Is hiring a slave considered an evil act ?

[thejeff]

Can we please lose the false equivalence?

I know, government and taxes are horrible evils, and Roman slavery was so much better than living in the modern US.

Except for the parts where that's all b&#@%%%~. Why would a Roman slave buy himself free, since he's still be "working for the state" anyway?
Other than the whole parts that actually make him a slave - the whims of his master, the punishments, the rape, all the other abuses that even privileged Roman slaves could suffer.
Not to mention the non-privileged Roman slaves.

[Charon's Little Helper]

thejeff wrote:

Can we please lose the false equivalence?

I know, government and taxes are horrible evils.

I was actually just using it as a proof that that particular definition of slavery was horrible. I mentioned it because it obviously ISN'T slavery despite fitting that definition.

[Jane "The Knife"]

thejeff wrote:

Can we please lose the false equivalence?

I know, government and taxes are horrible evils, and Roman slavery was so much better than living in the modern US.

Except for the parts where that's all b+!+%!!~. Why would a Roman slave buy himself free, since he's still be "working for the state" anyway?
Other than the whole parts that actually make him a slave - the whims of his master, the punishments, the rape, all the other abuses that even privileged Roman slaves could suffer.
Not to mention the non-privileged Roman slaves.

Please define "slave".

1. thralldom, enthrallment. Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. Bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor: in bondage to a cruel master. Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty: penal servitude.

Does the definition of slavery include:
a)Conscripts
b)Bondsmen
c)Janissaries
d)Convicts
e)Captives taken in battle

if it does not, what part of the definition excludes them?

[thejeff]

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Can we please lose the false equivalence?

I know, government and taxes are horrible evils, and Roman slavery was so much better than living in the modern US.

Except for the parts where that's all b+!+%!!~. Why would a Roman slave buy himself free, since he's still be "working for the state" anyway?
Other than the whole parts that actually make him a slave - the whims of his master, the punishments, the rape, all the other abuses that even privileged Roman slaves could suffer.
Not to mention the non-privileged Roman slaves.

Please define "slave".

1. thralldom, enthrallment. Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. Bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor: in bondage to a cruel master. Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty: penal servitude.

Does the definition of slavery include:
a)Conscripts
b)Bondsmen
c)Janissaries
d)Convicts
e)Captives taken in battle

if it does not, what part of the definition excludes them.

In pretty much every case, the answer is "It depends". It's tricky and complicated.

I'd include "serf" in the list of questionables. And throughout much of history "women".

It does not however include "taxpayers" as a general class. At least not in the modern US.

[Jessica Price]

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

Envall wrote:

We are all forced to obey rules by law enforcement.

I guess there are a lot of different things dropped into the "slave" category in each readers mind.

We would need to define the Laws/Customs of slaves and slavery as they appear in the game world setting.

Historically they have been very different...just compare a 17th century plantation worker in the new world with a 17th century Janissary - and that difference is just location!

What if the Qadirians (somewhat modeled after the Turks) actually have something like Janissaries?

Is it against the law in Qadira to enslave worshippers of Sarenrae?

There's a little bit about how the Keleshites view slavery in Inner Sea Races, and there's more coming in the Qadira book.

In essence: technically, Qadiran law (which has a heavy Sarenite religious basis) doesn't recognize ownership of people--a slave is defined as someone whose labor is owned, 100%, by another person. You can buy and sell their contract, but not the person. There are two types of slavery, one of which is temporary and one of which is permanent. The temporary sort is basically indentured servitude: you agree to a term of service in which you work for free for a set period of time to pay off a debt or in trade for something (such as a Keleshite citizen's patronage and sponsorship to become a citizen yourself, if you're a foreigner). The permanent sort is basically throwing yourself on the mercy of another party and saying I agree to submit to your authority and serve you for the rest of your life in return for your protection. The former is revocable (if you suddenly come up with the money to pay off your debt, you can terminate your service agreement), while the latter is not. But in both cases, it's supposedly voluntary, at least initially. Prisoners of war aren't supposed to be enslaved, the children of slaves aren't supposed to be slaves, etc.

Of course, that's what's on the books.

In practice, it's not as clean. Prisoners of war frequently are enslaved, children of slaves are often kept in slavery, etc. There's not always a clear-cut line between selling a contract and selling a person. And so on. There are supposed to be safeguards against mistreatment of slaves, but not everyone respects them.

