The Britsh Supporting the confederates

[swerve]

I see your point but wonder if it is relevant to the discussion at hand. If what you say happens on a large scale then slavery in practice ceases to exist because of the altered risk/reward calculation. However AFAIK slavery only stopped in this way in economies where slavery was marginal to begin with. In economies where slavery played a major part, the laws governing these issues were constructed or implemented in a way that made slavery economically viable.

 

The discussion at hand isn't about the economic viability of slavery, but about whether slaves should be treated the same as other capital stock. Tony & I are arguing, with some differences in our viewpoints, that they should not be.

 

My view is that it's illogical & inconsistent to count the capital value of slaves, but not the capital value of non-slave workers. They're all workers, they all have a value (depending on their skills, health, age, etc). The only difference is that one is compelled to render much of his or her product to another person. Note that this is also true of some non-slave workers, e.g. prisoners, & anyone who is contractually bound to a particular job. But we don't count the contractual obligations of employees (e.g. someone on 3 months notice, who can be required to work it) as part of the capital stock of a firm.

 

As for them being, economically, property like anything else: again, my view is that they aren't. The laws regulating them resembled (but were more severe than, of course) in many respects 18th century employment law, to do with controlling the behaviour of the slaves, in the same way as employment law at one time was concerned with regulating the behaviour of servants. But even bonded servants were never counted as capital stock.

[Guest aevans]

OK. But again. How is this relevant? It would be relevant if revolts and such happened with sufficient regularity that slavery becomes economically non viable. Again, if the probability of the loss of a slave, whatever the cause, whether due to law or because of the slaves "free will", is high enough then slavery quickly fades because of economics. AFAIK slavery was still viable in 1860's CSA which means the above was not a problem.

 

Remember, I'm not arguing whether or not slavery was viable. I'm just pointing out that treating humans as property is a problematic legal fiction, covering up what slavery really is -- the legally sanctioned oppression of humans and the theft of their labor. (I'm fully in line with Swerve on that, I'm just approaching it from a different direction.)

[Rich]

No idea, I pulled the baseline data from the USN Historical Centre

 

Er, you have no idea of the date relevence of your sample, give no indication as to what the sample is supposed to mean, and leave it to the casual reader to simply infer what they will from it. Interesting methodology.

 

No, operating without steam was pretty rare, usually only undertaken on the China Station by this stage. As I've said, the practice was to keep a few boilers going (to keep the screw turning and avoid it getting barnacled to the hull), and use sail as an auxiliary.

That doesn't answer the question. Why can the RN sail about at will with its engines just turning over, but nobody else is clever enough to use that coal conservation dodge?

 

What defines a cruiser, quite a lot of things (reliable engines, good range etc.) which don't make it into DANFS. In the absence of other evidence I tend to assume competent selection of ships to task on the USNs behalf.

 

Then few, if any vessels, were good cruisers, since engine technology was highly unreliable, breakdowns were common, and fuel efficiency was so bad that most "steamers" spent a large part of their time sailing in this period to conserve coal.

 

And as far as "competent selection" goes - none of these vessels were being "selected" as "cruisers" because there was simply no requirement for such a vessel in the circumstances that pertained on their selection. So that say absolutely nothing about their suitability or lack of suitability as cruisers, it simply wasn't an attribute that was being selected for.

 

Aye, but these were sailing schooners (by DANFS anyway).

Er, no, they were sidewheel steamers, that is why I listed them under "sidewheel steamers" and like all steamers of the time they had an auxiliary sail rig.

 

Not really, as I've said, I assume competentance on the USNs behalf, which was incredibly pressed at the time.

 

I have absolutely no clue how you think that statement is an answer to "Yet again, you seem to have developed a rule that appears strangely flexible in some cases - British - and strangely inflexible in other cases - American - and also one that appears to be based on somewhat shakey data"?

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[67th Tigers]

That doesn't answer the question. Why can the RN sail about at will with its engines just turning over, but nobody else is clever enough to use that coal conservation dodge?

 

Hardly a dodge, and I assumed other vessels with multiple furnaces and boilers did. This probably limits this practice to the larger ships.

 

Then few, if any vessels, were good cruisers, since engine technology was highly unreliable, breakdowns were common, and fuel efficiency was so bad that most "steamers" spent a large part of their time sailing in this period to conserve coal.

In the 1840's maybe, and maybe in the US (since US steam technology is 20 years behind the British at this time).

 

And as far as "competent selection" goes - none of these vessels were being "selected" as "cruisers" because there was simply no requirement for such a vessel in the circumstances that pertained on their selection. So that say absolutely nothing about their suitability or lack of suitability as cruisers, it simply wasn't an attribute that was being selected for.

 

There obviously was, since the blockade was not a static crustal defence....

