6 ms·

America’s success was the direct result of ethnic cleansing of millions of Native Americans and the backbreaking labor of millions of slaves. The comparison is

America’s success was the direct result of ethnic cleansing of millions of Native Americans and the backbreaking labor of millions of slaves. The comparison is ridiculous. We were the exploiters.

nmeofthestate 7y ago
I don't think slavery is instrumental in the economic success of the USA - it probably hindered development, while no doubt enriching some individuals. If true, then when slavery was ended we would presumably have seen a stagnation in the economic fortunes of the USA, which I don't think has happened.
- Majromax 7y ago
  > If true, then when slavery was ended we would presumably have seen a stagnation in the economic fortunes of the USA, which I don't think has happened. Something like that did in fact happen -- the post-civil war period coincided with the Long Depression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression), which some economic historians would date between 1873 and 1896. However, the Long Depression was at least in part a global phenomenon, and with any economic story there are many confounding factors. (And on top of all of this, nations did not keep rigorous economic statistics at the time anyway.)
simonsarris 7y ago
No it wasn't. It doesn't even pass the sniff test. Why do you think the slave-free north was much richer than the south, before the civil war? If slavery makes a country rich, why isn't Africa rich? Why wasn't Brazil, which imported ~4 million slaves (compare to ~200k for USA) significantly richer than the USA? Native Americans had slaves: > "An exhaustive search of some 725 late 18th/early 19th century ethnohistoric sources and 20th century ethnographic works indicates that predatory warfare, or preying on other groups for plunder and captives, was engaged in by virtually all Northwest Coast societies." > "Source after source notes, either through specific instances or in general terms, and with almost monotonous iteration, that within this large area a prime motive for raiding was to gain captives for enslavement." (From: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3773392?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/3773392?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...) Why weren't those people rich? If you think slavery was instrumental to any rich nation getting rich, I suggest you read a lot more history, and look at who had the most slaves in history, and who has the most slaves today.
- zapita 7y ago
  > Why do you think the slave-free north was much richer than the south, before the civil war? Because the North had a diversified, industrialized economy, while the South specialized in cotton production. But the North never could have diversified in this way if it weren't for the South. First because slave-grown cotton was a major source of capital for the overall US economy - it provided over half of all US export earnings. Second, because the demand for textile factories, meat processing plants, insurance, shippers etc. in the over-specialized South is precisely what created a market for the North to diversify into. This is on top of the fact that the North itself had slaves for a long time, from initial settlement to abolition many decades later.
  - simonsarris 7y ago
    I think you're going off of old/bad data. Olmstead's paper in 2016 writes: > Other findings of the NHC, such as the assertion that the Cotton South was the primary force driving national expansion in the antebellum period, are neither original nor correct. As you say: > it provided over half of all US export earnings. This is not true. It may(?) have been over half of US exports, by some measure, but cotton was definitely not over half of earnings. Per Olmstead 2016: > North’s fellow new economic historians promptly assaulted his thesis. It was widely recognized that cotton was leading U.S. export in the antebellum period. But exports represented less than one-tenth of total income (Kravis 1972). Figure 2 graphs the values of cotton exports as a share the value of U.S. merchandise exports, and then both U.S. cotton and merchandise export values as shares of GDP.30 As the bottom line makes clear, cotton exports were a very small share of national product—less than 5 percent over much of the of the antebellum period (Engerman and Gallman 1983, p. 28). Emphasis mine. It goes on: > Perhaps more surprising, given the NHC narrative, is that in 1839 and 1849 corn, not cotton, was even the South’s leading crop in terms of value! Some familiarity with historical data might have moderated the sensational claims of the NHC literature. If you're interested in the topic, I suggest you read it, especially the section "The Economic History Slavery Debates". You should also read the sections relating about diversification if you have a strong belief in the over-specialized south. https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/law-economics-studies/olmstead_-_cotton_slavery_and_history_of_new_capitalism_131_nhc_28_sept_2016.pdf https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/...
fsloth 7y ago
Actually America industrialized quite early. The north was business and industry savvy, while the south focused on slavery. Slavery was not important for national economy - otherwise there would have been no civil war in 1860:s. Instead north was doing just fine economically without slavery, while south wanted to hold to most of it's capital (slaves). I agree that the expansion to west was facilitated by forced migration of native americans from their homelands in a process that was borderline genocidal. The fun part is about american industrialization - quite lot of it was based on directly stealing the IP of european industrialists (i.e not respecting their patents). This is quite fun in the sense how vocal US is now in upkeeping IP laws.