So, it's not against the law to enslave other Sarenites, at least not if everyone's following the rules, but given that enforcement of the rules is lax, it's frowned upon--or at least, being Sarenite means you at least have a better chance at receiving those protections.

[Tacticslion]

^ This is actually really awesome, as it syncs up with our Kingmaker stuff quite well. Though the King is a Pantheonist (with a leaning toward Erastil), the Queen is a devout Saranite (and was, in fact, the High Priest until becoming Queen) from "somewhere south" - implied, in retrospect*, to be somewhere near Taldor, with a faith from even further south than that.

With that being a strong thematic element from Qadira, and her faith and history hypothetically stemming from that region, moving north through Taldor, that would lend itself to our current understanding and refinement of the slavery laws in Harathia.

I'd be inclined to think about terming things similarly - that a person cannot be bought (as is evidenced by their retaining of all protections of any citizen) but their labor can be.

Thanks! That's a really cool bit of lore I was missing!

* When we first started Kingmaker, it was our first Pathfinder after 3.5, so we didn't know Golarion very well at the time.

[Jessica Price]

Welp, check out the December Qadira book. </shameless plug>

[Tacticslion]

Sounds awesome! :D

[Mathius]

I think the big difference between slavery and restricted freedom is the concept of personhood. If a person is denied their personhood then they are slave. I do not denying personhood to a thinking being is ever good. By this definition slavery is never good.

That said being in bondage to the government or an individual is not slavery unless it is also dehumanizing. An argument can be had about bondage always being dehumanizing.

One can also say that some governments enslave most of their populations.

[Freehold DM]

Jessica Price wrote:

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

Envall wrote:

We are all forced to obey rules by law enforcement.

I guess there are a lot of different things dropped into the "slave" category in each readers mind.

We would need to define the Laws/Customs of slaves and slavery as they appear in the game world setting.

Historically they have been very different...just compare a 17th century plantation worker in the new world with a 17th century Janissary - and that difference is just location!

What if the Qadirians (somewhat modeled after the Turks) actually have something like Janissaries?

Is it against the law in Qadira to enslave worshippers of Sarenrae?

There's a little bit about how the Keleshites view slavery in Inner Sea Races, and there's more coming in the Qadira book.

In essence: technically, Qadiran law (which has a heavy Sarenite religious basis) doesn't recognize ownership of people--a slave is defined as someone whose labor is owned, 100%, by another person. You can buy and sell their contract, but not the person. There are two types of slavery, one of which is temporary and one of which is permanent. The temporary sort is basically indentured servitude: you agree to a term of service in which you work for free for a set period of time to pay off a debt or in trade for something (such as a Keleshite citizen's patronage and sponsorship to become a citizen yourself, if you're a foreigner). The permanent sort is basically throwing yourself on the mercy of another party and saying I agree to submit to your authority and serve you for the rest of your life in return for your protection. The former is revocable (if you suddenly come up with the money to pay off your debt, you can terminate your service agreement), while the latter is not. But in both cases, it's supposedly voluntary, at least initially. Prisoners of war aren't supposed to be enslaved, the children of slaves aren't supposed to be slaves, etc.

Of course, that's what's on the books.

In practice, it's...

mmmm....interesting.

[Hitdice]

That is interesting.

[Jane "The Knife"]

thejeff wrote:

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Can we please lose the false equivalence?

I know, government and taxes are horrible evils, and Roman slavery was so much better than living in the modern US.

Except for the parts where that's all b+!+%!!~. Why would a Roman slave buy himself free, since he's still be "working for the state" anyway?
Other than the whole parts that actually make him a slave - the whims of his master, the punishments, the rape, all the other abuses that even privileged Roman slaves could suffer.
Not to mention the non-privileged Roman slaves.

Please define "slave".

1. thralldom, enthrallment. Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. Bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor: in bondage to a cruel master. Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty: penal servitude.

Does the definition of slavery include:
a)Conscripts
b)Bondsmen
c)Janissaries
d)Convicts
e)Captives taken in battle

if it does not, what part of the definition excludes them.

In pretty much every case, the answer is "It depends". It's tricky and complicated.

I'd include "serf" in the list of questionables. And throughout much of history "women".

It does not however include "taxpayers" as a general class. At least not in the modern US.

f) serf

g) peasant
h) helot

the term "slave" is itself "tricky and complicated".