 

I have absolutely no clue how you think that statement is an answer to "Yet again, you seem to have developed a rule that appears strangely flexible in some cases - British - and strangely inflexible in other cases - American - and also one that appears to be based on somewhat shakey data"?

 

Not really, you appear to be crediting me with far stronger conclusions than I have reached, and misinterpreting them in many cases.

[Guest aevans]

Yes and no and the point about indentured serfs is a good one, it hadn't occurred to me before. IMO the crucial difference is whether a working market existed. The reason why the contractual obligation of an employee doesn't show up is first and foremost because no market for the trading of such contracts exists. If for some reason a market would come into existence you can be assured that it would show up on the balance sheets. It's a fact that a slave can be traded, so it can have a market value assigned to it. Which value is appropriate is worthy of a separate discussion due to depreciation etc. but any commodity that can be traded, thus one which can be priced, should IMO be included in the capital stock. This also applies to indentured servant contracts. I don't know how they are accounted for but if they were traded they represented "real" wealth and should show up somewhere in the ledger. We aren't measuring the productive value here (in Accountancy you also don't value a machine according to the worth of it's product) but the price of acquiring it on the open market and some educated guesses about what you could get for it if you were to sell it.

 

So, you're completely unaware that a market in contracts exists in most professional sports? Are you also unaware that while the contracted player's performance is a valued commodity, the contract itself goes into the liability column?

 

That is the primary difference between slavery and even indentured contract labor. In every system except slavery, the labor is legally owned by the employee, and contracted payments are liabilities to the employer. Only in slavery is the work legally owned by the employer, with whatever the slave gets the bare minimum to keep the labor coming.

Edited October 8, 2007 by aevans

[Rich]

Hardly a dodge, and I assumed other vessels with multiple furnaces and boilers did. This probably limits this practice to the larger ships.

 

So then any other vessels with "multiple furnaces and boilers" could? Hm, I'll check that and repost the lists with the canddates then.

 

In the 1840's maybe, and maybe in the US (since US steam technology is 20 years behind the British at this time).

Really? Could you supply some evidence for that claim please?

 

There obviously was, since the blockade was not a static crustal defence....

 

Yet again, an answer that answers nothing, and doesn't even address the question.

 

Not really, you appear to be crediting me with far stronger conclusions than I have reached, and misinterpreting them in many cases.

 

No, that statement doesn't address your conclusions at all, it addresses your methodology. In any case you made your conclusion fairly explicit, so I doubt that I or anyone else has any misinterpretation of what it is...."I now know the only thing that saved the Union was a large British overestimate of their capabilities" (67th Tigers, Fri 5 Oct 2007, Post #95).

 

It must be comforting to know something so surely after four years of study on the subject.

[swerve]

Yes and no and the point about indentured serfs is a good one, it hadn't occurred to me before. IMO the crucial difference is whether a working market existed. The reason why the contractual obligation of an employee doesn't show up is first and foremost because no market for the trading of such contracts exists. If for some reason a market would come into existence you can be assured that it would show up on the balance sheets. It's a fact that a slave can be traded, so it can have a market value assigned to it. Which value is appropriate is worthy of a separate discussion due to depreciation etc. but any commodity that can be traded, thus one which can be priced, should IMO be included in the capital stock. This also applies to indentured servant contracts. I don't know how they are accounted for but if they were traded they represented "real" wealth and should show up somewhere in the ledger. We aren't measuring the productive value here (in Accountancy you also don't value a machine according to the worth of it's product) but the price of acquiring it on the open market and some educated guesses about what you could get for it if you were to sell it.

 

There are cases other than professional sports where employment contracts are traded. Happens a lot. Many of my colleagues were sold to EDS last year. But EDS doesn't count their contracted labour as a capital asset, it counts the contract with my former employer, which undertakes to use that labour (or any other suitably skilled labour EDS may choose to provide in its place), as an asset.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Guest aevans]

I was referring to the Swerve's specific example. You are again missing my point. You are talking about the value of the labour and the operating costs. I'm talking about market value. I don't know what the accounting rules are in regard to such contracts but if you have a player x under contract and can sell that contract to another club for amount y then that y should show up as an asset in your ledger. Same principle except that Slaves are much more fungible.

 

If you sell a contract to another club, then the proceeds from that sale are considered income, but the contract itself is a liability. Also, in an organization that is actually trying to accomplish the mission of winning games/matches/whatever, those contract sale proceeeds wind up servicing other contract liabilities on new or existing players. That's why you often see contracts traded rather than sold -- it makes accounting easier.

 

And no matter how you account for it, it remains a fact that the labor in a non-slavery labor market is owned by the employee, not the employer. That in fact is the essential difference between slavery and everything else.

[DesertFox]

How close was the East India Company's treatment of Indian workers to Southern slavery.

I watched a show which seemed to show that they used a very similar system.

If that is the case, how much did the British population know about this?

