Was the US Built by Slaves?

[Agent327]

Southern leaders/wealthy people rarely invested a lot of money into industry and railroads because they could make more money investing in land and slaves. Northerners could make more money investing in industry and railroads. So that's what they did. What that meant is that the planter class in the South tended to be very wealthy, but all most all their wealth was in the form of land and slaves. They didn't have a lot of cash. They didn't tend to invest in businesses. In the North there were increasingly just more people as a whole. And the average productivity was higher, because they were working with better/more tools. There were fewer of the really great personal fortunes in the North at that time. But the total productive capacity was greater. The output of the slave laborer was high, and the produce was valuable, and often sold for high prices. Prices did tend to go up and down, however. But the rate of productivity was essentially stagnant, because those slaves couldn't get any better at their jobs.

Actually, the latter is inaccurate. A recent study showed that slave owners managed to increase productivity on plantations. Simply by making the slaves work harder. Which is, after all, not that hard to do, when your 'employees' have zero rights.

 

[Yeekim]

Well, according to 1860 census, ~12,6% of US population were slaves at the time.
Even though that definitely translates to very notable contribution, I'd think the rest, comprising 87,4% of the population, also had some sort of role in building the country...

 

[Flying Pig]

Actually, the latter is inaccurate. A recent study showed that slave owners managed to increase productivity on plantations. Simply by making the slaves work harder. Which is, after all, not that hard to do, when your 'employees' have zero rights.

I think the issue is that 'making slaves work harder' only goes so far - the difference between an ordinary slave picking cotton and a hard-working slave picking cotton is tiny next to the difference between a factory working with hand tools and one working with power, for example. The opportunities for growth are fundamentally linear and have an unavoidably low ceiling. Neither of those apply when you start making serious improvements in equipment, infrastructure, organisation and so on. However, I still have a basic problem with this argument - yes, buying more slaves was clearly a good investment, but it's difficult to argue that a railroad network would not have been hugely profitable in the South. Similarly, although a slave-labour factory might be seen as a non-starter, by at least the Civil War it must have been obvious that there was much more money to be made in industry than in agriculture. What stopped these huge personal fortunes - which we've established were often larger than comparable cases in the North - being invested into things like that?

 

[EgonSpengler]

An article from this morning:

The Washington Post, 2 Sept 2016 - Georgetown plans to apologize for its role in slavery

Georgetown University pledged Thursday to apologize for its role in the slave trade and offered to give admissions preference to the descendants of those sold for the benefit of the school, one of the most aggressive responses to date among the universities trying to make amends for the horrors of slavery.

[...]

With the report, Georgetown joins a growing number of prominent colleges and universities that are giving new scrutiny to their various connections to the institution of slavery in America from Colonial times through the Civil War.

[...]

Brown University acknowledged its close ties to the 18th-century transatlantic slave trade in a groundbreaking 2006 report. U-Va.’s governing board voted in 2007 to express regret for the use of slaves. Georgetown, founded in 1789, is now revisiting its own deep entanglement with slavery.

[...]

The panel’s report explores the relationship between Maryland Jesuits, slavery and the college. The Jesuits established plantations and began using slave labor on them about 1700.

Those plantations became an enduring source of financial support for Georgetown, the nation’s first Catholic college. The report notes that through the Civil War “the mood at the college was pro-slavery and ultimately pro-Confederacy.”

Preliminary research suggests that there were more slaves on Georgetown’s campus than previously thought, probably about 1 in every 10 people on campus in the early 19th century. Some were brought by students. Some were rented from slave owners.

So this certainly puts a checkmark into the "yes" column as we look into whether the US was built by slaves. Georgetown University today has an endowment of approximately $1.5 billion, according to a quick Google search.

