Harriet Tubman to replace Andrew Jackson on the face of the $20 bill

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Plazma Inferno!, Apr 21, 2016.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,884
    There is a reason why you get nothing of relevance when you google search the term, it’s because you are misusing and making up terms as has been repeatedly brought to your attention.

    What didn't you understand about the Investopedia definition? Apparently everything....you can't pay your bills with slaves. You need to first sell the slaves to get the cash you can use to pay your bills. That's in part why, as previously and repeatedly explained, slaves were capital assets. They weren't capital. They were not cash. As previously and repeatedly explained slaves were treated like any piece of hardware.

    No, as previously and repeatedly explained and documented that’s bullshit.

    I think the article was clear enough. The fact is the South was primarily an agrarian. You didn't find "skilled" workers are farms. Farm work was brute labor, tilling the fields, seeding the fields, weeding the fields, and harvesting the fields. The North had industrialized and industrialization creates the need for skilled workers. Contrary to your assertions, the North was an economic powerhouse. That's why the North won the Civil War.

    Well, for starters, a professor of African and African-American Studies isn't an economist.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And the guy is a nut case. He equated slavery with capitalism, “there was no capitalism without slavery. The two were, in many ways, one and the same." The guy's a nut case. Two, no one has said the South wasn't heavily invested in the institution of slavery. You are using a straw man and you are evading the issue.

    Actually, it isn't. What you are attempting to do here is change the issue from aggregate wealth to income inequality. The issue wasn't income inequality. The issue was aggregate wealth. The issue here is your assertion that Tubman's stealing of slaves somehow crippled the Southern economy....remember? And the facts are just not there to support your assertion as is usually the case with you.

    You don't seem to be able to discern the difference. As has been previously repeatedly explained to you, when slavery ended, the instruments of wealth generation didn't vanish just because slavery ended. The formerly enslaved laborers didn't vanish. The land didn't vanish. The crops didn't vanish. The demand for agricultural products didn't vanish. It was all still there, except for the damage incurred by warfare, all the income producing assets remained. Ending the institution of slavery didn't end the Southern economy. As previously pointed out to you, it just ended how the wealth was distributed. Instead of wealthy plantation owners, you had individual farmers who either sharecropped or farmed their own lands.

    Tubman's "stealing" (i.e. freeing) of slaves didn't demolish the Southern economy. What adversely affected the Southern economy was the decision of Southern white leaders to secede from the Union and the resulting war. That's what damaged the Southern economy during the Civil War years. It wasn't Tubman's participation in the Underground Railroad as you have previously asserted.

    That's not the least bit relevant to the discussion. Let me remind you, the Tubman, the Civil War, and slavery were issues of the 19th century, not the 20th century.

    Well, that's all nonsense as has been repeatedly explained and debunked, and you like to promulgate it, but that doesn't make it true. While slavery was a major institution in the South, it wasn't in the North. And the North was the dominant economic power for the reasons previously. And as much as you want to make it an economic issue, slavery was a moral issue. Most of the Northern abolitionists were not wealthy people.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,906
    That is what you think "capital" is? Cash?! Dude - - -

    I linked you to an adequate dictionary. Start there. Economics 101 needs some preparation.

    And building the White House, along with every single one of Thomas Jefferson's innovations, and building all those Plantation mansions from scratch - from the dirt up, brick and mortar and paint and milled lumber and surveying and all. And doing the blacksmithing, food preservation (including alcohol distilling), orchard tending, boatbuilding and carriage building and harness making, mill and machine construction and repair, doctoring and midwifery, maintenance of the Big House, the whole shot.

    But hey - no skilled workers in the servant class. Not even Eli Whitney's slave - the guy who actually built the first successful cotton gin - or any of the dozens of slaves who immediately copied (and improved) it all over the South, wrecking his patent.

    That was my contribution: wealth.

    Your post was a map of GDP aggregated by State. I corrected it to GDP per capita - a better measure of "poor". Then I - not you - pointed out that per capita wealth was an even more dramatic comparison. Then I refined the matter further by posting the GINI coefficient by State. In all of these measures - all of them - the Confederacy remains per capita the poorest region in the US. Still. In 1860 it was per capita the wealthiest. It has never recovered from the Civil War, when the majority of its wealth and capital - its four million slaves - vanished from the books of its owners. And the former wealthy, the capitalists suddenly without capital, never did figure out how to handle the new situation.

    The Andrew Jacksons never did figure out what they were doing wrong. They spent the next century trying to restore the old system - only prevented by the flight of their target "capital", just as Tubman had helped begin.

    No, it's not. It's a physical fact - The citizens of the Confederacy were 50% wealthier, on average, per capita, than the citizens of the Union. Largely because so many of them owned slaves. And they have never regained that status, since - the economic as well as social structure set up around slavery was not a good one, and its legacy has crippled the entire region for 150 years.

