5 ms·
> In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton, pro
by vhudud 8y ago
> In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all US export earnings.
>thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers.
These two quotes prove my claim. Slave grown crops were a large part of the usa's exports and even in states without slaves, industry depended on the plantation system in some way. I think its reasonable to say the us economy heavily depended on slavery for that reason. Either you are expending an extraordinary amount of effort nitpicking the semantics of "heavily" or you're knowlingly deluding yourself to avoid facing the truth.
As an american, who lives in an area where enslaved people once walked, i know its hard to accept that the country i love was founded on opression. But it's something we all must acknowledge. It's a dark chapter of our history, and it continues to impact us today.
- patrickg_zill 8y agoMaybe you have a point. Because I don't accept it (collective guilt). And 23% is not heavily dependent, no matter how you slice it. Maternal side: has been in the USA since 1727. In those nearly 300 years, no one ever owned slaves or benefited from slavery. In fact, it is possible that they were even harmed by it; because as free farmers they had to compete against slave labor. Paternal side: arrived in 1920s, well after slavery ended.