 

[Cutlass]

I think the issue is that 'making slaves work harder' only goes so far - the difference between an ordinary slave picking cotton and a hard-working slave picking cotton is tiny next to the difference between a factory working with hand tools and one working with power, for example. The opportunities for growth are fundamentally linear and have an unavoidably low ceiling. Neither of those apply when you start making serious improvements in equipment, infrastructure, organisation and so on. However, I still have a basic problem with this argument - yes, buying more slaves was clearly a good investment, but it's difficult to argue that a railroad network would not have been hugely profitable in the South. Similarly, although a slave-labour factory might be seen as a non-starter, by at least the Civil War it must have been obvious that there was much more money to be made in industry than in agriculture. What stopped these huge personal fortunes - which we've established were often larger than comparable cases in the North - being invested into things like that?

A couple of different factors were in play. One of them is that the price of cotton varied over time. Like with all basic commodities, the price responded to the market. So for some of the 1840s the price of cotton was relatively low. And so there was more push by Southern leaders towards industrialization. But in the 1850s the price of cotton was notably high. This pushed up profits from planting and slavery. And made it more profitable, at least in that time period, to expand on the land and slaves than it was to diversify into other industries.

Now while your argument may hold in the long run, that's not what the people on the ground at the time were actually experiencing. Prior to the 1840s it wasn't that much of an issue, because the industrialization of the US and the spread of railroads wasn't that widespread. After the 1850s, we quickly got into the war. The question of whether the slave-holding Antebellum Era South were to industrialize was really a question between ~1840 and 1861. Not really during other times.

The other major factor in play was the mindset of the planters themselves. They very much saw themselves as the Lords of All They Surveyed. And like the barons in much of Europe, being that was their self image, and not being that was seen as a fall in status. They saw themselves as a higher social class than mere tradesmen and craftsmen, which is how they saw men of business and commerce. To lower themselves to that station was vulgar, and beneath them. And, like with many of the actually titled nobility of Europe, bankruptcy was the fate of many of their fortunes. For they lived as lords, as well as aped the manners and pretensions of lords. And that meant often living above their means. The hostility of the planter class to the merchants, bankers, and lawyers, and by extension to all the men of business, was also driven by the fact that the planters as a class spent a good portion of their lives in debt to bankers. Northern bankers. And when they died, their land and their slaves were sold off to pay their debts. All of this added another layer of hostility between those, mainly of the South, who followed the Jeffersonian model of planters and landowners, and those, mainly of the North, who followed the Hamiltonian model of manufacturers, commerce, and development.

You had divides of ideology and of interests, not just of economics.

 

[Agent327]

Actually, it was a simple matter of economics. (See below.)

I think the issue is that 'making slaves work harder' only goes so far - the difference between an ordinary slave picking cotton and a hard-working slave picking cotton is tiny next to the difference between a factory working with hand tools and one working with power, for example. The opportunities for growth are fundamentally linear and have an unavoidably low ceiling. Neither of those apply when you start making serious improvements in equipment, infrastructure, organisation and so on. However, I still have a basic problem with this argument - yes, buying more slaves was clearly a good investment, but it's difficult to argue that a railroad network would not have been hugely profitable in the South. Similarly, although a slave-labour factory might be seen as a non-starter, by at least the Civil War it must have been obvious that there was much more money to be made in industry than in agriculture. What stopped these huge personal fortunes - which we've established were often larger than comparable cases in the North - being invested into things like that?

I think you missed the point. Firstly, labour productivity increase on Southern plantation was not 'tiny'- it was substantial. Secondly, given the profitability of plantations (especially large scale ones), there was no real incentive to invest in industry. Thirdly, textile was basically the engine of the industrial revolution. And cotton was an essential part of the textile industry. In short, exploitation of slaves contributed directly to industrialization. So the Southern slave owners had the best of both worlds. (And then they messed up by declaring war on the Union, but that's a somewhat different story.)

 

[jma22tb]

No, America was not "built by slaves." Slave labor was practiced very selectively and only in specific regions of the country by a small number of people.