    And it's fair to point out that this is significantly due to the fact that the white southerners chose the Jacksons of their world as their heroes, rather than the Tubmans.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,884
    LOL....uh yeah...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What have I been saying for several posts now Dude? Contrary to your many assertions, slaves are not capital. Slaves are not money. You are once again being more than a little dishonest.

    Well here is the thing, if you had ever lived on a farm, particularly during that time frame, none of that was skilled labor. Farmers did it all. They built their own homes, barns, brick and mortar, from the dirt up. Generally, farmers don't need boats. But if they did, they would either build it or buy one. They did their own blacksmithing and many still do. They repaired their own carriages. The did their own leather work, prepared and preserved their own food. They were jacks of all trades. My ancestors were among the first European settlers. They did it all. I grew up on a farm, and we did it all too. If you knew anything about farming, you would know that farmers are jacks of all trades. They have to be. The live in remote areas. So they have to be able to do many tasks.

    And I don't get your servant class statement....it makes no sense. It isn't germane to a discussion of skilled and unskilled labor.

    LOL...you corrected nothing. LOL...what you did was misrepresent and be dishonest. Your original assertion was about wealth. It wasn't about income inequality. When I pointed out your error, you changed the issue to income inequality. Are your really that dumb or are you just being dishonest again? Not surprisingly you are once again being intellectually dishonest. And as previously pointed out to you, the confederacy no longer exists.

    Where is your evidence that in 1860 the per capita wealth was the "wealthiest" ? Where is your evidence the South has never recovered from the Civil War? I've got news for Icearua, the South has fully recovered from the Civil War. The railroads have been rebuilt and expanded and modernized. They have new modern roads. They have modern hospitals and airports. Some of the largest commercial hubs are in the South. Your assertions are just amazingly stupid.

    As has been repeatedly explained to you, it doesn't matter that the slave owners lost their investment in slaves. Do you really think a number in a book has magical powers over the economy? You don't think capitalists go bankrupt every day? They do, and the world doesn't fall apart as a result. As has been repeatedly explained to you, the value of a slave rests in the value of his or her labor. All the assets which produced value, less the assets destroyed in the war, were still there. The former slaves were there. The land was there. The crops were there. Just because slave owners lost their investment in slaves, it doesn't mean people can't work and crops cannot grow. The only thing different was how he fruits of the labor and land were shared. Contrary to your assertions, the damaged infrastructure was repaired. The crops were planted, harvested, and sold.

    That's flat-out nonsensical. You don't think Southerners realized the war was about slavery? I think you need to go back to the dictionary and reread what a capital asset is again. Capital is money. Capital assets are long term assets that produce some value and can be sold to raise capital...remember? And slave flight from slave states to free states didn't begin with Tubman.

    Slave owners didn't like losing slaves. But they didn't buy slaves as a store of value as you have repeatedly asserted. They bought slaves for the value of their labors. Slaves have no value other than the labor they provide their owners. As has been explained ad nausem to you now, ending slavery didn't end the value of the labors provided by formerly enslaved workers. Tubman's assistance in the Underground Railroad didn't cause any long term adverse affects to the Southern economy. It certainly was a pain to slave owners. But its affect on the Southern economy wasn't significant.

    Oh, well then you should be able to prove it. You originally wrote, "fighting did not include the major capitalists - the Andrew Jacksons of her time, elite plantation owners - at a time when the largest single pool of capital in the US was its slave population.". Then you went on to write, "When they were freed, the Slave States went from being among the wealthiest in the US to being the poorest, and have never recovered."

    And once that was debunked, you are now trying to use the per capita shtick. You are not being honest Iceaura as is your custom.

    As has been endlessly pointed out to you, while slave owners were deprived of the value of their former slaves, it doesn't mean the value of the labor of former slaves vanished. It doesn't mean the land vanished. It doesn't mean the crops vanished. And the South was a primarily agrarian economy. The only thing that changed was how the fruits of labor were divided.

    Yeah, the institution of slavery was bad. No one is arguing that it was anything but bad.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,906
    I can't do more than link you to dictionaries and encyclopedias and the like, and I did that. If you won't read and learn, nobody can help you.
    What are you talking about?
    When you don't own something, like a tractor, or a barn, or a slave, you can't borrow on it, you can't rent it out, you can't sell it to cover debts, and you have to pay others for the use of it yourself. The loss of most of the capital base of the Confederacy, with the freeing of the slaves, meant the economy of the Confederacy lost most of its ability to borrow, raise cash by rent or sale, or produce in excess of its ability to pay its production costs up front from its cash savings of the past. That past had been a war some describe as the first modern "total war", and very little in the way of cash savings remained.

    The production farming of the Confederacy suddenly - overnight, so to speak - found itself undercapitalized by three billion dollars - it's as if every single factory in the Union had been burned to the ground and all the machinery in them destroyed in the space of a week, and the government passed a law that no more could be built and owned - instead, all businessmen had to rent their means of production from then on.

    The fact that the Jacksons of the era - who still owned the land, mind - attempted for a full century to restore the essential social and economic structure of the slave era, rather than moving on, is the legacy we see today in all those political and economic maps of the US: the Confederacy never recovered from the Civil War, mostly because it never adjusted to the loss of the slaves and structure of the slave based economy it was built on and built by.

