeal”. It later goes on to say how harsh the psychological trauma must have been for many of the Africans on board. From the very beginning the Africans were traumatized and broken down by their captors. We often hear stories of how the slave ships were overstuffed and many Africans died at sea because of how terrible the living conditions were onboard. After bringing the Africans to America they began to work as slaves and eventually were stripped of their own basic rights. Rights that many of us take for granted today. If a group of peoples’ rights were being stripped from them today, I would also look at it from the standpoint of social control. Now my answer changes a bit depending on the perspective that you are looking at it from. However, right from the start we see how the Africans are classified as “slaves” and the owner is classified as “master”. This already shows social control by having one man be more powerful and owning other men. The fact that slaves had to call a man “master” is a showing of social control that ran deep in the south. This being said, I do think that if you are a “master” who owns many slaves on a plantation, you would have an easier time explaining how it is a system of economic production over a system of social control. The argument could be made that slaves were essential to the economy in the south and without them the economy would crash. Slaves work without wage and there are an abundance of them. If all of a sudden an abundance of free labor was replaced with workers who needed a living wage, the economy would surely be different. However, I still believe that slavery was a system of social control over a system of economic production. I like your comment about how you think that slavery was more of a system of social control rather than an economic production because of the terms "slave" and "master". And yes, because they worked without paid, they were essential for the south economy, however, immigrants in the North also went into the same labor as the slaves and slowly slavery died out in the north. So indeed, the economy did become different and the South couldve done the same but I think that they really wanted to hold on to slavery because it's a "traditional culture" much rather than they were "economic products". |
|
|
|
Post by rheajain on Jun 4, 2016 19:28:56 GMT
Question 1
Slavery caused the Civil War due to the sheer numbers of slaves working plantations and farms in both the North and South. Particularly in the South, slaves outnumbered their Masters by the hundreds and continued to produce more slaves once purchased by their Master that was the intention that the majority of Southern white owners perceived as an economic way of profiting instigating them to secede from the Union if necessary to precede with business as usual. Slave labor profited only the Masters of slaves who brutally continued to maintain a quota of production at any cost.
Absolutely the roots of slavery had everything to do with the Civil War. The election of Lincoln was similar to the election we face now as a nation my example is Donald Trump a Republican just as Lincoln was, but Lincoln had just ousted the Whigs and was a wild card that the abolitionists had no indication as to what he meaning Lincoln was going to do with this national question of slavery. Lincoln finally declared his position only two weeks before he took the oath of office for the Presidency. This is what the Antebellum Southern white owners were waiting for and had been preparing for State Constitutions in the previous months incorporating the original Constitution as their basis of maintain slavery.
I believe that this Country is just as frustrated today as they were in 1860 and we as a Nation need to change the perceptions that were put in place by our descendants. I believe today that depending upon what economic statuses people are in are more relevant in today’s current society than what color their skin is .Although women today still make 30% less money than men and have fewer numbers in those six figure paying positions. I agree that the roots of slavery had everything to do with the Civil War. I also agree with the comparison of our current election with the election of Lincoln. There is no doubt that we are just as frustrated now as we were back then because our nation is divided up – just not as bad – just like back then. We still have discrimination (racial and sexist) and the economy is making matter worse. I don’t believe that we can change our perception as a whole and a nation because there will always be a Trump to come in and ruin what we have got. The Civil War era’s effects still can be seen today as it has had a detrimental output on our society. |
|
|
|
Post by gabriellerabadi on Jun 4, 2016 19:38:45 GMT
In my opinion, slavery was both a tool for social control as well as a platform for economic production. Slavery allowed whites to control the black population while at the same time it allowed them to have a cheap labor force to make goods. This view does change however when you look at it from either a slaves or masters point of view. From a slave’s point of view, slavery was used as a social control tool in order to control them by whites. But if you asked a slave master, they thought it as a tool for economic production. Slave owners can make more products by using this cheap labor force. For example, in the Breen article, it talks about how the labor force in the state of Virginia became more stable. We can infer that slavery made the labor force more stable. I don’t condone the use of slaves in any situation or for any reason. However, I do understand why slaves were used as a labor force. Using black slaves instead of whites was far more cheaper and it led to more money for the slave owners. Rob, I agree with you thinking that slavery was both for social control and economic betterment. Do you believe that one reasoning is more prominent than the other? For instance, I thought that social control was the primary reasoning for slavery (even if many did not want to admit it) and economic benefits were kind of a secondary reasoning. Also there is a reason behind why using black slaves was cheaper as compared to using white because black people were not equal to whites and therefore did not deserve the same kind of benefits. Do you also believe that saying that slavery happened only for economic benefit is a copout? I think slavery was mainly because of racist intentions and by saying that it was driven by profit is a distractor from the actual reasoning. Good job on the post! Gabrielle |
|
|
|
Post by robgallagher on Jun 4, 2016 20:15:25 GMT
Question 1
Slavery caused the Civil War due to the sheer numbers of slaves working plantations and farms in both the North and South. Particularly in the South, slaves outnumbered their Masters by the hundreds and continued to produce more slaves once purchased by their Master that was the intention that the majority of Southern white owners perceived as an economic way of profiting instigating them to secede from the Union if necessary to precede with business as usual. Slave labor profited only the Masters of slaves who brutally continued to maintain a quota of production at any cost.
