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

#651
#651
NashVol11 said:
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
Click to expand...
Totally not what I said..I merely questioned lifespan of the area that sold the slaves vs those in America.... And even posted a article/study on that area... Your so set on your SJW agenda that even simple questions offend you...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#652
#652
The strange thing about this topic is that william allen, who is helping to design the curriculum, is black. I cant help wondering if hes thinking of some future with white slaves serving black people when doing this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
#654
#654
mrorange211 said:
Your assumption would be incorrect. I'm trying to understand.
Click to expand...

lol that’s a very specific question for someone trying to understand. But I think you’re confusing exports and wealth.

We import from China because we are wealthier than the Chinese. So their exports are higher than ours, but it’s not because they’re wealthier. It’s the complete opposite.
 
#656
#656
mrorange211 said:
I've always been told a majority of the GDP in the USA immediately pre-CW (the dates cited) came from cotton exports. Thus, influencing the South that they could survive on their own.

I;m not sure why you think I'm gaslighting. Not everyone here is a troll.
Click to expand...

Because you asked a weirdly specific question. You’re welcome to find it yourself. It doesn’t change the fact that exports and wealth are different things. Like I said China exports a lot. We import a lot. Yet Americans are far wealthier than the Chinese. Which is the entire reason we import their goods.

So you’re using a flawed metric if your goal is to show wealth.

But regardless I’m not sure where to find that data. You’re welcome to search for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#657
#657
I get the exports/wealth aspect, but it's also not 100% the case in everything situation. I'm sure the exportation of oil has nothing to do with ME wealth. lol

I'm mainly just curious if Cotton did make up that level of GDP and consequently led to certain political decisions by the South from 1858-1861. I know they tried to use Big Cotton diplomacy during the CW to influence UK involvement but it fell flat. I guess America had cheaper cotton in that time period because of slavery but once the war started the price increased because of expenditures connected to the war? I know the UK just pivoted to India and mainly Egypt for their cotton supplies.
 
#658
#658
NashVol11 said:
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
Click to expand...
No more than the crowd who continues to turn a blind eye to the slavery still taking place in Africa. No need to get into other countries still practicing it as that would be too much for this matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens and whodeycin85
#659
#659
mrorange211 said:
I get the exports/wealth aspect, but it's also not 100% the case in everything situation. I'm sure the exportation of oil has nothing to do with ME wealth. lol

I'm mainly just curious if Cotton did make up that level of GDP and consequently led to certain political decisions by the South from 1858-1861. I know they tried to use Big Cotton diplomacy during the CW to influence UK involvement but it fell flat. I guess America had cheaper cotton in that time period because of slavery but once the war started the price increased because of expenditures connected to the war? I know the UK just pivoted to India and mainly Egypt for their cotton supplies.
Click to expand...

There’s a chart in here that I think answers what you’re asking. Looks like northern troops destroyed roughly half of the cotton produced. I’m assuming most of that was probably from blockades


Economy of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia
 

Attachments

  • 943B8822-287D-4417-A4F2-1BDCFC7204AA.jpeg
    943B8822-287D-4417-A4F2-1BDCFC7204AA.jpeg
    164 KB · Views: 4
#660
#660
C-south said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well Libya was doing pretty well until Barry and Hillary put an end to it, but I digress.
Is the black population in the US thriving? Quality of life metrics there are bad: crime, health, housing, single parent households, etc.
It's not like if you're born in the US life is great and if you're born in Africa life is awful. There's squalor here too, and there are nice areas there. There are opportunities and obstacles, and people can make good lives, in both places.
 
#661
#661
EasternVol said:
Well Libya was doing pretty well until Barry and Hillary put an end to it, but I digress.
Is the black population in the US thriving? Quality of life metrics there are bad: crime, health, housing, single parent households, etc.
It's not like if you're born in the US life is great and if you're born in Africa life is awful. There's squalor here too, and there are nice areas there. There are opportunities and obstacles, and people can make good lives, in both places.
Click to expand...

So you’re saying it’s a cultural issue? Crying perpetual victimhood while doing absolutely nothing to improve your life won’t produce many positive results. And, 😂, Libya would have been a desperate example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#662
#662
Vol8188 said:
lol that’s a very specific question for someone trying to understand. But I think you’re confusing exports and wealth.

We import from China because we are wealthier than the Chinese. So their exports are higher than ours, but it’s not because they’re wealthier. It’s the complete opposite.
Click to expand...
It's not really a matter of wealth but of competitive advantage. Wealth is a component. When the US was manufacturing almost everything and exporting to the far corners it wasn't because we were the poors.
 
#663
#663
C-south said:
So you’re saying it’s a cultural issue? Crying perpetual victimhood while doing absolutely nothing to improve your life won’t produce many positive results. And, 😂, Libya would have been a desperate example.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that blacks today didn't benefit from slavery.
Libya wouldn't have been a desperate example. The folks there were doing pretty well.
 
#668
#668
EasternVol said:
That relates to China -US trade?
The South had manufacturing but not on the scale of the North.
Click to expand...