    Getting beat by the Harriet Tubmans of this world is always hard for the Andrew Jacksons to wrap their minds around.
     
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,884
    LOL...well, you could read them and stop being dishonest and stop making up terms (e.g. store of capital) and provide some evidence for your assertions for starters.

    You don't recognize your own words? As previously stated, those were your words. They are the topic of this discussion...duh.

    The word is collateralize. And what makes you think it was necessary to borrow? What makes you think it was necessary to collateralize slaves? And what makes you think creditors were not aware of the risks associated with slavery and loaning money to slave holders? You don't think creditors realized there was a risk of slaves dying. becoming ill or injured or running away? Farming wasn't a capital intensive enterprise back then. Land was relatively cheap, and there was a lot of it. Farmers were fairly self sufficient as previously discussed. I can't think of any reason why they would need to borrow other than to buy more slaves or more land or for some exigent unusual circumstance. Did you not realize that after the war all Confederate currency was completely worthless? And if the currency is worthless, so is the debt.

    Additionally, it's interesting to note how you change the meaning of the word capital. First you say it's assets (when it suits you) and then suddenly when it doesn't suit you, capital isn't assets, its cash. As has been previously and repeatedly pointed out the you the South was primarily an agrarian economy. After the war, after slavery ended, the land didn't go away, nor did the laborers, nor did the crops or anything else the South used to produce wealth. All that changed was how wealth was distributed. There wasn't any profound magical change to the Southern economy as you have repeatedly asserted. The South was primarily agrarian before and after the Civil War and the demise of slavery. What has happened since the end of slavery, is both the North and the South have become less agrarian and more industrial.

    Contrary to your assertions the South has recovered from the Civil War. Ending slavery didn't damage the South. It damaged slave owners. Fighting a civil war damaged the South.

    Tubman's participation in the Underground Railroad did not overnight or otherwise cause slaver owners to suddenly become under capitalized. If you have evidence to the contrary, now is the time to show it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well, for the umpteenth time, the Confederacy ended with the end of the Civil War. The fact that Southern Whites tried to preserve their wealth and power after the war isn't surprising. And it doesn't support your assertion that Tubman was some sort of economic whiz. As has been endlessly pointed out to you Tubman was a moral crusader. She wasn't an economist. For Tubman and her fellow abolitionists, slavery was a moral issue. It wasn't an economic issue as you have continuously asserted.

    And that does change the fact that all the assets that existed in the South, except those destroyed by warfare, which existed before slavery were there after slavery ended. The wealth didn't vanish. The currency vanished. Wealthy slave owners lost their slaves. But most people in the South were not slave owners, much less wealthy slaver owners. And all of the assets which generated Southern wealth remained intact. The land was still there. The crops were still there. The labor was still there. The climate was still there. The South was agrarian both before and after slavery ended. Tubman didn't change that.

    So now it's not Jackson but the Jacksons of the world...OK. Who cares what slaver owners thought about abolitionists. They didn't like them. We know that. They fought a war to retain their slaves, and they lost that war. How is that the least bit relevant to what Tubman did? The reason Tubman's image is being placed on US currency is not to spite the "Jacksons" of the world. It's to remember our history. It's to remember our struggles and the heroism of people like Tubman. Putting Tubman's image on our currency isn't to stick it to anyone.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,906
    I linked you to a short, clear, well vetted description of the slave based economy of the Confederacy, especially the cotton trade, above (the NYT article link). Like every modern analysis of US plantation slavery it describes the slaves as capital, but if you can somehow get past that affront to your worldview it's pretty clear.

    It has yet to recover from the legacy of slavery, and the loss of the slaves.

    Tubman replacing Jackson is a good sign. But 150 years of celebrating the Andrew Jacksons of the Confederacy is not a legacy easily overcome.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,884
    You mean the opinion piece in which the author equates capitalism with slavery...the article you represented as consensus economic opinion....that article? LOL....yeah.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It wasn't an analysis. It wasn't a scholarly paper. It wasn't "consensus economic opinion". It was an opinion piece. If offered a lot of opinion and little in the way of fact...kind of like you. That's probably why you liked it. The author, like you, had no understanding of economics.

    And where is your evidence for that assertion. You have been repeatedly challenged to back that up and you haven't been able to do so. Repeating bullshit doesn't make it any better or any less bullshit.

    Most people don't know the names of presidents on the currency. That's hardly a celebration of any of them, much less Jackson. And as previously pointed out Jackson wasn't a confederate. Jackson died long before the Confederacy came into existence. Jackson was president of the Union. The name Jackson isn't a euphemism for slave owner as you are trying to make it.

    You have made it well known you like replacing Jackson with Tubman. But also as previously pointed out to you, that's not happening. Jackson is just moving to the other side of the bill and Tubman is being added to the bill. You don't get points for repetition. You are spamming the thread.
     

Share This Page