4 ms·

What. A simple counter point that breaks down everything you said would be the measurement of butter production in the northern states pre bellum (civil war) ve

by whb07 7y ago

What. A simple counter point that breaks down everything you said would be the measurement of butter production in the northern states pre bellum (civil war) versus that of the southern states. So no, nothing to do with "unlimited land and free labor".

zapita 7y ago
You're going to have to elaborate, I didn't understand your point at all. I look forward to watching you attempt to demonstrate that appropriation of native land, and free labor from slavery, aren't the pillars on which most wealth in the US was built. I'm sure it will be entertaining.
- whb07 7y ago
  Sure, butter production in the southern states where there was "unlimited free labor" was roughly 20% of the national output, even though they had 40% of the total dairy cows. So there is your counter point to the argument that with "free labor" things got massively built. Quite the opposite. Its hard to get high productivity from slave labor (go figure). Anyhow, one has to observe to be first aware of such things like the butter production in the south as compared to the north to realize that the basic argument of "free labor and unlimited lands" doesn't hold up very well. I'd also like to point that during the peak of the British Empire in the late 19th century up to the early 20th century, the British had by that point outlawed slavery. Lastly, it is amazing to me that you keep bringing up certain groups of peoples. My sister recently took a genetics test and confirming what I already knew I'm roughly 25% "native" like you keep referencing to. Is this my mic drop moment?
  - adventured 7y ago
    Indeed this is something that even George Washington famously wrote about. His conclusion was that slave labor is an economic disaster and that he would be far better off financially not being responsible for carrying all the costs of the labor. And that's before the US developed a far superior economic model to what existed in Washington's time, in regards to productivity (ie even in a backward, low productivity agrarian context, it was obvious slave labor was extremely inefficient, it did not work well at all). This is something that has been proven repeatedly by studies that have looked into slave labor in the colonies and elsewhere. When people on the Internet say otherwise, my experience has been that they never support their claims, they're always empty statements held up as fact. The US would have developed faster if the slaves had been free. Along with being obviously morally evil, slavery inherently must involve a great misallocation of human resources. It's an extreme example of command economics. The Soviets, Chinese and others more recently have demonstrated how poorly slave-based economics works in practice. We're not lacking for proof; there isn't a single example from modern history of it working well versus free labor. The greatest example of this in action in recorded history, is modern China. They only developed at all after they began to shift away from a de facto slave-based labor system, to something closer to free labor. Simply put, they unleashed their human capital and it has done the rest, going to work building out modern China (in spite of the restraining, backwards, command economics system that remains, rather than because of it; something Internet pundits frequently get wrong about China).
  - zapita 7y ago
    First, I'll note that you haven't addressed the "unlimited land" part at all. Shall I conclude that you agree with me, at least, that appropriation of native land was one of the pillars of US wealth creation? > butter production in the southern states where there was "unlimited free labor" was roughly 20% of the national output, even though they had 40% of the total dairy cows. So from this one example, you're extrapolating that slavery did not play a major role in the creation of overall US wealth? That is a... bold claim, to put it lightly. It is not supported by contemporary historians, and your other comments don't exactly inspire confidence as to your mastery if History, so forgive me for being skeptical. How about you start by telling me, of the 13 original colonies, how many had slaves? And, perhaps, how much wealth had been accumulated in the original colonies before they abolished slavery? From there, perhaps move on to researching how slavery enriched the North, even after abolition. > I'd also like to point that during the peak of the British Empire in the late 19th century up to the early 20th century, the British had by that point outlawed slavery. I fail to see how that is relevant to the US. Before you take your British Empire comparison too far, you might want to research the origin of the empire's wealth during the 19th and 20th century... I'll give you a hint: it's explained in this book, which I recommend reading if you're interested in this topic. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32618967-an-era-of-darkness https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32618967-an-era-of-darkn... > I'm roughly 25% "native" like you keep referencing to. Oh you're Native American, that's great! What tribe? Not only does your genetics test not matter, by claiming native heritage in this way you are participating in something which actual Native Americans find problematic. If you want to learn more on this topic, here is a good starting point: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129554-400-there-is-no-dna-test-to-prove-youre-native-american/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129554-400-there-is...
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
      If he can't use his 25% native part as an argument for wealth partially accruing to original inhabitants of the continent, you can't use his other 75% as an argument for wealth accruing to European settlers (assuming his other 75% is European).
      - zapita 7y ago
- merpnderp 7y ago
  The shortest and simplest argument is that the South barely had the funds to prosecute the war while the North not only could fully fund their war efforts, they had access to extensive lines of credit from other nations. The South had to rely upon the largesse of European countries using it as a pawn. The North lost roughly one soldier for every African slave brought to the South and the least we could do is not imply they were some impoverished slavers who couldn't plant a crop, open a factory, or build rail lines without some help from the South.
  - zapita 7y ago
    > The shortest and simplest argument is that the South barely had the funds to prosecute the war while the North not only could fully fund their war efforts, they had access to extensive lines of credit from other nations. The South had to rely upon the largesse of European countries using it as a pawn. Interesting argument. And what was the wealth of the North built on?
    - merpnderp 7y ago
      Well we know it wasn't slavery. In the South the rich invested in slaves, and the rich controlled most of the economy. In the North the economy was dominated by agriculture, and was well along into the industrial revolution. To put the economies in the starkest of differences, 90% of all the capital in the United States, prior to the Civil War, was located in the North. The North employed 1000% more factory workers, in factories that were magnitudes more profitable. Steel production, railroads, engines, chemicals, all this was produced in the North in almost their entirety. The South produced only three things of note: cotton, slavery, and traitors.
      - zapita 7y ago
        Interesting. Would you say the South was an important market for the industrialized North? Would you like to guess whether businessmen in the North invested in the slave trade and grew rich thanks to it? And what do you make of the fact that the North abolished slavery only after decades of using slaves, making it plausible that they never could have succeeded as colonies without slaves in the first place?

