5 ms·

>Why do you think the country is richer because of slavery? There are plenty of books on this subject, I think "Capitalism and Slavery" goes into this well, bu

>Why do you think the country is richer because of slavery? There are plenty of books on this subject, I think "Capitalism and Slavery" goes into this well, but it's pretty well documented. Slavery was a huge part of the southern economy, it wasn't just a few individual slaveholders getting rich; it was embedded in the very way of life in the south. It's akin to saying "America isn't rich because of Apple, there's just a few wealthy executives at Apple" - it totally ignores how embedded Apple is in our economy - from the app store, to digital payments, to the entire businesses that live on that platform. It's not controversial at all to say the country was made richer because of slavery. It's not to say that every plantation owner was massively wealthy, or America was a super power due to slavery, but America's implementation of chattel slavery was incredibly vast and was one of its major economies until the industrial revolution.

philwelch 3y ago
> Slavery was a huge part of the southern economy, it wasn't just a few individual slaveholders getting rich; it was embedded in the very way of life in the south. The part you’re leaving out is that, as a direct consequence of this practice, the South was a backwards and impoverished part of the country for that entire period. > America's implementation of chattel slavery was incredibly vast and was one of its major economies until the industrial revolution. That Industrial Revolution started not too long after American independence, but it only happened in the North, not the impoverished slave economy of the South. That’s one of the fundamental reasons the North won the war. Slavery didn’t make America richer; it made America significantly poorer. And the Northern capitalists knew it at the time, which is why they were a major part of the antislavery coalition that ultimately formed the Republican Party.
- nemothekid 3y ago
  Just because the South didn't reap the benefits of it's massive free labor pool, doesn't mean that those benefits didn't exist. Both the North (and even England!) benefitted from slavery even if they didn't directly own the slaves. The abolition of slavery was economically good - if not for the fact you freed up a massive labor pool out of what was essentially farming into working in factories. But that initial suppression, combined with with the continued discrimination that led to plenty of African Americans (and Natives, and arguably the earliest asian settlers) to be regularly robbed of whatever the could build contributes directly to the reason that we are still circling around the reparations concept today. Even if you don't believe slavery was "that bad", the effects of slavery prevented the entire demographic from building wealth; and a lot of was stolen in a government sanctioned manned, e.g. the Tulsa bombings in 1921, 50 years after the abolition of slavery.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    None of your comment addresses, let alone refutes, my argument that slavery made America as a whole poorer rather than richer. Can you clarify what your point of contention is here? Also, > Even if you don't believe slavery was "that bad".... What on earth gave you the idea I would believe such a thing? That's the exact opposite of what my argument would imply.
- MisterBastahrd 3y ago
  > The part you’re leaving out is that, as a direct consequence of this practice, the South was a backwards and impoverished part of the country for that entire period. The part that you're leaving out is that they were backwards and impoverished BY CHOICE. They could have automated just as much as the North did. They chose not to, because it was politically advantageous for land owners to keep their slave populations, which effectively also kept wages low for non-land owning white folk.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    I'm not sure why you think I'm leaving that out. Are you imagining with what you imagine me to have said or what I actually said?
    - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
      The fact that they were backwards and poor was a feature, not a bug. It was an intentional decision by the leaders of the South at the time.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        I understand that. What I don't understand is what you think our point of disagreement or contention is.
JamesBarney 3y ago
Do you think that if the South had freed the slaves before the civil war GDP would have dropped? Or conversely if a large nation today enslaved a substantial portion of it's population do you believe that their GDP would increase or decrease?

philwelch 3y ago

> Slavery was a huge part of the southern economy, it wasn't just a few individual slaveholders getting rich; it was embedded in the very way of life in the south. The part you’re leaving out is that, as a direct consequence of this practice, the South was a backwards and impoverished part of the country for that entire period. > America's implementation of chattel slavery was incredibly vast and was one of its major economies until the industrial revolution. That Industrial Revolution started not too long after American independence, but it only happened in the North, not the impoverished slave economy of the South. That’s one of the fundamental reasons the North won the war. Slavery didn’t make America richer; it made America significantly poorer. And the Northern capitalists knew it at the time, which is why they were a major part of the antislavery coalition that ultimately formed the Republican Party.

nemothekid 3y ago
Just because the South didn't reap the benefits of it's massive free labor pool, doesn't mean that those benefits didn't exist. Both the North (and even England!) benefitted from slavery even if they didn't directly own the slaves. The abolition of slavery was economically good - if not for the fact you freed up a massive labor pool out of what was essentially farming into working in factories. But that initial suppression, combined with with the continued discrimination that led to plenty of African Americans (and Natives, and arguably the earliest asian settlers) to be regularly robbed of whatever the could build contributes directly to the reason that we are still circling around the reparations concept today. Even if you don't believe slavery was "that bad", the effects of slavery prevented the entire demographic from building wealth; and a lot of was stolen in a government sanctioned manned, e.g. the Tulsa bombings in 1921, 50 years after the abolition of slavery.
- philwelch 3y ago
  None of your comment addresses, let alone refutes, my argument that slavery made America as a whole poorer rather than richer. Can you clarify what your point of contention is here? Also, > Even if you don't believe slavery was "that bad".... What on earth gave you the idea I would believe such a thing? That's the exact opposite of what my argument would imply.
MisterBastahrd 3y ago
> The part you’re leaving out is that, as a direct consequence of this practice, the South was a backwards and impoverished part of the country for that entire period. The part that you're leaving out is that they were backwards and impoverished BY CHOICE. They could have automated just as much as the North did. They chose not to, because it was politically advantageous for land owners to keep their slave populations, which effectively also kept wages low for non-land owning white folk.
- philwelch 3y ago
  I'm not sure why you think I'm leaving that out. Are you imagining with what you imagine me to have said or what I actually said?
  - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
    The fact that they were backwards and poor was a feature, not a bug. It was an intentional decision by the leaders of the South at the time.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      I understand that. What I don't understand is what you think our point of disagreement or contention is.

JamesBarney 3y ago

Do you think that if the South had freed the slaves before the civil war GDP would have dropped? Or conversely if a large nation today enslaved a substantial portion of it's population do you believe that their GDP would increase or decrease?