3 ms·

The native Americans might disagree slightly on that one. Perhaps the transatlantic slave trade might also be considered plunder?

WalterBright 3y ago
> The native Americans might disagree slightly on that one. The evidence in the bones of pre-Columbian Indians is that the suffered periodic famines. > Perhaps the transatlantic slave trade might also be considered plunder? It could be. But it's also true that whatever wealth the slaves created was burned to the ground in the Civil War. The industrialized free Northern states' economy buried the economy of the slave South. There's also the wealth of the rest of N and S American countries, which did not become wealthy.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > But it’s also true that whatever wealth the slaves created was burned to the ground in the Civil War. No, its not. For one thing, the states that joined the Confederacy weren’t the only states in which wealth was built by slaves. They were most of the states that were still slave states at the time, but many more states had been slave states, and some still were and stayed in the Union. For another thing, while war was destructive, not all the wealth built on slavery in the Confederacy was destroyed in the Civil War.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Slavery died out in the Northern states around 1800. The industrialization in the North came after that. > not all the wealth built on slavery in the Confederacy was destroyed in the Civil War What wasn't was a rounding error. Of course, the slave states didn't have much in the way of industry to be destroyed in the first place. The plantations were burned down by Sherman. The slave South couldn't even make shoes. The reason Lee was at Gettysburg was he was headed for nearby Harrisburg to loot the shoe factory there. Rebel soldiers were largely barefoot. History shows that free people outproduce slaves by a wide margin. Running an industrial slave economy has been tried a few times, with dismal results.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      > The slave South couldn't even make shoes In part because they didn’t need to, they could just buy them and other goods the from the north/Europe and focus on the production of cotton which was more profitable and lucrative (the Northern states didn’t have that option). The pre civil war economy was highly specialized and interlinked, the Northeast benefited massively from slavery and cotton exports which brought in large amounts of capital and credit to the country which in part made industrialization possible. > History shows that free people outproduce slaves by a wide margin. Running an industrial slave economy has been tried a few times, with dismal results. That doesn’t seem true at all and in fact the complete opposite if we focus on preindustrial agriculture. Slaves were much more productive at producing cash crops like cotton or especially sugar cane than free people.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        > That doesn’t seem true at all Name one counterexample. > if we focus on preindustrial agriculture They weren't free people. It was usually a feudal system.
        ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > That doesn’t seem true at all I did? Are you seriously claiming that free workers could’ve been more productive at producing sugarcane in Haiti than slaves? > They weren't free people. It was usually a feudal system. Depends. Serfdom had mostly disappeared from England and to a lesser extent France by the 1500s.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    Slavery wasn’t really that profitable outside of the cotton belt, though. Yes there were still slaves in the North until the early to mid 1800s but it’s not clear that its impact on the economic prosperity of those states was ever particularly significant. > not all the wealth built on slavery in the Confederacy was Not to say that even the free states in the Northeast massively benefited economically from the cotton trade in the decades that preceded the war.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      When the South split from the Union, the Northern states continued to prosper and way outproduce the South. It's wealth was obviously not based on Southern slave cotton.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        The growth it experienced over the several previous decades was accelerated by it to some extent.

WalterBright 3y ago

> The native Americans might disagree slightly on that one. The evidence in the bones of pre-Columbian Indians is that the suffered periodic famines. > Perhaps the transatlantic slave trade might also be considered plunder? It could be. But it's also true that whatever wealth the slaves created was burned to the ground in the Civil War. The industrialized free Northern states' economy buried the economy of the slave South. There's also the wealth of the rest of N and S American countries, which did not become wealthy.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> But it’s also true that whatever wealth the slaves created was burned to the ground in the Civil War. No, its not. For one thing, the states that joined the Confederacy weren’t the only states in which wealth was built by slaves. They were most of the states that were still slave states at the time, but many more states had been slave states, and some still were and stayed in the Union. For another thing, while war was destructive, not all the wealth built on slavery in the Confederacy was destroyed in the Civil War.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Slavery died out in the Northern states around 1800. The industrialization in the North came after that. > not all the wealth built on slavery in the Confederacy was destroyed in the Civil War What wasn't was a rounding error. Of course, the slave states didn't have much in the way of industry to be destroyed in the first place. The plantations were burned down by Sherman. The slave South couldn't even make shoes. The reason Lee was at Gettysburg was he was headed for nearby Harrisburg to loot the shoe factory there. Rebel soldiers were largely barefoot. History shows that free people outproduce slaves by a wide margin. Running an industrial slave economy has been tried a few times, with dismal results.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > The slave South couldn't even make shoes In part because they didn’t need to, they could just buy them and other goods the from the north/Europe and focus on the production of cotton which was more profitable and lucrative (the Northern states didn’t have that option). The pre civil war economy was highly specialized and interlinked, the Northeast benefited massively from slavery and cotton exports which brought in large amounts of capital and credit to the country which in part made industrialization possible. > History shows that free people outproduce slaves by a wide margin. Running an industrial slave economy has been tried a few times, with dismal results. That doesn’t seem true at all and in fact the complete opposite if we focus on preindustrial agriculture. Slaves were much more productive at producing cash crops like cotton or especially sugar cane than free people.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > That doesn’t seem true at all Name one counterexample. > if we focus on preindustrial agriculture They weren't free people. It was usually a feudal system.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > That doesn’t seem true at all I did? Are you seriously claiming that free workers could’ve been more productive at producing sugarcane in Haiti than slaves? > They weren't free people. It was usually a feudal system. Depends. Serfdom had mostly disappeared from England and to a lesser extent France by the 1500s.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  Slavery wasn’t really that profitable outside of the cotton belt, though. Yes there were still slaves in the North until the early to mid 1800s but it’s not clear that its impact on the economic prosperity of those states was ever particularly significant. > not all the wealth built on slavery in the Confederacy was Not to say that even the free states in the Northeast massively benefited economically from the cotton trade in the decades that preceded the war.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    When the South split from the Union, the Northern states continued to prosper and way outproduce the South. It's wealth was obviously not based on Southern slave cotton.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      The growth it experienced over the several previous decades was accelerated by it to some extent.