America’s success was the direct result of ethnic cleansing of millions of Native Americans and the backbreaking labor of millions of slaves. The comparison is ridiculous. We were the exploiters.

nmeofthestate 7y ago

I don't think slavery is instrumental in the economic success of the USA - it probably hindered development, while no doubt enriching some individuals. If true, then when slavery was ended we would presumably have seen a stagnation in the economic fortunes of the USA, which I don't think has happened.

Majromax 7y ago
> If true, then when slavery was ended we would presumably have seen a stagnation in the economic fortunes of the USA, which I don't think has happened. Something like that did in fact happen -- the post-civil war period coincided with the Long Depression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression), which some economic historians would date between 1873 and 1896. However, the Long Depression was at least in part a global phenomenon, and with any economic story there are many confounding factors. (And on top of all of this, nations did not keep rigorous economic statistics at the time anyway.)

simonsarris 7y ago

No it wasn't. It doesn't even pass the sniff test. Why do you think the slave-free north was much richer than the south, before the civil war? If slavery makes a country rich, why isn't Africa rich? Why wasn't Brazil, which imported ~4 million slaves (compare to ~200k for USA) significantly richer than the USA? Native Americans had slaves: > "An exhaustive search of some 725 late 18th/early 19th century ethnohistoric sources and 20th century ethnographic works indicates that predatory warfare, or preying on other groups for plunder and captives, was engaged in by virtually all Northwest Coast societies." > "Source after source notes, either through specific instances or in general terms, and with almost monotonous iteration, that within this large area a prime motive for raiding was to gain captives for enslavement." (From: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3773392?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/3773392?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...) Why weren't those people rich? If you think slavery was instrumental to any rich nation getting rich, I suggest you read a lot more history, and look at who had the most slaves in history, and who has the most slaves today.

zapita 7y ago
> Why do you think the slave-free north was much richer than the south, before the civil war? Because the North had a diversified, industrialized economy, while the South specialized in cotton production. But the North never could have diversified in this way if it weren't for the South. First because slave-grown cotton was a major source of capital for the overall US economy - it provided over half of all US export earnings. Second, because the demand for textile factories, meat processing plants, insurance, shippers etc. in the over-specialized South is precisely what created a market for the North to diversify into. This is on top of the fact that the North itself had slaves for a long time, from initial settlement to abolition many decades later.
- simonsarris 7y ago
  I think you're going off of old/bad data. Olmstead's paper in 2016 writes: > Other findings of the NHC, such as the assertion that the Cotton South was the primary force driving national expansion in the antebellum period, are neither original nor correct. As you say: > it provided over half of all US export earnings. This is not true. It may(?) have been over half of US exports, by some measure, but cotton was definitely not over half of earnings. Per Olmstead 2016: > North’s fellow new economic historians promptly assaulted his thesis. It was widely recognized that cotton was leading U.S. export in the antebellum period. But exports represented less than one-tenth of total income (Kravis 1972). Figure 2 graphs the values of cotton exports as a share the value of U.S. merchandise exports, and then both U.S. cotton and merchandise export values as shares of GDP.30 As the bottom line makes clear, cotton exports were a very small share of national product—less than 5 percent over much of the of the antebellum period (Engerman and Gallman 1983, p. 28). Emphasis mine. It goes on: > Perhaps more surprising, given the NHC narrative, is that in 1839 and 1849 corn, not cotton, was even the South’s leading crop in terms of value! Some familiarity with historical data might have moderated the sensational claims of the NHC literature. If you're interested in the topic, I suggest you read it, especially the section "The Economic History Slavery Debates". You should also read the sections relating about diversification if you have a strong belief in the over-specialized south. https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/law-economics-studies/olmstead_-_cotton_slavery_and_history_of_new_capitalism_131_nhc_28_sept_2016.pdf https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/...

fsloth 7y ago

Actually America industrialized quite early. The north was business and industry savvy, while the south focused on slavery. Slavery was not important for national economy - otherwise there would have been no civil war in 1860:s. Instead north was doing just fine economically without slavery, while south wanted to hold to most of it's capital (slaves). I agree that the expansion to west was facilitated by forced migration of native americans from their homelands in a process that was borderline genocidal. The fun part is about american industrialization - quite lot of it was based on directly stealing the IP of european industrialists (i.e not respecting their patents). This is quite fun in the sense how vocal US is now in upkeeping IP laws.