[Guest aevans]

How close was the East India Company's treatment of Indian workers to Southern slavery.

I watched a show which seemed to show that they used a very similar system.

If that is the case, how much did the British population know about this?

 

I'm sure our friends in the UK could give more or better details, but IIRC it could be most accurately described as a form of debt peonage, somewhere between serfdom and sharecropping.

[DesertFox]

I'm sure our friends in the UK could give more or better details, but IIRC it could be most accurately described as a form of debt peonage, somewhere between serfdom and sharecropping.

 

I have heard that don't even learn about Churchill these days?

[67th Tigers]

How close was the East India Company's treatment of Indian workers to Southern slavery.

I watched a show which seemed to show that they used a very similar system.

If that is the case, how much did the British population know about this?

 

I'm at a slight loss about this statement. The Indian subcontinent held more Slaves than the West Indies, but none were within HEIC's territory, all where in the Princely States.

 

In fact, the abolition of Slavery was one of the factors underpinning high caste Indians dissatisfaction with HEIC rule in 1857.

 

The companies mechanisms of control and revenue were primarily based around imposing tariffs on certain items on which it enjoyed a monopoly, Salt (as in NaCl, not KNO3) being the obvious example.

 

See http://books.google.com/books?id=QM4NAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA139

[DB]

A little hint at migration from India via indentured labour - the politically correct (for the day) replacement for slavery.

 

Started in 1834, the year after slavery was formally abolished.

 

http://colonialemigration.com/acts.html

 

David

[DesertFox]

I was watching a history channel show about tea and one of the items stated was that they copied a lot of the laws for treatment of their indentured servants from the laws of the US South as far as treatment of slaves including the Fugitive Slave Act.

[67th Tigers]

PS: The "fantasy" desertion figures are from:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=l5a8c4AZm_EC

[Rich]

PS: The "fantasy" desertion figures are from:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=l5a8c4AZm_EC

 

Er, Tiger, your statements were regarding desertion in the Union armies, how does a book on the effect of desertion in the Confederate armies support your views? And how did your figures come from it? I can't find them?

 

BTW, it is a very good book indeed.

[redcoat]

From others than 67th Tigers,

What was the Canadian and British stance...was there really any interest in getting involved.

My understanding was the best they ever even considered was acknowledging the south........

They didn't even get that far.

The nearest they got, was considering having a meeting...... on considering whether or not to diplomatically acknowledge the south

Due to the Northern victory at Antietam the meeting was shelved.

 

The British stance was one of neutrality, at no point did Britain consider taking sides in the conflict ( not even during the Trent crisis)

[67th Tigers]

Er, Tiger, your statements were regarding desertion in the Union armies, how does a book on the effect of desertion in the Confederate armies support your views? And how did your figures come from it? I can't find them?

 

BTW, it is a very good book indeed.

 

Doh, wrong paste

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=-BhsaaPGzA0C

[Rich]

Doh, wrong paste

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=-BhsaaPGzA0C

 

It happens. Although, you actually posted the Lonn reference before, are you trying to garner extra points? But another good source, even if a bit dated now, it would be nice to see some new scholarship on the subject. And mind you, it does sort of raise the question as to which nineteenth century armies didn't suffer from major desertion and straggling problems?

[JWB]

If the Brits invade most of those deserters would come back into the fold. The authors of the works cited claim the desertions were cuased by privations, homesickness, etc. I believe the biggest reason was disillusionment. Shooting your fellow countrymen is far more dificult than shooting foreign invaders.

[67th Tigers]

It happens. Although, you actually posted the Lonn reference before, are you trying to garner extra points? But another good source, even if a bit dated now, it would be nice to see some new scholarship on the subject. And mind you, it does sort of raise the question as to which nineteenth century armies didn't suffer from major desertion and straggling problems?

 

I agree, the foundations for the subject were laid about 80 years ago, and very little progress on the matter has been made since. Weitz has recently put out some stuff, but it focuses on the CS Army.

 

I wonder whether http://www.google.co.uk/books?id=AD0B560nGVIC&pg is worth getting?

 

Certainly crimping was a problem, http://www.google.co.uk/books?id=AD0B560nGVIC I might have a look for hard data.

 

BTW Another useful resource is the New York Times, which allows searches of its archives, some of my ("fantasy") data can be found reproduced there... (I would have mentioned it earlier, but I only found the resource two days ago).

[67th Tigers]

If the Brits invade most of those deserters would come back into the fold. The authors of the works cited claim the desertions were cuased by privations, homesickness, etc. I believe the biggest reason was disillusionment. Shooting your fellow countrymen is far more dificult than shooting foreign invaders.

 

It's not a phenonmemon particular to the ACW, which had a lower desertion rate than the Mexican War (remember, in the course of a week 60% of one US field force deserted), and ISTR less than the 1812 war.