I (personally) trace it's roots to the "agricultural revolution" and the introduction of class distinctions in humanity. Everyone not in charge of their "group" is (to some extent) in servitude to those persons who are (in charge). We are all "slaves to the state". Some of us just notice it more than others...

[thejeff]

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

the term "slave" is itself "tricky and complicated".

I (personally) trace it's roots to the "agricultural revolution" and the introduction of class distinctions in humanity. Everyone not in charge of their "group" is (to some extent) in servitude to those persons who are (in charge). We are all "slaves to the state". Some of us just notice it more than others...

I agree that it's tricky and complicated, but if you extend it that far, it becomes meaningless. If everyone is a slave, then you lose the distinction that made us come up with the term in the first place.

There's a difference between the plantation slave owner and the field slave. And it's a qualitative difference, even if the owner still has to follow laws and pay taxes.

[Jane "The Knife"]

thejeff wrote:

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

the term "slave" is itself "tricky and complicated".

I (personally) trace it's roots to the "agricultural revolution" and the introduction of class distinctions in humanity. Everyone not in charge of their "group" is (to some extent) in servitude to those persons who are (in charge). We are all "slaves to the state". Some of us just notice it more than others...

I agree that it's tricky and complicated, but if you extend it that far, it becomes meaningless. If everyone is a slave, then you lose the distinction that made us come up with the term in the first place.

There's a difference between the plantation slave owner and the field slave. And it's a qualitative difference, even if the owner still has to follow laws and pay taxes.

and a difference between "Convict" and "Trustee"...

Is a "Conscript" a "slave"?

Is someone in bondage for 7 years a "slave"?

Is someone working a field in North Korea a "field slave"?

Janissaries were paid a salary and given a retirement after service... but the "free" (conscript) troops were given neither (and still required to serve in the army, often in much worse conditions). Yet Janissaries were slaves (taken from their families at an age of about 7).

[Weirdo]

Taxes don't make me a slave to my government. Taxes are a fee that I pay in order to enjoy valuable public services like roads, sanitation, education, physical security, and health care. Not everyone gets equal value for taxes, or equal ability to move to a country that gives you better value for taxes, but that's a problem with implementation rather than theory.

Fergie wrote:

Lawful Good does not equal Super Good or the Most Good of the alignment spectrum. It is Goodness AND Lawful behavior. As indicated in the rules of the game we are discussing, Lawful is associated with obedience, not freedom. Freedom is a virtue of Chaos. You will note that no one ever said any variation of Chaotic alignment would be in favor of institutional slavery.

I agree that LG isn't necessarily opposed to the loss of freedom involved in slavery. After all, LG is perfectly consistent with other extreme limitations on freedom from imprisonment of criminals to strict religious orders.

But I think the conflict between LG and slavery is not an issue of freedom but of dignity - or like Mathias said, personhood. It sounds like Tacticslion's group worked very hard to preserve the personhood of slaves in their campaign, and Qadira is trying but not actually succeeding - which seems pretty realistic to me based on the way a significant subset of people tend to abuse power and exploit others.

[Goth Guru]

Snowblind wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

While slavery may be considered evil in modern society, it was not considered evil for much of history is would not likely be considered evil in in-game cultures that do allow it.

Lets look at, for example, classical Greece. We consider Athens to have been an enlightened society, yet it was the social norm for the vast majority of households to own one or more slaves.

If the in-game society considers slaves a part of the social norm, using or even owning slaves would not be considered evil in that society.

Many families in Athens also put their unwanted babies inside pots and left them out beside the road to die from starvation and exposure. This was considered to be morally acceptable, because technically the families weren't murdering the children (apparently, placing them in mortal danger intentionally doesn't count).

I don't know about you personally, but I don't consider Athens' society to be "enlightened".

[sarcasm]That worked so well for Oedipus's parents[/sarcasm]

Fake slavery, such as in "The skin game" is probably the only form acceptable to that deity. Maybe their manacles are actually bracers +2 that they can remove or detach from chains at any time. Some apparent plantations were actually way stations for the underground railroad.

You just need a GM who can keep this meta knowledge from the NPCs. Many slavers and slave owners really believe slaves are idiots who like being slaves. Most is how I would GM it.