by whb07 7y ago

zapita 7y ago

You're going to have to elaborate, I didn't understand your point at all. I look forward to watching you attempt to demonstrate that appropriation of native land, and free labor from slavery, aren't the pillars on which most wealth in the US was built. I'm sure it will be entertaining.

whb07 7y ago
Sure, butter production in the southern states where there was "unlimited free labor" was roughly 20% of the national output, even though they had 40% of the total dairy cows. So there is your counter point to the argument that with "free labor" things got massively built. Quite the opposite. Its hard to get high productivity from slave labor (go figure). Anyhow, one has to observe to be first aware of such things like the butter production in the south as compared to the north to realize that the basic argument of "free labor and unlimited lands" doesn't hold up very well. I'd also like to point that during the peak of the British Empire in the late 19th century up to the early 20th century, the British had by that point outlawed slavery. Lastly, it is amazing to me that you keep bringing up certain groups of peoples. My sister recently took a genetics test and confirming what I already knew I'm roughly 25% "native" like you keep referencing to. Is this my mic drop moment?
- adventured 7y ago
  Indeed this is something that even George Washington famously wrote about. His conclusion was that slave labor is an economic disaster and that he would be far better off financially not being responsible for carrying all the costs of the labor. And that's before the US developed a far superior economic model to what existed in Washington's time, in regards to productivity (ie even in a backward, low productivity agrarian context, it was obvious slave labor was extremely inefficient, it did not work well at all). This is something that has been proven repeatedly by studies that have looked into slave labor in the colonies and elsewhere. When people on the Internet say otherwise, my experience has been that they never support their claims, they're always empty statements held up as fact. The US would have developed faster if the slaves had been free. Along with being obviously morally evil, slavery inherently must involve a great misallocation of human resources. It's an extreme example of command economics. The Soviets, Chinese and others more recently have demonstrated how poorly slave-based economics works in practice. We're not lacking for proof; there isn't a single example from modern history of it working well versus free labor. The greatest example of this in action in recorded history, is modern China. They only developed at all after they began to shift away from a de facto slave-based labor system, to something closer to free labor. Simply put, they unleashed their human capital and it has done the rest, going to work building out modern China (in spite of the restraining, backwards, command economics system that remains, rather than because of it; something Internet pundits frequently get wrong about China).
- zapita 7y ago
  First, I'll note that you haven't addressed the "unlimited land" part at all. Shall I conclude that you agree with me, at least, that appropriation of native land was one of the pillars of US wealth creation? > butter production in the southern states where there was "unlimited free labor" was roughly 20% of the national output, even though they had 40% of the total dairy cows. So from this one example, you're extrapolating that slavery did not play a major role in the creation of overall US wealth? That is a... bold claim, to put it lightly. It is not supported by contemporary historians, and your other comments don't exactly inspire confidence as to your mastery if History, so forgive me for being skeptical. How about you start by telling me, of the 13 original colonies, how many had slaves? And, perhaps, how much wealth had been accumulated in the original colonies before they abolished slavery? From there, perhaps move on to researching how slavery enriched the North, even after abolition. > I'd also like to point that during the peak of the British Empire in the late 19th century up to the early 20th century, the British had by that point outlawed slavery. I fail to see how that is relevant to the US. Before you take your British Empire comparison too far, you might want to research the origin of the empire's wealth during the 19th and 20th century... I'll give you a hint: it's explained in this book, which I recommend reading if you're interested in this topic. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32618967-an-era-of-darkness https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32618967-an-era-of-darkn... > I'm roughly 25% "native" like you keep referencing to. Oh you're Native American, that's great! What tribe? Not only does your genetics test not matter, by claiming native heritage in this way you are participating in something which actual Native Americans find problematic. If you want to learn more on this topic, here is a good starting point: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129554-400-there-is-no-dna-test-to-prove-youre-native-american/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129554-400-there-is...
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    If he can't use his 25% native part as an argument for wealth partially accruing to original inhabitants of the continent, you can't use his other 75% as an argument for wealth accruing to European settlers (assuming his other 75% is European).
    - zapita 7y ago
merpnderp 7y ago
The shortest and simplest argument is that the South barely had the funds to prosecute the war while the North not only could fully fund their war efforts, they had access to extensive lines of credit from other nations. The South had to rely upon the largesse of European countries using it as a pawn. The North lost roughly one soldier for every African slave brought to the South and the least we could do is not imply they were some impoverished slavers who couldn't plant a crop, open a factory, or build rail lines without some help from the South.
- zapita 7y ago
  > The shortest and simplest argument is that the South barely had the funds to prosecute the war while the North not only could fully fund their war efforts, they had access to extensive lines of credit from other nations. The South had to rely upon the largesse of European countries using it as a pawn. Interesting argument. And what was the wealth of the North built on?
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    Well we know it wasn't slavery. In the South the rich invested in slaves, and the rich controlled most of the economy. In the North the economy was dominated by agriculture, and was well along into the industrial revolution. To put the economies in the starkest of differences, 90% of all the capital in the United States, prior to the Civil War, was located in the North. The North employed 1000% more factory workers, in factories that were magnitudes more profitable. Steel production, railroads, engines, chemicals, all this was produced in the North in almost their entirety. The South produced only three things of note: cotton, slavery, and traitors.
    - zapita 7y ago
      Interesting. Would you say the South was an important market for the industrialized North? Would you like to guess whether businessmen in the North invested in the slave trade and grew rich thanks to it? And what do you make of the fact that the North abolished slavery only after decades of using slaves, making it plausible that they never could have succeeded as colonies without slaves in the first place?