I truly feel that it hindered the South's economy by making them overly reliant on agriculture, cotton in particular. They could have become more industrialized like the North if they didn't support slavery, and when the public turned against the idea of slavery, it caused the Civil War, the war with the most American casualties.
The South would've been reliant on agriculture no matter what. The year-round factory work required for an industrialized economy was unviable in most of the South prior to air conditioning because it was just too fucking hot and humid.
Slavery wasn't the mistake, it was, as you said, being too reliant on agriculture. Slavery would've actually died out on its own had the south opened factories and diversified its economy.
Once again, the abolition of slavery was because of an ignorant north not understanding how anything outside their little industrialized cities works, and thinks it can apply its rules and methods to the world at large. Not that this is specifically unique to yankee culture, but it seems to happen a lot with them, especially in how America is being led even today.
Being reliant on agriculture would be fine and all, but it was slavery that caused the splintering into two separate identities. Slavery arguably wasn't even as efficient as hiring proper labor, as the workers were hard to motivate and actively tried to hinder work as a form of protest. I'd say that many of the problems the South faces even to this day, stem from the existence of slavery in the past.
There is hardly any difference in productivity between hired labor and enslaved labor when it comes to agricultural work. A workers emotional and motivational state is hardly a factor when it comes to picking cotton. Besides, Southerners would not have been able to pay slaves anything close to enough for them to be self-reliant and able to move. Even today in the US we import Central Americans to pick our veggies for $2/hour because we can't pay them anything more and still keep our crops competitively priced.
No, it's mostly butthurt that someone a million miles away thinks that they can control a population they've never seen or a land they've never traveled to and simply apply their own lines of thought to all problems, beating things with a hammer until it fits. It happened to the south, it happened to Europe, it happened to Russia, it happened to the middle east, and it happened to Asia. It reeks of an unattainable idealism which causes far more devastation than simply letting things run their course and/or making small corrections over time by understanding why an institution exists in the first place and why it doesn't in another's point of origin.
Seriously, the north looks at slavery as abominable because they don't need or want slaves, their economy works fine without them. Naturally, they assume that all economies work the same way and all right minded people in the world have the same sentiment, and anyone who disagrees is at best a backwards simpleton and at worst an immoral monster. Yet at the same time, no one in the north lifts a finger to try and stop third world sweatshops in China or other places, partially because out of sight, out of mind, and partially because to actually do something about it would threaten their supply of cheap goods and way of life.
Well, if you have slaves, you have to pay to feed them, clothe them, take care of them, house them, etc etc. I'm sure that the costs would be somewhat similar to the costs of paying an actual worker to do the work, though I am not familiar with the economics of the time.
I'm not even talking about slavery as being bad for the slaves, or the morals of slavery, I'm more focused on the effects of slavery on the nation as a whole.
It's not broken, it's how it is almost everywhere.
Agriculture is the only sector of the global economy where there's near-perfect competition, so profits and wages have to be low for farmers to stay competitive internationally.
It's actually the issue I've brought up here, >>679569. No one wants to do anything about providing a fair wage to these people, because to do so would mean the price of agricultural goods would skyrocket, which as a basic, necessary good for the sustenance of people everywhere would cause the price of all other goods to rise as well, leading to rapid inflation. Somewhere, someone along the way is going to get fucked and forced to do rough, difficult, menial labor for pennies on the hour so first worlds such as ourselves can live what we think of as a normal life.
>you have to pay to feed them, clothe them, take care of them, house them, etc etc. I'm sure that the costs would be somewhat similar to the costs of paying an actual worker to do the work,
Planters would have to feed, clothe, take care of, and house hired workers too. Plantations were frequently more than a day's travel from each other. They couldn't just send a bus into the nearest city and truck in foreigners for a day's work, they would've had to have had barracks on site along with food, cooks, etc. for the duration of the season.
I'm not trying to be an apologist for slavery, I'm just saying that paternalistic bonded labor of some kind was unavoidable in agriculturally-based economies before the 20th century.
Very interesting point I didn't think of. How much would a day's labour be vs the upfront cost of a slave? Bonded labor does seem to be unavoidable, but I truly feel that it has left permanent damage on the US, and I was hoping that there could be some sort of hindsight answer that would have been the better alternative.
The damage slavery left on the US survived because of its racial component and the fact that black people can't subtly enter or marry into the white middle class like European immigrants did.
I would argue that slavery wouldn't of died out naturally in the south. People say that the advent of industrialization was already making slaves obsolete. However slaves were already being moved from the fields to the factory. Slave labor and racism was so engrained in southern culture that slavery would of simply adapted to the changing economic landscape.
Few plantation owners wanted to risk renting their slaves to factories owned by people who regarded workers as disposable. The only slave holding states with any significant degree of industrialization were Maryland and Virginia because they had fairer weather and more than just a handful of cities with populations in the thousands.