Absolutely the roots of slavery had everything to do with the Civil War. The election of Lincoln was similar to the election we face now as a nation my example is Donald Trump a Republican just as Lincoln was, but Lincoln had just ousted the Whigs and was a wild card that the abolitionists had no indication as to what he meaning Lincoln was going to do with this national question of slavery. Lincoln finally declared his position only two weeks before he took the oath of office for the Presidency. This is what the Antebellum Southern white owners were waiting for and had been preparing for State Constitutions in the previous months incorporating the original Constitution as their basis of maintain slavery.
I believe that this Country is just as frustrated today as they were in 1860 and we as a Nation need to change the perceptions that were put in place by our descendants. I believe today that depending upon what economic statuses people are in are more relevant in today’s current society than what color their skin is .Although women today still make 30% less money than men and have fewer numbers in those six figure paying positions. There were many reasons why the civil war erupted, but perhaps the biggest reason was the issue of slavery.I agree with you that the slavery was the main cause of the civil war. Everyone disagreed with slavery going back towards when the founding fathers were coming up with the constitution. They just brushed aside the issue until Abraham Lincoln became president and tensions just erupted into war. The south didn't agree with the north with slavery and war erupted. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie Weiner on Jun 4, 2016 21:35:39 GMT
Question 1
Slavery caused the Civil War due to the sheer numbers of slaves working plantations and farms in both the North and South. Particularly in the South, slaves outnumbered their Masters by the hundreds and continued to produce more slaves once purchased by their Master that was the intention that the majority of Southern white owners perceived as an economic way of profiting instigating them to secede from the Union if necessary to precede with business as usual. Slave labor profited only the Masters of slaves who brutally continued to maintain a quota of production at any cost.
Absolutely the roots of slavery had everything to do with the Civil War. The election of Lincoln was similar to the election we face now as a nation my example is Donald Trump a Republican just as Lincoln was, but Lincoln had just ousted the Whigs and was a wild card that the abolitionists had no indication as to what he meaning Lincoln was going to do with this national question of slavery. Lincoln finally declared his position only two weeks before he took the oath of office for the Presidency. This is what the Antebellum Southern white owners were waiting for and had been preparing for State Constitutions in the previous months incorporating the original Constitution as their basis of maintain slavery.
I believe that this Country is just as frustrated today as they were in 1860 and we as a Nation need to change the perceptions that were put in place by our descendants. I believe today that depending upon what economic statuses people are in are more relevant in today’s current society than what color their skin is .Although women today still make 30% less money than men and have fewer numbers in those six figure paying positions. I agree that the roots of slavery had everything to do with the Civil War. I also agree with the comparison of our current election with the election of Lincoln. There is no doubt that we are just as frustrated now as we were back then because our nation is divided up – just not as bad – just like back then. We still have discrimination (racial and sexist) and the economy is making matter worse. I don’t believe that we can change our perception as a whole and a nation because there will always be a Trump to come in and ruin what we have got. The Civil War era’s effects still can be seen today as it has had a detrimental output on our society. |
|
|
|
Post by blweaver215 on Jun 4, 2016 22:17:58 GMT
In my own opinion I believe that slavery was more about social control and the idea of economic benefit is a complete copout. From the slave's perspective, they know that it is about social control and from the slave owners perspective, they may tell themselves that it is for economic benefit but it is based off of a white hierarchy. Many slave owners during that time felt that they owned black people because they did not see them as human, but as capital or an investment. In "Corner Stone" Speech by Alexander Stephens, he states that black and white people are not equal and that is just a known fact; however, he also stated that slavery was a violation against human rights and should have been abolished over time. When there is this idea that one race is above the other a grey area is created in what is ethically acceptable.In the reading "A Changing Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia" T.H. Been also discusses the topic of hierarchy and economics and how that tied into slavery. He stated that "whites saw Negros as property to be exploited" which made me think of how many humans view animal rights. We love animals, we even have many of them as pets; we find them fascinating, we study them, even protect them but we would not say that their lives are more important than a humans. We believe on the food chain, humans are at the top and animals are below us. In times before industrialization, many humans believed that they are above animals and therefore we could use animals for labor. Using them for economic benefit was morally and ethically okay to them because their lives were not equivalent to humans, they were just simply commodities. The problem was that many people viewed the Africans as this way and if people believed that Africans were at the same level as animals, then the idea of labor is not just an economic choice but a hierarchy choice, a power play. They thought it was an ethical green light to use them for slavery because their lives were not as important as white peoples. In my opinion, the idea of social control was the main proponent of slavery and economic benefit was just an added bonus. Response: I agree that slavery was more about social control than the idea of economic benefit. It was also nice to hear about the difference between a perspective of a slave and that of a master. I think that this plays a vital role in understanding slavery from both sides. The idea that many slave owners did not see their slaves as humans also helps to back up the statement that slavery was more about social control. Just because of this fact alone it is easy to see that the slave owners wanted to have control over their slaves. They did not want their slaves to have rights and they wanted to treat them as animals. Your statement about comparing animals to slaves was also very powerful. In light of of the whole gorilla incident at the view, it was a perfect example of how those zoo keepers believed that the little boy's life was more important than the gorilla's. I do not necessarily have an opinion on the whole incident, however, it shows that their are very little things in this world that are seen more important than a human's life, and the slave owners did not view their slaves' lives as important as their own. |
|
