Did Slavery Create American Prosperity?

[mystery-ak]

September 26, 2019
Did Slavery Create American Prosperity?
By Doug Petrikat

Recently there seem to be an increasing number of claims that American prosperity resulted from slavery.  This is presented as justification for the renewed calls for reparations for slavery, which Democrats are using in an attempt to gain support as we approach the next presidential election.  But did slavery actually create the wealth of the U.S.?  Does this claim have any historical basis in fact, or is this a distortion of history to influence the views of voters?

We should all agree that slavery is an immoral institution in which people are treated as property and work, not for themselves, but for the benefit of their “owners.”  It is an extractive economic system that shares some characteristics of feudalism and communism.  They are all extractive in the sense that work is extracted from laborers who benefit very little from their own efforts, and as a result do not have much incentive to work hard, to make improvements, or to innovate, even though they may be faced with threats and coercion.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/did_slavery_create_american_prosperity.html

[Absalom]

Goofy question;  so the perspective of history!
After defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, the British Empire solidified its hold on world power.
Economically, it was a mercantile rather than an industrial nation, which used cotton to
produce assorted fabrics, paper, vegetable oil; among many products.
Our Southern Colonies had the climate and soil to economically produce cotton;
the required ingredient being manpower, hence slavery and the rest is history.
The South became the key exporter/supplier of the raw material that kept the great
factories/mills of Birmingham, Lancashire, Manchester, and the rest, humming.
Yet that prosperity was narrow and local to the South.
The driver of American prosperity was the creativity of Carnegie in Iron and Steel, Rockefeller
in Oil and Gas and the Railroaders such as Harriman, Vanderbilt, Whitney, among many more.
These were the creators of American prosperity!



 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There are no solo answers here.

Freedom more than anything else created American prosperity.

The freedom to speak out, to worship, to be innovative, to own land, to elect your own representatives to guide you in government, to defend yourself with weapons, to decide yourself how much you wished to be taxed, all of these were instrumental.

Slavery?  Likely for the most prolific slaveholders in history, the Africans.  Or the Romans.  Or most of the world since time immemorial.

For Americans?  Inconsequential.

[truth_seeker]

Far more slaves went to the Carribian and Latin America. All less prosperous than America or Britain

[Cyber Liberty]

Since the non-slave North had the edge on the South economically in the CW (based on its industrialization and rails), the case can be made slavery actually hurt American prosperity.  I don't know if I agree with that.   

[roamer_1]

What is ever lost in this conversation is the bare fact that without the distinctly Protestant moral code of Britain, and most certainly the USA, there would be slavery or serfdom everywhere, even now, as it is pretty much everywhere that Britain or the USA did not go.

The petty mewling of the liberals aside - and I mean violently cast aside with prejudice - The moral rectitude, sealed in blood, that finally declared all men equal in the sight of God and Man, is a singular achievement, paramount above all others. And that is an achievement that the whole world should be grateful for - Especially the descendants of slaves freed to live with bonds cast off right here, in the very apex of that freedom.

[goatprairie]

Did the unpaid labor of slaves contribute to the American economy? Of course.
But to say that without slave labor the U.S. would be some backwater, third-world country is ludicrous.
By the time of the CW, the industrial output of New York state alone was greater than the entire south. Cotton production represented only 5% of total U.S. economy.
Slave labor made a number of planters wealthy, but it actually hurt non-slave holding whites as well as black slaves.  The  slaves worked jobs for no pay. Pay which could have been spent supporting businesses. Poor whites were also cheated out of jobs.
That plus the planters failure to use slave labor instead of machines held the south back industrially-wise retarding innovation.
But the great majority of blacks at the time of the CW were down south. There was only a minuscule population of blacks up north where the 90% of the industrialization of America was taking place.
And of course many southern cities/areas were devastated by the war and it took almost one hundred years for the south to recover.
There were  many large areas of the north, like where I grew up, the upper Midwest, where there the numbers of blacks could be counted on one hand.
In my hometown of La Crosse, Wisc. during the fifties and sixties when I was a child with a population of fifty thousand there was exactly ONE! black family in the whole town. La Crosse's blacks are still only two or three percent of the total population. Many upper midwest towns were like that.
The fact is  blacks contributed very little to the gigantic growth of  U.S. industry in the north in the one hundred years from 1850 to 1950. During WWII and in the years immediately after there was a huge migration of blacks to the north to work in factories.
So was as the leftists like to say, America was built on the backs of blacks?
Again, slave labor made a contribution, but it is my belief the south and America would have been better off economically without slave labor.

[Bigun]

There is no "FREE" labor even when slavery is the rule.  Those slaves are capital investments and must be maintained or the investment is lost. 

As a matter of pure economics I personally don't see a lot of difference between Irish whites working in Northern factories for less than subsistence wages and slavery except for the fact that those factory owners simply replaced anyone who got sick or died where the slaveholder was out the cost of the slave AND his labor.