The Southern states utilized this practice on the plantations and farms, but in the Northern and Midwestern states there was a distinctly different economic system.

The entire question is one driven by a socialist revisionist perspective of American history, which heavily draws upon conflict perspectives. In the mind of a socialist, the factory worker is just as much a slave as an actual, legal slave to them.

However, the notion that the legal and economic instrument of slavery was so widespread that the entire nation's economy was built on it is as ridiculous as saying that America has always been a melting pot of cultures from all corners of the world.

America was founded as a European country by Europeans, very few of whom participated in owning and trading slaves.

 

[Traitorfish]

However, the notion that the legal and economic instrument of slavery was so widespread that the entire nation's economy was built on it is as ridiculous as saying that America has always been a melting pot of cultures from all corners of the world.

Well, by 1650, the territory that would eventually be the United States contained English, Irishman, Scots, Welshmen, Manx, Cornish, Dutchmen, Germans, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Norwegians, Polish, Italians, Portuguese, Jews, Frenchmen and Swiss, not to mention Africans and Natives of myriad tribes, so it was a fair old melting pot by any measure.

So, taking your statement at face value, the United States wasn't built entirely on slavery, but slavery was a fundamental pillar of the project. Do I understand you correctly?

 

[jma22tb]

Well, by 1650, the territory that would eventually be the United States contained English, Irishman, Scots, Welshmen, Manx, Cornish, Dutchmen, Germans, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Norwegians, Polish, Italians, Portuguese, Jews, Frenchmen and Swiss, not to mention Africans and Natives of myriad tribes, so it was a fair old melting pot by any measure.

So, taking your statement at face value, the United States wasn't built entirely on slavery, but slavery was a fundamental pillar of the project. Do I understand you correctly?

From a European standpoint yes it was a "melting pot" but culturally most European countries are fairly similar to one another due to the nearly universal practice of some form of Christianity, similarities in language, appearance, and a similar spectrum of political preferences.

What I mean by melting pot is the idea that America was a convergence of all corners of the world. The 1965 immigration reforms is the only reason that America has become as ethnically diverse as it is today - it was dominantly European prior to that point.

If America was originally a mix of East Asian, Native American, European, Middle Eastern, South Asian, Islander, etc. then that would be a "melting pot."

Which it wasn't. Now we are, which I think has been to our extreme detriment.

Slavery was not a fundamental pillar but a regional economic instrument that became a progressively heightened ethnic and political problem, while exacerbating the economic conflicts between the North and South, which was the biggest problem.

It was nowhere near as "instrumental" to American society as the factory, steam mill, railroad, etc. It was a regional economic practice that was turned into a social and political issue, and has since been exaggerated and conflated into a fantasy history that was far less savage than the Barbary slave trade or the Irish mass enslavement but has given far more attention.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, sure, if you move the goal-posts far enough, you can prove anything. Doesn't mean that what you're saying is truthful, let alone useful.

 

[jma22tb]

It doesn't matter if it's rational, exact, or not.

Berbers, Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, and Turks united, however begrudgingly, in a massive Caliphate officially doesn't mean that their society was any less tense and tribal within that overall structure as the Europeans who formed separate nations and were able to dominate the rest of the world despite their disjointed mess of non-stop rivalry warfare.

Europeans collectively act in their group interest when the appropriate times come, like during the Crusades or today where immigration and terrorism have been weaponized as a form of economic and demographic warfare. We fight with each other, can barely stand each other, but put our differences aside to push back invaders when they try and fail to conquer us.

If you were a student of European history or understood our cultures you'd know that.

 

[Lexicus]

Well it sure didn't take long for this to take a decidedly white supremacist turn.

 

[jma22tb]

White supremacy is a historical state, not a present state. Whites since WW2 are the most idiotic race in the world, letting avowed and openly hostile enemies rob them blind and undermine their politics.