[Jane "The Knife"]

Weirdo wrote:

Taxes don't make me a slave to my government. Taxes are a fee that I pay in order to enjoy valuable public services like roads, sanitation, education, physical security, and health care. Not everyone gets equal value for taxes, or equal ability to move to a country that gives you better value for taxes, but that's a problem with implementation rather than theory.

Fergie wrote:

Lawful Good does not equal Super Good or the Most Good of the alignment spectrum. It is Goodness AND Lawful behavior. As indicated in the rules of the game we are discussing, Lawful is associated with obedience, not freedom. Freedom is a virtue of Chaos. You will note that no one ever said any variation of Chaotic alignment would be in favor of institutional slavery.

I agree that LG isn't necessarily opposed to the loss of freedom involved in slavery. After all, LG is perfectly consistent with other extreme limitations on freedom from imprisonment of criminals to strict religious orders.

But I think the conflict between LG and slavery is not an issue of freedom but of dignity - or like Mathias said, personhood. It sounds like Tacticslion's group worked very hard to preserve the personhood of slaves in their campaign, and Qadira is trying but not actually succeeding - which seems pretty realistic to me based on the way a significant subset of people tend to abuse power and exploit others.

Taxes... Tribute. Same thing.

"Taxes are a fee that I pay in order to enjoy ..." life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sometimes they are disguised as a fee for services, paid "...in order to enjoy valuable public services like roads, sanitation, education, physical security, and health care." But don't deceive yourself. Historically, taxes are paid to the government to prevent "the government" from taking your possessions. Dress it up with fancy language all you want, it still comes down to the same thing. Pay up or else.... All of the things listed above can (and often were) provided by non-government entities better, faster and cheaper than a government can provide them. Unless you are one of "the nobles" (i.e. the guys in charge). It's really just a "Protection Racket". Pay up or suffer... At best you get to help pick the group "in the Big House" - or you get to influence which "plantation" you are owned by. But mostly you have no way to effect this - unless you change your citizenship (change "plantations").

One Spartan Helot to another... "Leonidas died for our freedom! To keep us from being Persian slaves!" ...

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

[Hitdice]

Throwing someone in the basement of your castle until they starve to death just because you want to actually is worse tyranny than that, though. Running someone through with a sword because they wouldn't step out of your way is, too. Not to mention (somewhat back on topic) owning another person.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Veilgn wrote:

For cayden thingy. I buy slave so I could save him. But I need slave help to release other slave in my way.

If you really say that, you really don't get what it means to be a cleric of a god. A god isn't something you just attach to your class name to pick up spells and a couple of domains.

It represents a commitment to that god's theology, and the commitment to spreading it.

There really is no way to square being the cleric of a god of liberation by buying a person into your personal bondage. Maybe you're not really following the right god for your character concept.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”

― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Heinlein was a hypocrite. He railed against social welfare programs despite having used those very same programs to keep himself out of destitution.

[thejeff]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”

― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Heinlein was a hypocrite. He railed against social welfare programs despite having used those very same programs to keep himself out of destitution.

Though the context of Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a little different. I haven't read it in years, but IIRC though it's called a government, Luna's run more like one of those old company towns.

Edit: But yeah, as much as I like some of Heinlein's stuff, the libertarian/anti-government slant gets really old really fast.

[Jane "The Knife"]

I wonder if the Andorans crew their Grey Corsairs with Naval Press-Gangs... and if they would even see the irony if doing it...

it would put "The Whiskey Rebellion" into a new light...

[captain yesterday]

They don't press gang.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

I (personally) trace it's roots to the "agricultural revolution" and the introduction of class distinctions in humanity. Everyone not in charge of their "group" is (to some extent) in servitude to those persons who are (in charge). We are all "slaves to the state". Some of us just notice it more than others...

The first nail in the coffin of American slavery was the construction of Paterson, New Jersy, the first planned industrial town in the newly minted United States. Industrialisation is essentially the reason slavery ended in the North, because while in slavery you have to keep heavy power tools away from your slaves, for industry it makes much more sense to simply pay them a wage sufficient for them to eke out a living and take care of their own upkeep.

The agricultural revolution established the notions of landed property, including the notions of inheritance, which in turn led to the institution of patriarchy and status determined by control of property as opposed to skill in hunting and gathering.

It would be the industrial revolution however, that would set up workers as a class, and lead to the unending struggle between the working class and the owning class.

[thejeff]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

It would be the industrial revolution however, that would set up workers as a class, and lead to the unending struggle between the working class and the owning class.