[roamer_1]

There is no "FREE" labor even when slavery is the rule.  Those slaves are capital investments and must be maintained or the investment is lost. 

As a matter of pure economics I personally don't see a lot of difference between Irish whites working in Northern factories for less than subsistence wages and slavery except for the fact that those factory owners simply replaced anyone who got sick or died where the slaveholder was out the cost of the slave AND his labor.

That's right. Serfdom is nearly an equal burden.


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[Cyber Liberty]

"The chains of a slave weigh heavily at both ends."

[truth_seeker]

There is no "FREE" labor even when slavery is the rule.  Those slaves are capital investments and must be maintained or the investment is lost. 

As a matter of pure economics I personally don't see a lot of difference between Irish whites working in Northern factories for less than subsistence wages and slavery except for the fact that those factory owners simply replaced anyone who got sick or died where the slaveholder was out the cost of the slave AND his labor.

I read that "indentured servants," were treated worse than "slaves."

The reason was the slave's worth depended upon his sale value, which relied on his/her condition and health.

OTOH the servant eventually became free, and yielded no benefit to the holder, at that final point.

So the master would work the servant almost to death, feed them as little as necessary.

 But the point is the master had an interest, in the wellbeing of his slaves, for their work product, and their trade value.

 Slavery was on track to end soon. The exact date and terms remained to be settled.

[Absalom]

Certainly thoughtful comments.
However an important distinction, between African Slaves and European indentured servants/serfs,
needs to be made.
For their labor, Europeans servants/serfs and their families received the protection and lodging of the Manor Lord. Similarly, virtually all 3rd class Irish labor that came to the New World received free
passage in return for their agreement to provide labor for an stipulated time period.
No such exchange, existed for the African slaves.

[goatprairie]

Certainly thoughtful comments.
However an important distinction, between African Slaves and European indentured servants/serfs,
needs to be made.
For their labor, Europeans servants/serfs and their families received the protection and lodging of the Manor Lord. Similarly, virtually all 3rd class Irish labor that came to the New World received free
passage in return for their agreement to provide labor for an stipulated time period.
No such exchange, existed for the African slaves.

There is no doubt that slavery was worse than indentured servitude. The mere act of declaring that you own someone is one of the foulest crimes short of murder you can commit. While most slaves were treated not inhumanely, forcing captive people to work for you under the threat of punishment up to death is evil.
Nevertheless, the left is on a mission to delegitimatize the history of the country while giving slaves a far more important role in the development of the U.S. into an economic superpower that has never been equaled.
Many black people falsely believe that "America was built on the backs of  black slaves." That black slaves had a very minor role in the growth of that super economic engine is not something they want to hear.  They, the left, wants to rob the producers and tell its gullible followers they have millions coming to them.
Telling them the truth might upset them, but the truth has to be told.

[Absalom]

There is no doubt that slavery was worse than indentured servitude. The mere act of declaring that you own someone is one of the foulest crimes short of murder you can commit. While most slaves were treated not inhumanely, forcing captive people to work for you under the threat of punishment up to death is evil.
Nevertheless, the left is on a mission to delegitimatize the history of the country while giving slaves a far more important role in the development of the U.S. into an economic superpower that has never been equaled.
Many black people falsely believe that "America was built on the backs of  black slaves." That black slaves had a very minor role in the growth of that super economic engine is not something they want to hear.  They, the left, wants to rob the producers and tell its gullible followers they have millions coming to them.
Telling them the truth might upset them, but the truth has to be told.

--------------------------------
Prairie, well articulated.
Let me suggest a strategy about the slavery restitution fandango.
We were effectively British controlled from 1607 till Constitutional Ratification in 1788, or 180 years.
From the latter to Slave Emancipation in 1863, was 75 years, for a total of 255 years.
The earlier period represented some 70% of the time while the latter, 30%.
Suggest we advise the race agitators to send their grievance bill for 70%, to Commons and Lords.
After they get whatever settlement, we'll consider the remaining 30%!!!!

[OfTheCross]

September 26, 2019
Did Slavery Create American Prosperity?
By Doug Petrikat

Recently there seem to be an increasing number of claims that American prosperity resulted from slavery.  This is presented as justification for the renewed calls for reparations for slavery, which Democrats are using in an attempt to gain support as we approach the next presidential election.  But did slavery actually create the wealth of the U.S.?  Does this claim have any historical basis in fact, or is this a distortion of history to influence the views of voters?

We should all agree that slavery is an immoral institution in which people are treated as property and work, not for themselves, but for the benefit of their “owners.”  It is an extractive economic system that shares some characteristics of feudalism and communism.  They are all extractive in the sense that work is extracted from laborers who benefit very little from their own efforts, and as a result do not have much incentive to work hard, to make improvements, or to innovate, even though they may be faced with threats and coercion.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/did_slavery_create_american_prosperity.html

Good question.

