3 ms·

> Absolutely. You can't make a country richer by enslaving part of the population, and you don't need slavery to make a country rich Correct, but I didn't clai

> Absolutely. You can't make a country richer by enslaving part of the population, and you don't need slavery to make a country rich Correct, but I didn't claim either of these things. I asked if the immense wealth among white Americans didn't grow out of the subjugation of slaves. Imagine 100 people who are equally wealthy. Now, imagine you take 1/6 of the people, remove all of their wealth, and disperse it among the remaining 5/6. Perhaps you skim a few percent off the top due to inefficiencies of the scheme. Are you saying the 5/6 people here didn't benefit? Sure seems like they did! > The claim isn't directed to one group's heritage and its contribution. On its face, it is directed at "nearly everything that has truly made American exceptional." It literally ties the entirety of the American story (or nearly all of it) to slavery. You...you read the full quote, right? > Almost none of those things grew out of slavery. Our "legal system" for example was imported wholesale from England--based on principles of the Magna Carta dating back to 1215. Any slave trade into England itself was banned in 1102. Are there imprints on our legal system from slavery? Sure. But its factually incorrect to say our legal system "grew out of slavery." There are a number of uniquenesses to the American legal system that trace themselves to slavery and racism. And I'd argue that many of those things are the things that make the American legal system "exceptional" and unique. > The founding principles weren't fulfilled in 1776, but the history of the country has been one of progress in that direction. That was conventional wisdom among Democratic political leadership when I was growing up (and I'm only 37) and almost certainly still is the conventional wisdom among most rank-and-file Democrats. See, I read the opposite from this. "Consent of the governed" is incompatible with slavery. You say that this was simply the principles "not being fulfilled" at the time, but then how can you say that we were founded on a set of values that the constitution then proceeds to explicitly reject? The constitution provides for the 3/5ths compromise, but didn't encode a right to vote (for anyone, that was left up to the individual states) until reconstruction. > but the history of the country has been one of progress in that direction This is sort of a meaningless platitude. "Sure you still don't have the rights to life, liberty, and happiness yet, like most people do, but you're closer now than your ancestors were 150 years ago" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the US.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
> Now, imagine you take 1/6 of the people, remove all of their wealth, and disperse it among the remaining 5/6. Perhaps you skim a few percent off the top due to inefficiencies of the scheme. Are you saying the 5/6 people here didn't benefit? Sure seems like they did! Slave ownership was strongly concentrated. A relatively small class of plantation owners got rich off slavery. They didn't redistribute the proceeds across the entire white population. Economically, the slave-owning South, as a whole, lagged far behind the North, and slavery is a likely cause for that economic backwardness. > didn't encode a right to vote (for anyone, that was left up to the individual states) until reconstruction. That has nothing to do with slavery. The Constitution was written at a time when democracy was viewed with suspicion, and moreover. Nevertheless, the United States was, at the time, rapidly becoming one of the most democratic polities in the world. One way to see this is to look at the state constitutions written in this era.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > That has nothing to do with slavery. My comment here wasn't about slavery. It was about the claim that america was founded on the principle of government by the consent of the governed. I think your response proves my point. > One way to see this is to look at the state constitutions written in this era. Well, minus the whole slavery thing enshrined in half of them (not to mention landownership requirements that lasted until the civil war in some places, and the net reduction in voting rights in the early 1800s). Like even at its founding, the US was only marginally better than the UK in terms of enfranchisement. About 2% of Philidelphians were eligible voters. That's the capital of a free state with only a few slaves. > . A relatively small class of plantation owners got rich off slavery. They didn't redistribute the proceeds across the entire white population. Economically, the slave-owning South, as a whole, lagged far behind the North, and slavery is a likely cause for that economic backwardness. The south, for the 17th time were not the only people who benefitted. Northern businesses that depended on various plantation based exports also gained. But even still, I agree that your average white farmer didn't gain a lot, that's true of capitalist economies, not slavery in particular. The gilded age didn't fix wealth inequality. The bigger question is whether or not the relatively rich and influential southern plantation owners had an outsized impact on, say, the development of universities and such.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

> Now, imagine you take 1/6 of the people, remove all of their wealth, and disperse it among the remaining 5/6. Perhaps you skim a few percent off the top due to inefficiencies of the scheme. Are you saying the 5/6 people here didn't benefit? Sure seems like they did! Slave ownership was strongly concentrated. A relatively small class of plantation owners got rich off slavery. They didn't redistribute the proceeds across the entire white population. Economically, the slave-owning South, as a whole, lagged far behind the North, and slavery is a likely cause for that economic backwardness. > didn't encode a right to vote (for anyone, that was left up to the individual states) until reconstruction. That has nothing to do with slavery. The Constitution was written at a time when democracy was viewed with suspicion, and moreover. Nevertheless, the United States was, at the time, rapidly becoming one of the most democratic polities in the world. One way to see this is to look at the state constitutions written in this era.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> That has nothing to do with slavery. My comment here wasn't about slavery. It was about the claim that america was founded on the principle of government by the consent of the governed. I think your response proves my point. > One way to see this is to look at the state constitutions written in this era. Well, minus the whole slavery thing enshrined in half of them (not to mention landownership requirements that lasted until the civil war in some places, and the net reduction in voting rights in the early 1800s). Like even at its founding, the US was only marginally better than the UK in terms of enfranchisement. About 2% of Philidelphians were eligible voters. That's the capital of a free state with only a few slaves. > . A relatively small class of plantation owners got rich off slavery. They didn't redistribute the proceeds across the entire white population. Economically, the slave-owning South, as a whole, lagged far behind the North, and slavery is a likely cause for that economic backwardness. The south, for the 17th time were not the only people who benefitted. Northern businesses that depended on various plantation based exports also gained. But even still, I agree that your average white farmer didn't gain a lot, that's true of capitalist economies, not slavery in particular. The gilded age didn't fix wealth inequality. The bigger question is whether or not the relatively rich and influential southern plantation owners had an outsized impact on, say, the development of universities and such.