In your opinion what was the "underlying" reason slaves were brought to the early American colonies?

It's my opinion that in the days when slavery was permitted worldwide, one of the main reasons was to keep prices on exported products as cheap as possible. {tobacco,cotton, etc} Since Europeans and the English were the Americas main trading partners in those days, aren't they responsible somewhat?

Also I don't see a whole lot of difference in the world today when the developed world buys the products produced in a slave like communist country. Yes the country prospers, but do the slaves share in the prosperity?

Answer:
Slaves definately don't share in prosperity!

It's all about the money, the profit of the slave holders. Many people don't understand that the average family didn't have slaves; RICH people had slaves.

But let's back up a bit. Before slaves were brought to America, peasants from Europe were brought over on a contract. The peasants got a ride to America, but in turn, they had to work so many years for the person who paid their ride (usually 7-10 years). These peasants are called 'indentured servants'. This tactic was apparently too costly for these 'rich' Americans, so they started participating in the slave trade. The indentured servants got to leave the plantation after so many years, while the people who paid their way over had to, in turn, pay for more indentured servants. It was much more cheap to pay for a slave who would work for free his/her entire life.

And no, it wasn't to keep prices of exports down! It was to put more money in the ellite's pockets. For example (comepletely hypothetical), I could export this apple on my computer desk for $10 (like I said, it's hypothetical). When I factor in the cost of my indentured servants and other costs, I'll only profit $7. One day I decide to buy me some slaves. I'm still going to export this apple for $10. However, when I factor in the cost of labor (and whatnot), I'm now profiting $9 instead of $7.

The country does not prosper (the country would have prospered more if jobs were given to PEOPLE of the country). The slaves do not prosper (I don't think I have to explain that one!). The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. much like our Capitalistic economy today!

To Add - The first answerer said that European countries started the African slave business. However, that person failed to mention African leaders of African countries and colonies who captured and sold their own people. Like I said, the rich get richer!

the second part first. Slaves in communist countries? People in communist countries are not slaves. The difference is gigantic. A slave is not a person it is property and not of the state but of a person. A communist country is full of citizens, they may be deeply oppressed but no one calls them property. In a communist nation everything they have (house, clothes, food) may be owned by the state but they are not.

First part. Yes that is the reason for slavery to keep costs down. The fact is they were wrong about that since what they did was incur a fixed cost (slaves) as opposed to keeping variable cost (workers). but that is another posting. You are right. America did not create slavery. The Europeans brought it here before the US existed. After the US became independent the investment in the fixed cost (slaves) was made and it would be cheaper to maintain that investment as opposed to releasing slaves (and losing all the capital investment in slaves) and hiring workers. So yes the Europeans are to mainly responsible for slaves.

Now, that is fine when we are talking about things, slaves. But the reality is we are talking about people in slavery. That is the rub. I can use economics to discuss why things were the way they were; but, it does not make it right. Economics is about making people better, and the tradeoffs that must be made to do that. In this issue economics would tell the leaders of the time to abolish slavery because slaves are not capital equipment they were people. The slave owners were able to extract benefit from the slaves without paying the cost. The cost I'm talking about is the cost the slaves were forced to pay in lost freedom. The slave owners never paid that cost. The US as a whole probably did not really benefit all that much from slavery. The work done by slaves could have been done by workers, wages being paid and perhaps even more economic activity. However, the slave owners did benefit.

Profits

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.

FunQA.com

In your opinion what was the "underlying" reason slaves were brought to the early American colonies?

Topic