As opposed to the unending struggle between the peasant class and the noble class, which was somehow fundamentally different.

Certainly different in detail, but still very much working vs owning.

[The Raven Black]

Goes to show that unending is not all it is cracked up to be :-)

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

thejeff wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

It would be the industrial revolution however, that would set up workers as a class, and lead to the unending struggle between the working class and the owning class.

As opposed to the unending struggle between the peasant class and the noble class, which was somehow fundamentally different.

Certainly different in detail, but still very much working vs owning.

It's considerably different. In the former peasant/landowner paradigm, there literally is no such thing as a middle class between the land barons and the serfs.

You're also forgetting one very important difference. Unlike agriculture, industry requires a significant population of skilled workers and artisans who essentially form an intermediary economic class. This had already begun somewhat with the estabishment of towns and a merchant class, but industrialisation kicks it into high gear.

The other big thing is the greater empowerment of the individual. Removing one disobediant serf from a plantation doesn't hurt the owner nearly as much as one well placed spanner in an industrial works. Industrial workers have a greater ability to sabotage production if they're unhappy. It's why you don't have things such as 40 hour work weeks, and overtime until you had the major struggles this empowerment enables.

The age of automation however will most likely reverse many of labor's gains. For this very reason.. skill becomes the property of the machine and it's operator as opposed to a team of workers.

[The Raven Black]

This looks like a nice place to mention that there were far more holidays (in the root meaning of holy days when people celebrated a saint and thus did not have time to work) during the middle-ages

[Charon's Little Helper]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The first nail in the coffin of American slavery was the construction of Paterson, New Jersy, the first planned industrial town in the newly minted United States. Industrialisation is essentially the reason slavery ended in the North, because while in slavery you have to keep heavy power tools away from your slaves, for industry it makes much more sense to simply pay them a wage sufficient for them to eke out a living and take care of their own upkeep.

Yes, though as a counterpoint, it was the invention of the cotton gin which DRASTICALLY increased the African slave trade. It made cotton far more profitable, and cotton is pretty much the epitome of a high labor/low skill crop.

But once a job is skilled and/or mechanized, slave labor really isn't the way to go even from a pure economic sense - ignoring the morality aspect entirely.

[thejeff]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

It would be the industrial revolution however, that would set up workers as a class, and lead to the unending struggle between the working class and the owning class.

As opposed to the unending struggle between the peasant class and the noble class, which was somehow fundamentally different.

Certainly different in detail, but still very much working vs owning.

It's considerably different. In the former peasant/landowner paradigm, there literally is no such thing as a middle class between the land barons and the serfs.

You're also forgetting one very important difference. Unlike agriculture, industry requires a significant population of skilled workers and artisans who essentially form an intermediary economic class. This had already begun somewhat with the estabishment of towns and a merchant class, but industrialisation kicks it into high gear.

The other big thing is the greater empowerment of the individual. Removing one disobediant serf from a plantation doesn't hurt the owner nearly as much as one well placed spanner in an industrial works. Industrial workers have a greater ability to sabotage production if they're unhappy. It's why you don't have things such as 40 hour work weeks, and overtime until you had the major struggles this empowerment enables.

The age of automation however will most likely reverse many of labor's gains. For this very reason.. skill becomes the property of the machine and it's operator as opposed to a team of workers.

OTOH, you also didn't have 40 hour work weeks and overtime until you had surplus labor. That is until productivity rose high enough that you didn't need all your workers just for agriculture and basic needs.

Pre-industrial farmers couldn't work less because they wouldn't grow enough to support the population. Increased population increased the labor supply, but also increased the mouths to feed.
Nor, for that matter, is farming actually unskilled labor, even primitive farming.
I'll certainly grant that sabotage is easier.

For all practical purposes though, the early industrial working class isn't "middle class" and weren't treated or paid as such until the mid-twentieth century. Until after that struggle.

I'll grant the practical differences, though. The moral difference really doesn't exist though. There was a struggle between one set of exploited workers and abusive owners and later another struggle between a different set of exploited workers and abusive owners. That the later one was more successful doesn't change that the basic struggle existed before.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The first nail in the coffin of American slavery was the construction of Paterson, New Jersy, the first planned industrial town in the newly minted United States. Industrialisation is essentially the reason slavery ended in the North, because while in slavery you have to keep heavy power tools away from your slaves, for industry it makes much more sense to simply pay them a wage sufficient for them to eke out a living and take care of their own upkeep.

