The Economics In Slavery: Early Twentieth Century

1834 Words8 Pages
Matt Bresnahan P. 02 English III March 7, 2012 Rough Draft The Economics in Slavery Slavery was a prevalent issue throughout the nineteenth and into the early twentieth century. It raised many questions morally but was the real topic of debate was that it was justifiable. Slavery was not meant to put down blacks as a race; it was a tool used by southern families to help around the house and used in hopes of creating economic success Slaves were cared for in terms of human necessities; Slaves were extremely important to their masters and their master’s family. They served many purposes ranging from a farm hand all the way to cooks or house cleaners. Each slave was an investment made by the owner and in order to support…show more content…
The share cropper was a freed slave that came back to work on the same plantation after being freed because the slave had nowhere to go. Share croppers, unlike slaves, were not supported by the plantation owners. They were left to fend for themselves. In many cases, the sharecroppers were indebted to the land owners and had to pay the landowners before for their own families. In many ways, it was nothing more than a metamorphosis of slavery. For example, David E. Conrad stated “Tens of thousands of farmers fell down the tenancy ladder than moving up it Some farmers lost their farms or their status as cash or share tenants because of crop failures, low cotton prices, laziness, ill health, poor management, exhaustion of the soil, excessive interest rates, or inability to compete with tenant labor. Many tricks of nature (drought, flood, insects, frost, hail, high winds, and plant diseases) could ruin a crop.” (Conrad 12) This was more economically logical for the landowners because they were basically supporting no wage labor. Whatever the sharecropper made they ended up giving back to the landowner in order to rent the equipment needed to make enough money to pay the land owner back. This was far crueler than slavery because in slavery the slaves at least had the comfort of knowing that there was going to be…show more content…
If a slave were to be overworked continuously, they would be quickly be put out of work by injury or illness due to the stressful labor and from an economic stand point, this was the last thing that a plantation owner wanted. If a slave were to fall to injury it would affect more than the plantation owner as well, it would put more work on the backs of the fellow slaves. This could be an even bigger disaster because all of the other slaves had to work more than usual which would put them at risk to become injured as well, turning this into a vicious cycle and harming both the slave and plantation owner. Solon Robinson explained this when he said “I doubt whether one single instance can be found among the slaves of the South where one has injured himself at long extensive labor. Instead of a cruel and avaricious master being able to extort more than a very responsible amount of labor for him, his efforts will certainly produce the contrary effect.” (Robinson 364) This highlights the fact that each slave is a cog in an economic machine. If one part of the machine falls off, the entire system might collapse. It was essential to work a slave to their highest potential but not to push them beyond that. This was not saying that slaves did not work hard; slaves were hardworking and very important in both the eyes of the plantation owners and America’s
Open Document