Were the non-slave States complicit in Slavery

[edhopper]

since they enjoyed the benefits of cheap agricultural goods from slavery?
And if so, aren't we complicit in the conditions at Third World factories because we benefit from cheaper goods they give us?

[glowing]

1. I believe you mean "were" not "Where"...

[edhopper]

2. OOPS!

fixed

[WCGreen]

3. Just reading about the people in Mass who ran the textile mills...

They were against expanding slavery but were pretty sure it was a good thing as long as it stayed contained...

It's from the Pulitzer Prize winning book The Metaphysical Club. A Story of Ideas In America by Louis Menand

[YankeyMCC]

4. Fantastic book!

I read that many years ago...really opened up a lot for me to think about.

[WCGreen]

9. Just picked it up after buying it when Borders went south....

[Ecumenist]

7. My guess is that they didn't want the competition of slave workers. Not altogether

altruistic.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. yes and yes (but to a lesser degree)

Since we have no direct influence over the laws of other countries we hold less responsibility than when slavery existed within our own nation.


I think that free trade should be abandoned and import taxes imposed which reflect the way workers in the exporting country are treated and the country's environmental laws.


I'm not saying this won't do some damage to poorer nations but economic influence is all we have so we should use it. It will also help to make domestic manufacturing more competitive.

[Ecumenist]

6. Oh yeah...Remember that at one time, Slavery was in every state.

Slavecatchers were often facilitated by the law in certain states. Yes, sir they were. That's why many sleaves made Canada their destination upon escape.

[liberal_biker]

8. Complicit?

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

No, the US is not complicit in conditions in third world factories either. Just because the standards outside the US do not meet US standards doesn't mean we have word one to say about it.

[Johonny]

10. IDK

An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such, the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite possibly being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making the individual a de-facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander.

At the DU we know about conditions in our third world factories. Is there anyone to really report them too? The US government who surely can't prevent the conditions in another country but can prevent those goods from entering the US legally. We complain about the working conditions in other countries, but we buy our IPADs anyways. Yeah we are complicit.

[msongs]

11. were Africans in Africa who sold their brothers into slavery also complicit? exactly where

does the complicity begin and end?

[MGKrebs]

12. That's a philosophical question, and the technical answer may be "yes", but

what to do about it? What is the best way to improve working conditions in those places? Embargo imports? Punitive sanctions?
Those don't seem to work very well. In the real world, perhaps trading more with them gets our economies integrated more, giving workers more opportunity. Of course, the price we pay is that it lowers our own standard of living, but that is inevitable.

[edhopper]

13. We buy this stuff and our corporation

only look at the bottom line. I know this is idealistic, but what if people said they won't buy products made in factories where conditions are little better than slavery, like many in China. What if corporations like Apple or IBM or HP said we will not have our products made in factories with these conditions.
It is said for evil to prevail, good people simple need to do nothing.


The "Free Market" seems to mean less and less freedom for most.