My research paper (first edition)

tagging zink , Gerd von Rundstedt , Eugene V. Debs , John Marston , Josip Broz Tito , Theron of Acragas , Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov , Darth Nihilus   cause I think yall will be interested. Imma find the tag for more people who would be, so if I forgot you don't worry

Lemme know what yall think!

A couple errors, by the way: "slaveholders choosing overseers who were more sparing with the lash" - I think you meant the opposite. Also, "affect" vs "effect"

Theron of Acragas thanks for reading since I have the time, and I think I can do it well, I'm going to address a few of your points

1. The distinction between capitalism and greed is a point that you could definitely make a good argument. My three points against it are: this paper is based on American style slavery (the paper doesn't state it explicitly, but that's cause it's already known by the teacher so I didn't think to, sorry!) Which is very streamlined form of slavery that is based on making the most profit. My second is that it wasn't originally a race thing in the United States, with their being white slaves and African and Amerindian owners up until about the 1720s, so it explicitly just about labour. And finally, your definition of capitalism is its idealized form, which as we know basically no ideology actual maintains. If you were to expand the topic further into neo-slavery and modern day slavery you would see that the two are still very much connected. (I planned on doing thay but ran out of time, hence why this is titled "first edition")

2. I completely agree that the end of slavery wasn't caused by a lack of profitability, but I also don't say that it was in the paper. I say that because the North makes no benefit from the expansion of slavery, they begin their abolishonist movement. Here's the direct passage from my paper:
With horrendous acts of slave exploitation expanding and worsening in the South an abolitionist movement began growing in the Northern states, however it was hampered by one major detail: as mentioned before, African slaves and their descendants were not considered human by Americans. As such, it was easy for Southerners and Northerners alike to pretend the atrocities being committed were against not a fellow person, but an “other” and as such does not trigger their desire to act honorably as Adam Smith says, since the slaves are not their equal, much less their neighbor. This view would change with the rise of significant freedmen and run-away slaves as abolishionist leaders, such as Frederick Douglass. With examples such as Douglass, it became easier for those in the North to view African slaves as people, Though still not as equals. This, along with the fact that the North did not rely on slavery for their industries, would lead to the growth of the Northern abolition movement.
In the South however, slavery was the driving force of every aspect of their economy, and as such they were unable and unwilling to do what was considered “morally just” and free the slaves. Their own desires of wealth were strong enough to overrule their impartial spectator, for the violence and injustice of our own selfish passions are sometimes sufficient to induce the man within the beast to make a report very different from what the real circumstances of the case are capable of authorising. The South became paranoid of the North abolishing slavery, and by proxy wrecking the Southern economy. These fears would reach a boiling point, and result in the attempted secession of the South, done to protect the institution of slavery, and in doing so insuring the viability of their economy; this attempt at secession would start the American Civil War. The war initially progressed in the Confederacy’s favor, despite them being outpaced by the Union in the production of every single material beneficial to the war. One of their main advantages was their continued export of cotton to France and Britain, and it seemed possible one of the powers would join the war on the side of the Confederacy.

I said about the same thing you did on this point, just with more words.


Anyways, thanks a lot for reading! I'm interested in how you'll respond to the points I brought up

(P.S thank you for catching those grammer issues, hopefully my teacher doesn't take off too many points)

Thanks for the support Trostky! 

For the first citation I agree that I should have made it a quoted cite. I'm still getting used to Chicago format, so that's just a bit of a growing pain on my part, since you don't "technically" have to quote anything at all, I wasn't sure if I should or not.

I'd agree that capitalism didn't cause all slavery, due to how much older slavery is. It's more that it created the more distinct and industrial form of slavery seen in America, which was the focus of the paper. The point is even better proven when expanding into Neo-Slavery and Modern Slavery, but like I said in an earlier post I ran out of time unfortunately, and will including research of both of those, as well as a section on indentured servitude, in a later edition.

I agree with your part on the Amerindians, and I cover that a bit with the issue of their common escapes making them a bad investment for the colonists. It wasn't necessarily that the were less effective in general, hence why they were exported to some of the other 13 Colonies and the West Indies, but they escaped if they knew the land, and were more prone to death from European illnesses. I cover the escape as part of its decline in the North, though I probably could have included the bit about illness as well.

I know it was a technical question I may not have been clear about that, my bad.

The idea of introducing wording for each phase is a good idea. This is how I think I would name it currently:
Amerindian Slavery: The enslavement of Amerindians in colonial America, specifically between the start of the Pequot war and the start of the Yamasee war.
Pre Cotton gin Slavery: The period of African slavery before the creation of the cotton gin, during which the practice would face a gradual decline
Antebellum Slavery: The institution of African slavery between the end of the War of 1812 and the end of the civil war. This period would be the peak of Chattel slavery, with both the domestic slave trade and global cotton trade being massively profitable.
Neo-Slavery: The leasing of African American convicts imprisoned by predatory laws to mines, factories, and farms between the end of Reconstruction and the American entry into WWII
Modern Slavery: United States corporations using foreign forced labour (such as Chinese sweatshops) in the Modern era

I will admit, Modern Slavery is the one I need to learn the most about. I know that it exists, but I don't yet really have a grasp on the topic like I do the other ones. 

Warlord247,
1. You make some valid points but they aren't really counter-arguments. Let's take them one at a time.

1. It's quite clear that your essay is about slavery in the US, don't worry. Slavery can and has existed in every governmental and economic system. The form it takes is obviously influenced by the specific circumstances and economic system. A capitalist system leads to a streamlined and profit-driven economy, and the use of slaves is determined by the system. But that doesn't mean that the system is the *cause*.
2. Note that I didn't name racism as the primary cause. Racism can be but isn't a necessary accompanying element. It can serve when a philosophical justification becomes necessary. I'd speculate (though I haven't researched) that the increase in racist justifications of slavery coincided with the spread of capitalist ideas as well as Christian abolition movements.
3. "Your definition of capitalism is the idealised form, which as we know basically no ideology actual maintains" - not really. While no economy is perfectly capitalist (and probably every economy is partly capitalist), the single most basic principle of a capitalist ideology is the *voluntary* exchange of goods and services. Slavery violates that central principle, which makes it hard to agree with capitalism as the *cause*.