Yes, though as a counterpoint, it was the invention of the cotton gin which DRASTICALLY increased the African slave trade. It made cotton far more profitable, and cotton is pretty much the epitome of a high labor/low skill crop.

But once a job is skilled and/or mechanized, slave labor really isn't the way to go even from a pure economic sense - ignoring the morality aspect entirely.

YES! Someone gets it. The reason that slavery was abolished rides on economics, not morality. In fact, economics is pretty much the main driver of most of history.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The first nail in the coffin of American slavery was the construction of Paterson, New Jersy, the first planned industrial town in the newly minted United States. Industrialisation is essentially the reason slavery ended in the North, because while in slavery you have to keep heavy power tools away from your slaves, for industry it makes much more sense to simply pay them a wage sufficient for them to eke out a living and take care of their own upkeep.

Yes, though as a counterpoint, it was the invention of the cotton gin which DRASTICALLY increased the African slave trade. It made cotton far more profitable, and cotton is pretty much the epitome of a high labor/low skill crop.

But once a job is skilled and/or mechanized, slave labor really isn't the way to go even from a pure economic sense - ignoring the morality aspect entirely.

YES! Someone gets it. The reason that slavery was abolished rides on economics, not morality. In fact, economics is pretty much the main driver of most of history.

I would say that it's a major factor, but there is too much which is done both historically and at present even when it hurts economically for me to consider it THE main driver. Like The Civil War. Going purely by economics, slavery should have lasted for another few decades (though possibly in a more limited form) and certainly wasn't worth the economic cost of that war to stop.

I will agree that many people discount economics too much when studying history.

[The Sword]

There is sometimes a confusion between the abolition of slave trade and slavery. The former occurred much earlier than the latter and was driven by a metropolitan elite increasingly aware of events in the colonies and concerned with personal and national morality.

[thejeff]

The Sword wrote:

There is sometimes a confusion between the abolition of slave trade and slavery. The former occurred much earlier than the latter and was driven by a metropolitan elite increasingly aware of events in the colonies and concerned with personal and national morality.

The external slave trade was actually abolished as early as Constitutionally allowed. A compromise to get the Constitution adopted banned it from being blocked for 20 years. As soon as that expired, it was banned.

Of course, that led to more profit in breeding and selling slaves internally.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a post and response to it. Commentary actually endorsing treating real people as possessions really is not OK.

[thejeff]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The first nail in the coffin of American slavery was the construction of Paterson, New Jersy, the first planned industrial town in the newly minted United States. Industrialisation is essentially the reason slavery ended in the North, because while in slavery you have to keep heavy power tools away from your slaves, for industry it makes much more sense to simply pay them a wage sufficient for them to eke out a living and take care of their own upkeep.

Yes, though as a counterpoint, it was the invention of the cotton gin which DRASTICALLY increased the African slave trade. It made cotton far more profitable, and cotton is pretty much the epitome of a high labor/low skill crop.

But once a job is skilled and/or mechanized, slave labor really isn't the way to go even from a pure economic sense - ignoring the morality aspect entirely.

YES! Someone gets it. The reason that slavery was abolished rides on economics, not morality. In fact, economics is pretty much the main driver of most of history.

Economics is a big deal. It certainly changes what is possible.

OTOH, I'm deeply skeptical of arguments it was purely economic and slavery would have ended about the same time anyway. Strikes me as post-hoc reasoning.
No need to worry about moral problems or anything. The inexorable forces of economic necessity will take care of it.
And yet, previous forms of slavery have included skilled labor. Early industrial working conditions certainly involved horrible abuses. Still do in many countries. Are economic conditions really so different that outright slaves couldn't do mine work? Or mill work? Were conditions in company towns really that far away?
Hell, does modern prison labor not prove you can basically force people to do at semi-skilled manufacturing?

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

thejeff wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The first nail in the coffin of American slavery was the construction of Paterson, New Jersy, the first planned industrial town in the newly minted United States. Industrialisation is essentially the reason slavery ended in the North, because while in slavery you have to keep heavy power tools away from your slaves, for industry it makes much more sense to simply pay them a wage sufficient for them to eke out a living and take care of their own upkeep.