The original topic wasn’t US/China trade but rather the false idea that our wealth is a result of slavery. And the south had very little manufacturing, 1/10th of the countries total
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#669
#669
Vol8188 said:
The original topic wasn’t US/China trade but rather the false idea that our wealth is a result of slavery. And the south had very little manufacturing, 1/10th of the countries total
Click to expand...

Did some more research on this. On the eve of the CW, cotton accounted for 61% of total value of exports in the USA. So, perhaps America was not wealthy before the CW BUT a major amount of its wealth at the time came from cotton? What's wrong with that statement?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and EasternVol
#670
#670
mrorange211 said:
Did some more research on this. On the eve of the CW, cotton accounted for 61% of total value of exports in the USA. So, perhaps America was not wealthy before the CW BUT a major amount of its wealth at the time came from cotton? What's wrong with that statement?
Click to expand...

The problem with that statement is you’re still confusing wealth and exports. Average income in the north as more than double the south for example.

Can you link the 61% claim?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#671
#671
Vol8188 said:
The original topic wasn’t US/China trade but rather the false idea that our wealth is a result of slavery. And the south had very little manufacturing, 1/10th of the countries total
Click to expand...
Yes, but my comment was about your statement that we import from the Chinese because we're wealthier.
Those that owned plantations, and controlled things in slave states, tended to be very wealthy fwiw.
 
#672
#672
Empire of Cotton

I understand that the average income was higher. The wealth of the country, however, was generated, especially with tariff policies of that time, through exporting of products, 61% was cotton. Apparently the cotton industry of the South was one of the biggest in the world and directly influenced our ability to borrow money for other expenditures. So, it seems to me that it is accurate to state that America's wealth pre-CW was largely gnerated through slave labor and its products. No?
 
#673
#673
mrorange211 said:
Empire of Cotton

I understand that the average income was higher. The wealth of the country, however, was generated, especially with tariff policies of that time, through exporting of products, 61% was cotton. Apparently the cotton industry of the South was one of the biggest in the world and directly influenced our ability to borrow money for other expenditures. So, it seems to me that it is accurate to state that America's wealth pre-CW was largely gnerated through slave labor and its products. No?
Click to expand...

No. There’s several reasons that’s wrong.

1. Like I said earlier the north was wealthier than the south. So you’d have to first tackle this question. If slavery in the south was the main contributor to US wealth, why wasn’t the south wealthy?

2. You’re confusing exports and wealth. Exporting something does not make you wealthy. Typically it’s those buying the thing that are the actual wealthy ones (Britain in this scenario).

3. You have the fact that all countries have participated in slavery, yet there’s not a country people would call wealthy that still has open slavery. Is Libya on its way to becoming a world power due to their open slave markets or does it only work here?

4. The original claim was slavery built America’s wealth. Yet America wasn’t considered wealthy until roughly 50 years post the start of the civil war. Why not if the wealth was built by slavery?

Edit: The claims that slavery generates wealth and gross and misinformed. The south was behind economically which is why they lost the war. They lacked railroads and manufacturing and even their agricultural was behind the times because it relied on slave labor rather than machinery. Slavery doesn’t have a net benefit
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#674
#674
1. I think the south wasn't as wealthy per capita because there wasn't any wealth distribution with the planter elite taking everything. You know there isn't a lot of wealth distribution when you have millions of humans working for nothing.
2. Again, I understand the difference, but your example is not unversal. It depends on what's being exported. The exportation or Rare Earth Minerals from China is certainly a moneymaker because other countires don't have it. In this case, cotton was valuable to the world because America had the cheapest product on the market. The CW changed that for several reasons.
3. Perhaps because the economic systems that generate wealth have drastically evolved past slavery since 1870? This seems like a pedantic argument.
4. Built the wealth, not that America was wealthy. Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly, but to state that slave labor did not build America's wealth pre-CW is to be obtuse for no reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#675
#675
mrorange211 said:
1. I think the south wasn't as wealthy per capita because there wasn't any wealth distribution with the planter elite taking everything. You know there isn't a lot of wealth distribution when you have millions of humans working for nothing.
2. Again, I understand the difference, but your example is not unversal. It depends on what's being exported. The exportation or Rare Earth Minerals from China is certainly a moneymaker because other countires don't have it. In this case, cotton was valuable to the world because America had the cheapest product on the market. The CW changed that for several reasons.
3. Perhaps because the economic systems that generate wealth have drastically evolved past slavery since 1870? This seems like a pedantic argument.
4. Built the wealth, not that America was wealthy. Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly, but to state that slave labor did not build America's wealth pre-CW is to be obtuse for no reason.
Click to expand...

Your response doesn’t make sense. If it generated wealth on a national level that wealth would have to be generated “per capita”. A few rich people doesn’t make a country rich. So you can’t proclaim it made our nation wealthy while saying “of course it didn’t generate per capita wealth”.

A simple example would be if you’re my slave and we profit 100k but I keep it all or if you’re my partner and we make 200k but divide it evenly. Clearly the version where we made 200k generated more wealth (100k per capita vs 50k). So you have to look at this per capita. But even if you don’t look at per capita, the north had a much larger population too. So they would win that battle also

Slavery does not build wealth in general. It’s an inefficient model. That’s why you don’t see wealthy slave countries today. One of the biggest reasons the south lost is because slavery is an ineffective model.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top