How Slavery Gave Capitalism Its Start

[applegrove]

How Slavery Gave Capitalism Its Start

by Eric Herschthal at the Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/24/how-slavery-gave-capitalism-its-start.html

"SNIP...................


Perhaps the most durable myth about slavery is that it was utterly incompatible with capitalism. Well before historians in the twentieth century began legitimating the idea, abolitionists suggested the disconnect themselves. In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe portrayed slave-traders as underfinanced, disreputable fools—the furthest thing from competent, successful businessmen. Even Karl Marx, no friend of capitalism, believed that wage labor would destroy slavery. But in recent years, scholars have begun to demolish this myth, arguing not only that slavery was compatible with capitalism, but that the emergence of modern capitalism made slavery’s growth possible.

The Business of Slavery and the Rise of American Capitalism, 1815-1860 establishes its author, Calvin Schermerhorn, as among the best practitioners within this new group of historians. While Walter Johnson, Seth Rockman, Edward Baptist, and Sven Beckert have recently made the same core argument, Schermerhorn exposes the links between capitalism and slavery with remarkable clarity, economy, and force. By focusing on the most successful firms involved in the domestic slave trade, Schermerhorn shows how the building blocks of modern capitalism—from innovations in marketing and technology, to the development of sophisticated financial instruments—fueled slavery’s expansion throughout the South. The possibility of bloodless abstraction is saved by his emphasis on the devastating human cost.

The closing of the African slave trade in 1807 posed a major challenge to slavery’s expansion. Yet it wasn’t a challenge that creative entrepreneurs could not overcome. Schermerhorn shows how one slave trader, Austin Woolfolk, turned this setback into an opportunity, becoming extraordinarily rich in the process. Based in Baltimore, Woolfolk saw that slaveholders in Maryland and bordering states were desperate to get rid of excess slaves. He also knew that would-be planters in the lower South—Louisiana, especially—were hungry for them. But sellers and buyers had no way of communicating with each other; there was no Craigslist.

Woolfolk’s genius was to build such an exchange, using the newspaper advertisement business as his medium. Woolfolk’s particular gift was in creating eye-grabbing ads: by the 1820s, seemingly every newspaper in the South featured a clear, simple, all-caps ad written by Woolfolk: “CASH FOR NEGROES.” Schermerhorn argues that the actual market for slave sales may have been far smaller than the ubiquity of Woolfolk’s ads suggests. Yet in simply printing his ads over and over, Woolfolk conjured a market into being. In the wake of his advertisement scheme, everyone seemed to want a hand in the slave-owning business.




....................SNIP"

[malaise]

1. Eric Williams wrote a great book way back when

he was a PhD scholar in London. Capitalism and Slavery. Everyone should read that book.
(He was the first Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago)

[BainsBane]

9. Yes, and his argument was expanded on by Fernado Novais

a Brazilian historian. Essentially Novais says that slavery provided the primitive accumulation of capital that would give rise to capitalism.

[Starry Messenger]

2. k&r

[Spitfire of ATJ]

3. Part II: How Communism gave Capitalism a boost through fear.

[2naSalit]

4. K&R

[brush]

5. Are you sure about the slave trade ending in 1807?

I know there were slave ships still operating during the clipper ship era (the mid to late-1800s) — the "SeaWitch" for example, once one of the fastest clippers but was eventually reduced to plying the slave trade.

As to the point of the article, of course slavery was compatible with capitalism. Any business that doesn't have the overhead of labor costs, is well on it's way to getting rich.

That's a no-brainer.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. The slave trade was outlawed by an Act of the British Parliament in 1807.

The Royal Navy patrolled off of Africa to intercept slavers; any ship found to be carrying slaves would be forfeit to the crown, and the owners would be liable for a fine of £100 for every slave aboard (this was at a time when the average annual wage of a labourer was less than £20). It continued, illegally, because it was profitable.

(NB that the importation of slaves to the US was outlawed by an Act of Congress in 1807 that took effect in 1808.)

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807
And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves

Also here for the Royal Navy's slave ship interdiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron

And for the US Navy's (much less effective) slave ship interdictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol

[brush]

12. It still continued though, unfortunately. nt

[moondust]

6. Slavery might be common in the U.S. today

if only the slave plantations had incorporated and traded their shares on the stock market. Do most "anonymous" shareholders really care how their profits are made as long as the stock is rising and they are getting richer? How many of today's shareholders really want to know what's going on in China or Vietnam where their corporation's goods are being made?

[Major Nikon]

7. Today they just found ways to do it legally and more efficiently

When you pay someone less than what it costs to keep them alive, you have effectively rendered traditional slavery obsolete, especially when you consider the working class has to subsidize your wage slavery. You don't have to feed them, you don't have to clothe them, you don't have to house them, and you don't have to provide for their health care. You also get local tax subsidies to build your business ventures because you're considered a "job creator". It's a win-win situation, provided you're not on the 99% of the stick that's covered in shit.

[Yorktown]

10. An amazingly dishonest article

Perhaps the most durable myth about slavery is that it was utterly incompatible with capitalism.

This statement is totally unfounded. Pure straw man.

Slavery is incompatible with true Democracy.

Who ever said there was a positive or negative link with capitalism?

Never heard of Eric Herschthal, but he sounds as dishonest as a creationist.

[Yorktown]

11. Come to think of it, an empty claim too.

It should be obvious that there are quite a few ways to accumulate capital without resorting to slavery.

To claim that it is 'Slavery' that 'Gave Capitalism Its Start' is clearly idiotic.

[BainsBane]

13. Then there are a number of well-respected historians you would consider "idiotic."

Because that position is part of a long-standing debate among historians about the relationship between slavery and capitalism. While there may be quite a few theoretical ways to accumulate capital, in the Atlantic world it was done through slavery.

[malaise]

14. The truth hurts

big time

[Yorktown]

15. It should be obvious slavery could not be the unique seed of capital accumulation

Just like today, talent and thrift are other ways.
The respected profssional of 3000BC would command a higher salary than average.
Just like today, educational differences are partly passed along generations
Just like today, bandits can 'earn' capital and become legit over time

Acaemics claimimg slavery was the only route to capital accumulation are obvious frauds.