Yes, though as a counterpoint, it was the invention of the cotton gin which DRASTICALLY increased the African slave trade. It made cotton far more profitable, and cotton is pretty much the epitome of a high labor/low skill crop.

But once a job is skilled and/or mechanized, slave labor really isn't the way to go even from a pure economic sense - ignoring the morality aspect entirely.

YES! Someone gets it. The reason that slavery was abolished rides on economics, not morality. In fact, economics is pretty much the main driver of most of history.

Economics is a big deal. It certainly changes what is possible.

OTOH, I'm deeply skeptical of arguments it was purely economic and slavery would have ended about the same time anyway. Strikes me as post-hoc reasoning.

No need to worry about moral problems or anything. The inexorable forces of economic necessity will take care of it.
And yet, previous forms of slavery have included skilled labor. Early industrial working conditions certainly involved horrible abuses. Still do in many countries. Are economic conditions really so different that outright slaves couldn't do mine work? Or mill work? Were conditions in company towns really that far away?
Hell, does modern prison labor not prove you can basically force people to do at semi-skilled manufacturing?

The impetous that led to the Civil War was economic tension between a rapidly industrializing North and a South whose economy was still primarily agrarian. Slaves were escaping from Southern Plantations and being welcomed as exploited underpaid labor in the factories of the North. The South wanted escaped slaves returned from the North when they were found. The Northern factory owners for their own self interests, lobbied against those laws. With the South unable to import replacement slaves through imports, this became a major bone of contention.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

thejeff wrote:

Hell, does modern prison labor not prove you can basically force people to do at semi-skilled manufacturing?

What's done as prison labor is tolerated because of the american perception on how crime should be punished. Trying to impose the same conditions on the general population, however isn't nearly as workable, nor as profitable.

[thejeff]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The first nail in the coffin of American slavery was the construction of Paterson, New Jersy, the first planned industrial town in the newly minted United States. Industrialisation is essentially the reason slavery ended in the North, because while in slavery you have to keep heavy power tools away from your slaves, for industry it makes much more sense to simply pay them a wage sufficient for them to eke out a living and take care of their own upkeep.

Yes, though as a counterpoint, it was the invention of the cotton gin which DRASTICALLY increased the African slave trade. It made cotton far more profitable, and cotton is pretty much the epitome of a high labor/low skill crop.

But once a job is skilled and/or mechanized, slave labor really isn't the way to go even from a pure economic sense - ignoring the morality aspect entirely.

YES! Someone gets it. The reason that slavery was abolished rides on economics, not morality. In fact, economics is pretty much the main driver of most of history.

Economics is a big deal. It certainly changes what is possible.

OTOH, I'm deeply skeptical of arguments it was purely economic and slavery would have ended about the same time anyway. Strikes me as post-hoc reasoning.

No need to worry about moral problems or anything. The inexorable forces of economic necessity will take care of it.
And yet, previous forms of slavery have included skilled labor. Early industrial working conditions certainly involved horrible abuses. Still do in many countries. Are economic conditions really so different that outright slaves couldn't do mine work? Or mill work? Were conditions in company towns really that far away?
Hell, does modern prison labor not prove you can basically force people to do at semi-skilled manufacturing?

The impetous that led to the Civil War was economic tension between a rapidly industrializing North and a South whose economy was still primarily agrarian. Slaves were escaping from Southern Plantations and being welcomed as exploited underpaid labor in the factories of the North. The South wanted escaped slaves returned from the North when they were found. The Northern factory owners for their own self interests, lobbied against those laws. With the South unable to import replacement slaves, this became a major bone of contention.

I wouldn't really argue with that, but that's different from "slavery would have ended because of economics", which I'll admit you didn't quite say.

Of course, you could also say it was political tension - The political conflict was over expansion of slavery to the new states, since the South knew that should free states gain a solid majority, slavery would easily be abolished.

[thejeff]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Hell, does modern prison labor not prove you can basically force people to do at semi-skilled manufacturing?

What's done as prison labor is tolerated because of the american perception on how crime should be punished. Trying to impose the same conditions on the general population, however isn't nearly as workable, nor as profitable.

No, but if we still had slavery and a slave population, the rest of the population would tolerate those conditions. If you're willing to tolerate slavery and the abuses that go along with it, it's far from clear to me that you can't make it work for at least early industry.