I'll read this when I get home, hopefully.

The first questions that immediately jumped in my mind were:

How did slavery help increase/create Spain's prosperity
How did slavery help increase/create Britain's prosperity

etc.

Far more slaves went to the Carribian and Latin America. All less prosperous than America or Britain

You've got to view it from a different perspective.

I'd equate the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to Black Americans.

They were the ones enslaved, trying to prosper.

[Cyber Liberty]

Good question.

I'll read this when I get home, hopefully.

The first questions that immediately jumped in my mind were:

How did slavery help increase/create Spain's prosperity
How did slavery help increase/create Britain's prosperity

etc.

You've got to view it from a different perspective.

I'd equate the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to Black Americans.

They were the ones enslaved, trying to prosper.

So then...we are expected to cut "reparation" checks to anybody in El Salvador who wants a piece of the US pie?

[Absalom]

Good question.
I'll read this when I get home, hopefully.
The first questions that immediately jumped in my mind were:
How did slavery help increase/create Spain's prosperity
How did slavery help increase/create Britain's prosperity etc.
You've got to view it from a different perspective.
I'd equate the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to Black Americans.
They were the ones enslaved, trying to prosper.

---------------------------
Urge you to stop throwing things against the wall hoping something sticks and reflect!!!
Spain embraced mercantilism which fostered:
high exports/low imports, tariff protectionism, monopolies and primarily the hoarding of
gold and silver, which drove their economy.
In contrast, Britain embraced free trade. Recall Adam Smith and David Ricardo!!!
Slavery generated the cotton needed to keep their factories/mills humming, until industrialization.
Then predictably, the Civil War destroyed our Southern economy but Britain had a backup plan,
namely the the southeast of their Indian Raj, now Bangladesh.
This region had the climate, soil and water to sustain the growth of cotton so they went east.
Such is history!!!

[OfTheCross]

So then...we are expected to cut "reparation" checks to anybody in El Salvador who wants a piece of the US pie?

Why would you make that conclusion?

---------------------------
Urge you to stop throwing things against the wall hoping something sticks and reflect!!!
Spain embraced mercantilism which fostered:
high exports/low imports, tariff protectionism, monopolies and primarily the hoarding of
gold and silver, which drove their economy.
In contrast, Britain embraced free trade. Recall Adam Smith and David Ricardo!!!
Slavery generated the cotton needed to keep their factories/mills humming, until industrialization.
Then predictably, the Civil War destroyed our Southern economy but Britain had a backup plan,
namely the the southeast of their Indian Raj, now Bangladesh.
This region had the climate, soil and water to sustain the growth of cotton so they went east.
Such is history!!!

I'm sorry but I don't understand your post. I'll take an explanation in my PMs as to not waste everyone else's time

[Cyber Liberty]

Why would you make that conclusion?

It would be in tune with the numerous other "ideas" you have posted.  I notice you did not answer my question.

[goatprairie]

--------------------------------
Prairie, well articulated.
Let me suggest a strategy about the slavery restitution fandango.
We were effectively British controlled from 1607 till Constitutional Ratification in 1788, or 180 years.
From the latter to Slave Emancipation in 1863, was 75 years, for a total of 255 years.
The earlier period represented some 70% of the time while the latter, 30%.
Suggest we advise the race agitators to send their grievance bill for 70%, to Commons and Lords.
After they get whatever settlement, we'll consider the remaining 30%!!!!

I don't believe the British are in any position to scold Americans about slavery or similar crimes.
Even thought they banned slavery earlier than America, they still have their history of mistreatment of the Irish.
They had Oliver Cromwell crossing the Irish Sea in the 1600s and slaughtering thousands of Catholic Irish. Irish Catholics were severely oppressed in their own country for hundreds of years.
Then one million Irish died during the potato famine of the mid 1800s. While the peasants who subsisted mostly on the potato crop were starving to death, beef cattle that could have fed them was being exported across the Irish Sea to England.
The Irish were considered by the British as a lower form of life who deserved what happened to them.
Let me assure you, the Irish have never forgotten that.
Now, I don't hold the English of today guilty of the crimes of their ancestors.  Nevertheles, the history of England regarding slavery and mistreatment of non-English was many times horrible. American slaves were treated better than Irish peasants.

[OfTheCross]

It would be in tune with the numerous other "ideas" you have posted.  I notice you did not answer my question.

What "ideas" have I posted that would make you jump to that conclusion?

I can't answer your question because it makes no sense to me.

Why would we cut reparations checks to recent Latin American immigrants?

[Cyber Liberty]

What "ideas" have I posted that would make you jump to that conclusion?

I can't answer your question because it makes no sense to me.

Why would we cut reparations checks to recent Latin American immigrants?

Why have we eliminated the border?  We "owe" them the instant they step inside what used to be our border.

I can believe that made no sense, BTW.  'Salright.