Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Was the cost of retaining and keeping slaves solely on the part of the slave owner, or was there some form of state subsidy?

Boy, did you people monkey up this thread.

(11-07-2018, 11:17 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-07-2018, 10:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Why didn't the South just set up its own textile factories?

Because they didn't have the infrastructure to make that feasible, and the tariff money they were most responsible for paying was being used to build that infrastructure in the north for northern interests.

Fast forward 50 years when the infrastructure is finally in place, the efficiency of textile mills being in the south ran the northern mills out of business.

The tariffs weren't being used for the good of the nation, they were being used for regional self interest. If national interest were at heart, then the infrastructure and investment would have happened in the south where non slave labor was cheapest and raw material was abundant easily accessible. It was these very qualities that in later years allowed the south to dominate the global textile market.

But it was sectionalism and northern greed that prevented the south from developing a viable economy that wasn't so dependent on slavery. If these steps had been taken in the years preceding the war, it would have given the south a viable out from a fading institution. Unfortunately, this didn't happen and the south was stuck with the choice of slavery or economic destitution.

We now have 600k deaths to remind us of what happens when sectional interests are put ahead of whats most beneficial for the nation.

I don't think that's true.
Almost all of the Erie Canal was financed by the state of New York.
The federal government did not spend very much on canals and roads.
The southern politicians preferred low taxes to infrastructure investment and then they blamed the north win that bet did not work out in their favor.

(11-08-2018, 08:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Boy, did you people monkey up this thread.

I see ya...must be out of your cotton pickin’ mind!

(11-08-2018, 02:04 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Was the cost of retaining and keeping slaves solely on the part of the slave owner, or was there some form of state subsidy?

The costs were on the owner.  There was a sort of subsidy in that slaves were property and property taxes were generally not collected in those days in the South.  The Southern state governments were funded by fees and, later, by income taxes.
You read that right.  The slave owning planter class that controlled Southern politics was so tax averse that they passed income taxes rather than property taxes.  The opposite of what Florida does today.

(11-08-2018, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-08-2018, 02:04 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Was the cost of retaining and keeping slaves solely on the part of the slave owner, or was there some form of state subsidy?

The costs were on the owner.  There was a sort of subsidy in that slaves were property and property taxes were generally not collected in those days in the South.  The Southern state governments were funded by fees and, later, by income taxes.
You read that right.  The slave owning planter class that controlled Southern politics was so tax averse that they passed income taxes rather than property taxes.  The opposite of what Florida does today.

Lol, and yet "SLAVERY!" is still all ya'lls go to argument for this redundancy.

(11-08-2018, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-08-2018, 02:04 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Was the cost of retaining and keeping slaves solely on the part of the slave owner, or was there some form of state subsidy?

The costs were on the owner.  There was a sort of subsidy in that slaves were property and property taxes were generally not collected in those days in the South.  The Southern state governments were funded by fees and, later, by income taxes.
You read that right.  The slave owning planter class that controlled Southern politics was so tax averse that they passed income taxes rather than property taxes.  The opposite of what Florida does today.

That's not entirely accurate.

(11-08-2018, 08:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Boy, did you people monkey up this thread.

Pretty much.  Hillary insinuating flat out saying that all black men look alike is completely ignored and swept under the rug.

Another democrat saying that a Native American and a black women do "amazing jobs" in spite of their race is just completely ignored.

Imagine if a Republican uttered those words in an interview or during a debate.  We still wouldn't hear the end of it.

With that being said, I'm glad that the voters in Florida didn't monkey up this election for Governor, though they did try.

(11-08-2018, 04:26 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-08-2018, 08:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Boy, did you people monkey up this thread.

Pretty much.  Hillary insinuating flat out saying that all black men look alike is completely ignored and swept under the rug.

Another democrat saying that a Native American and a black women do "amazing jobs" in spite of their race is just completely ignored.

Imagine if a Republican uttered those words in an interview or during a debate.  We still wouldn't hear the end of it.

With that being said, I'm glad that the voters in Florida didn't monkey up this election for Governor, though they did try.

(11-08-2018, 02:04 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Was the cost of retaining and keeping slaves solely on the part of the slave owner, or was there some form of state subsidy?

If the state didn't have legislation specifically allowing people to own other people, this question would be moot.

(11-09-2018, 12:38 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-08-2018, 02:04 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Was the cost of retaining and keeping slaves solely on the part of the slave owner, or was there some form of state subsidy?

If the state didn't have legislation specifically allowing people to own other people, this question would be moot.

Regardless, it's relevant when discussing centuries-old values and law.

(11-09-2018, 07:49 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2018, 12:38 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]If the state didn't have legislation specifically allowing people to own other people, this question would be moot.

Regardless, it's relevant when discussing centuries-old values and law.

It is, and any argument of the state being blameless because it was private citizens engaging in slavery  which is where you're going here, is invalidated by the fact that all state governments had to do to stop it was say, "OK, people are not property." Their refusal to do that is the state's right they were referring to when seceding.