Which is changing, of course

 

[Ajidica]

White supremacy is a historical state, not a present state. Whites since WW2 are the most idiotic race in the world, letting avowed and openly hostile enemies rob them blind and undermine their politics.

Which is changing, of course

Oh, hello Mr. Stormfront!

I miss the days when white supremacy was wrapped up alongside imperial arrogance; when Portugal pretended it totally wasn't racist and they were totally trying to help everyone in Angola and Mozambique; or when Enoch Powell was saying this:

Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, 'We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home'. We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.[20]:207

They at least put some thought into it.

 

[jma22tb]

Examine the ethnocentric views of Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and other East Asian cultures and remind me how "racism" is such a terrible, evil, awful thing.

Whites are hyper-examined on this because, understandably, we brought our culture and civilization to others for glory and profit and, to a lesser degree, a semblance of pity for the more backward people of the world.

I agree with you - Portugal and all of our ancestors who conquered mud hut-living people who decapitate each other were not doing so out of the kindness of their heart. No reasonable, thinking White advocate will deny this. It was about power. It was about glory. It was about spreading Christianity. A predecessor to "e-peen" if you will.

Ultimately, you misunderstand this new rise of White identity. We don't want to conquer the world. Ironically, there is a respect for Eastern Asian ethnocentrism and Israel's model of society that simply would not exist in the minds of our imperialist ancestors.

They were greedy bastards. We paid the price for their arrogance when the people they massacred and enslaved got their revenge. Now we are just going to reclaim our countries from "globalism" and be the best version of ourselves we can be without imposing ourselves on others.

 

[Traitorfish]

Europeans collectively act in their group interest when the appropriate times come, like during the Crusades or today where immigration and terrorism have been weaponized as a form of economic and demographic warfare. We fight with each other, can barely stand each other, but put our differences aside to push back invaders when they try and fail to conquer us.

If you were a student of European history or understood our cultures you'd know that.

I know that the Irish hate the English hate the French hate the Germans hate the Poles hate the Russians hate the Ukranians hate the Romanians hate the Serbs hate the Croats hate the Italians hate the Spanish, and we've all spent a thousand years and more slaughtering each other to make that point. A few shaky alliances against the Grand Turk in days of yore aren't really sufficient to argue that "white unity" has been a prominent or even remotely-tangible theme in European history.

 

[Flying Pig]

It should be noted that one of the Crusades - the Fourth - was severely derailed when the European army in question decided that looting Constantinople - which was in Europe and occupied by Europeans - was more important than slaying the infidel.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Barbarians and bankers never change

 

[Lexicus]

White supremacy is a historical state, not a present state. Whites since WW2 are the most idiotic race in the world, letting avowed and openly hostile enemies rob them blind and undermine their politics.

Which is changing, of course

White supremacy is alive and well as your posts, filled with white supremacist lies and misdirections, amply prove by themselves.

 

[jma22tb]

I know that the Irish hate the English hate the French hate the Germans hate the Poles hate the Russians hate the Ukranians hate the Romanians hate the Serbs hate the Croats hate the Italians hate the Spanish, and we've all spent a thousand years and more slaughtering each other to make that point. A few shaky alliances against the Grand Turk in days of yore aren't really sufficient to argue that "white unity" has been a prominent or even remotely-tangible theme in European history.

War and tribal rivalries do not mean that Europeans are willing to accept cultures outside their sphere dominating them. That's the explanation for "Islamophobia" today just like the Crusades in the past. We're a bunch of dudes in a bar that will get in a fight, but raise a glass afterward. As soon as someone tries to take the bar away from us though, the infighting stops and that poor bastard gets everyone's full attention.

White supremacy is alive and well as your posts, filled with white supremacist lies and misdirections, amply prove by themselves.

If you're that convinced that even in our most decadent and naive state we're still supreme, that should tell you something about how inferior you are.

Moderator Action: Flaming - in particular calling others 'inferior', whether or not intended as racial abuse - is not allowed on this forum.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889