Or even modern industry - the parts of it we're currently outsourcing to third-world sweatshops, for example.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

thejeff wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The first nail in the coffin of American slavery was the construction of Paterson, New Jersy, the first planned industrial town in the newly minted United States. Industrialisation is essentially the reason slavery ended in the North, because while in slavery you have to keep heavy power tools away from your slaves, for industry it makes much more sense to simply pay them a wage sufficient for them to eke out a living and take care of their own upkeep.

Yes, though as a counterpoint, it was the invention of the cotton gin which DRASTICALLY increased the African slave trade. It made cotton far more profitable, and cotton is pretty much the epitome of a high labor/low skill crop.

But once a job is skilled and/or mechanized, slave labor really isn't the way to go even from a pure economic sense - ignoring the morality aspect entirely.

YES! Someone gets it. The reason that slavery was abolished rides on economics, not morality. In fact, economics is pretty much the main driver of most of history.

Economics is a big deal. It certainly changes what is possible.

OTOH, I'm deeply skeptical of arguments it was purely economic and slavery would have ended about the same time anyway. Strikes me as post-hoc reasoning.

No need to worry about moral problems or anything. The inexorable forces of economic necessity will take care of it.
And yet, previous forms of slavery have included skilled labor. Early industrial working conditions certainly involved horrible abuses. Still do in many countries. Are economic conditions really so different that outright slaves couldn't do mine work? Or mill work? Were conditions in company towns really that far away?
Hell, does modern prison labor not prove you can basically force people to do at semi-skilled manufacturing?

The impetous that led to the Civil War was economic tension between a

...

That is certainly a part of it.

Also keep in mind that economics worked both ways. While economics favored the abolishment of slavory in the Northern states, it is also likely the major reason that slavery was not abolished in the original unamended Constitution, even though anti-slavery sentiment was already present in the Thirteen States. Until Northern industrialization took off, the South wielded the bulk of the economic and political power in the new country.

[Freehold DM]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The first nail in the coffin of American slavery was the construction of Paterson, New Jersy, the first planned industrial town in the newly minted United States. Industrialisation is essentially the reason slavery ended in the North, because while in slavery you have to keep heavy power tools away from your slaves, for industry it makes much more sense to simply pay them a wage sufficient for them to eke out a living and take care of their own upkeep.

Yes, though as a counterpoint, it was the invention of the cotton gin which DRASTICALLY increased the African slave trade. It made cotton far more profitable, and cotton is pretty much the epitome of a high labor/low skill crop.

But once a job is skilled and/or mechanized, slave labor really isn't the way to go even from a pure economic sense - ignoring the morality aspect entirely.

agreed. The cotton gin lubricated the gears of greed.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

If the South had been established as a separate nation from the getgo, I suspect that the nation formed by the Northern states would have been considerably more tolerant of slavery in the South.

Competition for conquest of the Western sectors of the North American continent would still have been a burning issue.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Freehold DM wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The first nail in the coffin of American slavery was the construction of Paterson, New Jersy, the first planned industrial town in the newly minted United States. Industrialisation is essentially the reason slavery ended in the North, because while in slavery you have to keep heavy power tools away from your slaves, for industry it makes much more sense to simply pay them a wage sufficient for them to eke out a living and take care of their own upkeep.

Yes, though as a counterpoint, it was the invention of the cotton gin which DRASTICALLY increased the African slave trade. It made cotton far more profitable, and cotton is pretty much the epitome of a high labor/low skill crop.

But once a job is skilled and/or mechanized, slave labor really isn't the way to go even from a pure economic sense - ignoring the morality aspect entirely.

agreed. The cotton gin lubricated the gears of greed.

The cotton gin doesn't change anything about the stoop labor nature of gathering and planting the cotton though. One thing worth noting.. one of the major industries of the aforementioned City of Paterson was Textiles. In 1825, the city had become known as "The Cotton Town" of the United States. Paterson was where most of the South's cotton became saleable goods.

[SquirrelyOgre]

Freehold DM wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

Hrothdane wrote:

Hitdice wrote:

That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.

I'm not seeing a problem here.

I am.

Polygamy - fine "as advertised", never really works out that way.

polygamy and marrying someone who is the same sex or gender as you are concepts that are in different boxes.

This is very true. Polygymy is also a means of SOCIAL CONTROL, not only of women but also young males. If the Authority has control over who, when, and how many you can marry, they have control over the young males. Females become a form of currency/control.

There are some fascinating essays on this.