Turns out, slavery is good ... for the slaves

[C-south]

The Europeans provided the market. If they weren't buying would the slaves have been captured? If cokeheads in the US don't toot, will South Americans refine cocaine?

Yes….Yes they would have except they would have probably been killed instead of sold. “Europeans” is pretty broad and also selective.

 

[Vol8188]

What made America wealthy pre-CW?

America wasn’t wealthy pre civil war. To the extent that it was, the non slave states were wealthier than the slave states. The average income in the north was about twice that of the south and the north even out produced the south on most agriculture (cotton being an exception).

But America’s wealth didn’t really become a thing until the early 1900s

 

[RikidyBones]

Genealogy. Not a descendant of a slave in the 13 colonies or the US.

Yeah but slavery wasn't invented for or by the 13 colonies. Therefore, you could still be, and are likely to be, a descendant of a slave at some point in time.

 

[EasternVol]

Yes….Yes they would have except they would have probably been killed instead of sold. “Europeans” is pretty broad and also selective.

Or there would have been fewer raids. I'd like to see a good study on how that worked.

 

[EasternVol]

Yeah but slavery wasn't invented for or by the 13 colonies. Therefore, you could still be, and are likely to be, a descendant of a slave at some point in time.

Not chattel slavery, and not in the western hemisphere, which is what we're on about here.

 

[C-south]

Or there would have been fewer raids. I'd like to see a good study on how that worked.

You can do that today.

 

[whodeycin85]

Interesting that many slaves didn't live past 5 years or had children in Trinidad where many slaves were originally purchased....I wonder if lifenspan increases if they were able to survive the voyage to America???? How many black Americans today might not even existed if not for the horrible slave trade to America...

 

[RikidyBones]

Not chattel slavery, and not in the western hemisphere, which is what we're on about here.

That's categorically false. Slavery existed in the Americas before Europeans got there. Mayans had slaves. Mayans were close to chattel. The Aztecs had slaves but there are a few differences that not many would argue was a saving grace. Owning the labor and not the person, needing agreement to sell, children were born free but the inhumane aspect that we have issue with remains.

 

[creekdipper]

What made America wealthy pre-CW?

Budweiser

 

[NashVol11]

Interesting that many slaves didn't live past 5 years or had children in Trinidad where many slaves were originally purchased....I wonder if lifenspan increases if they were able to survive the voyage to America???? How many black Americans today might not even existed if not for the horrible slave trade to America...

You're saying Europeans treated slaves in a colony like Trinidad worse than they treated slaves in America, so the slave trade was good? The "slavery wasn't so bad" crowd is embarrassing themselves even more than usual today

 

[GroverCleveland]

What made America wealthy pre-CW?

Northern Yankee workmen.

 

[GroverCleveland]

You're saying Europeans treated slaves in a colony like Trinidad worse than they treated slaves in America, so the slave trade was good? The "slavery wasn't so bad" crowd is embarrassing themselves even more than usual today

He didn't say that. He asked questions.

 

[C-south]

You're saying Europeans treated slaves in a colony like Trinidad worse than they treated slaves in America, so the slave trade was good? The "slavery wasn't so bad" crowd is embarrassing themselves even more than usual today

Maybe the people that captured their own people treated them worse…..before they sold them.

 

[NashVol11]

He didn't say that. He asked questions.

Very stupid questions. I suspect that he won't hide from what his post implies the way you currently are

 

[EasternVol]

Budweiser

PBR!

 

[EasternVol]

You can do that today.

Something well researched and credible.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Very stupid questions. I suspect that he won't hide from what his post implies the way you currently are

What?

 

[EasternVol]

That's categorically false. Slavery existed in the Americas before Europeans got there. Mayans had slaves. Mayans were close to chattel. The Aztecs had slaves but there are a few differences that not many would argue was a saving grace. Owning the labor and not the person, needing agreement to sell, children were born free but the inhumane aspect that we have issue with remains.

That's categorically false. Slavery existed in the Americas before Europeans got there. Mayans had slaves. Mayans were close to chattel. The Aztecs had slaves but there are a few differences that not many would argue was a saving grace. Owning the labor and not the person, needing agreement to sell, children were born free but the inhumane aspect that we have issue with remains.

It's not false that I am not descended of any chattel slaves or slaves in the western hemisphere.
South American slavery is a different issue.

 

[RikidyBones]

It's not false that I am not descended of any chattel slaves or slaves in the western hemisphere.
South American slavery is a different issue.

I misread your post. Sorry about that, EV.

 

[EasternVol]

I misread your post. Sorry about that, EV.

Not a problem.

 

[AM64]

The Europeans provided the market. If they weren't buying would the slaves have been captured? If cokeheads in the US don't toot, will South Americans refine cocaine?

Of course Africans would have been captured and enslaved by other Africans. That's what tribal cultures do. American Indians captured and enslaved other Indians. Africans simply found a market for their captives before the advent of modern machinery.

South Americans have used drugs grown domestically for centuries. They may originally have chewed coca leaves rather than processing it. Do you really think there is a quest for drugs if no one knows a drug exists?

 

[EasternVol]

Of course Africans would have been captured and enslaved by other Africans. That's what tribal cultures do. American Indians captured and enslaved other Indians. Africans simply found a market for their captives before the advent of modern machinery.

South Americans have used drugs grown domestically for centuries. They may originally have chewed coca leaves rather than processing it. Do you really think there is a quest for drugs if no one knows a drug exists?

Would their descendants have remained enslaved for generations and then become a permanent underclass?
The comments on drugs looks backwards. There would be little or no production if there was little or no demand.

 

[C-south]

Would their descendants have remained enslaved for generations and then become a permanent underclass?
The comments on drugs looks backwards. There would be little or no production if there was little or no demand.

What parts of west Africa, or anywhere in Africa, are people thriving? A continent abundant with so many resources that they sold only to dig it up for someone else and live in squalor.

 

[mrorange211]

America wasn’t wealthy pre civil war. To the extent that it was, the non slave states were wealthier than the slave states. The average income in the north was about twice that of the south and the north even out produced the south on most agriculture (cotton being an exception).

But America’s wealth didn’t really become a thing until the early 1900s

Was a huge chunk of the GDP of the USA pre-CW, specifically 1855-1860, from cotton exports?

 

[Vol8188]

Was a huge chunk of the GDP of the USA pre-CW, specifically 1855-1860, from cotton exports?

I’m going to assume you know where to find this data, so go ahead… instead of wasting both our time