Four years of psyops to get a second term
Three years of blasphemy against God's creation to ensure a few paragraphs in a newly whitewashed education system
Then, getting the Japanese Patsy to cover the tracks, and kick start the false opposition for history.
Impeachment would've meant life. Muslim extremists don't care. They are rewarded by their false god for the way they deal with the infidel westerners.
Weather Forecast; does it really matter anymore?
I have a feeling it would've. Landed plantation owners were a minority in the south, and as soon as the white population grew to the point where it would become difficult for lower class whites to find work, you'd start seeing more and more factories and other industry staffed by these people who absolutely would not want competition from slaves. Once factories and other centers of production sprung up and plantation owners found themselves becoming less and less of the only money making game in town, slave owners would've dwindled down to nearly nothing until slavery could eventually be outlawed and only affect a very small piece of the population and economy, one far too small to have any real chance of revolt, and too small to affect the entire economy of southern states. As it was, the wholesale elimination of slavery long before the south was ready for it completely wrecked their economy as even though plantation owners were few, their wealth ensured that higher end goods and services would find employment in the south.
When slavery ended and immediately reversed the fortunes of the southern elite, it had rippling effects down through the middle class who no longer had local employers and were forced to find work outside of their field for less profit or relocate to somewhere that had people who could afford their services. In one fell swoop, both the upper and middle classes were dealt away with and the fate of the south became a backwater tumor on the rest of the US that still hasn't recovered 100% to this day.
I'll give you the racism though, but that's a problem that can't be solved at all, even to this day. Any sort of government intervention that seeks to end it instead solidifies it, the only way it will go away is through slow integration of blacks into southern culture (Which actually has happened somewhat, though the number of blacks who assimilate are few and often find themselves ostracized by their own race as a traitor/uncle tom).
>Slavery would've actually died out on its own had the south opened factories and diversified its economy.
What on earth makes you think that a change to manufactoring instead of farming would hasten abolition?
>Mechanization renders human labor obsolete!
slavery was barely economical by the time of the civil war.
England found it more profitable and less morally questionable, to just treat the Indians like niggers. To get their cotton.
If it was barely economical by the time of the civil war, but still socially acceptable and in practice I just don't see how trading a sickle for a lathe would change anything. Factory workers didn't exactly require educations or anything more than onsite training, and there really isn't a difference between paying subsistence wages like in the north and just paying for the subsistience.
>and there really isn't a difference between paying subsistence wages like in the north and just paying for the subsistience
Yes there is, you get a higher quality of work if you're paying a wage and can terminate the worst workers and hire better ones.
because it's a notorious example of slavery that occurred in the English-speaking world. We talk about it more than the others because its impacts are still readily apparent today and because we can read the accounts of freed slaves to see just how crap their lives were.
I'll put it this way. If I'm a broke ass white boy who lives in a city and can work in factory for a half decent wage (enough to put a roof over my head and feed my family), I'm going to do it. If I suddenly find that I'm not able to work because a bunch of niggers are doing it for free, I'm not going to want slaves taking my job. If I lived in the country and had a couple of acres of land I could work myself, it wouldn't be a big deal because I could grow my own food and work a trade as a secondary source of income, and I don't need to compete with cash crops like cotton. If I live in the city, there's going to be far too few trades I can work to earn a living, which means I'm going to be working in a factory.
Better yet, think about if slavery was never actually outlawed (just frowned on) in the north, and some fatcat decided to fire all of his workers and put slaves manning the lathes and mills. You'd have a massive spike in unemployed lower class workers, and that leads to terrible, terrible things. It wasn't like northerners were completely egalitarian in their attitude towards blacks and slaves, it was more that their existence and proliferation was a threat to their own.
In Brazil, the all-time world's bigger slaver nation, the racial tensions still exist, but are much lessened by the fact that our racism is driven by fenotype, not genotype and is scaled.
The 'blacker', the more african someone looks (by the standards of what a black person looks like in a socially constructed collective imaginary), the more inferior they are to the average brazilian.
This leads to a racial-hierarchy which could include black descendants in any level. I have a cousin which is white as fuck (i.e. looks like) whose brother and father looks black and whose sister looks like a stereotypical 'mulata'. By our social rules, she's white, everyone else are mulattos and they are all above black people.
That's why Neymar, Roberto Carlos and Ronaldo all said, in different interviews and circunstances, they are not black. Because it would both approach 'em of the lower racial tier and because it doesn't make sense to our perception that blacks are only the 'blacker' people (Robinho) and the rest are measured by how much they are close to blackness.
Slaver countries are fucked up. Yours inherited a 'different tribes' feeling, while ours inherited a 'whitening our blood' informal policy...
And you wouldn't have had Smartphones, Personal computers,Gaming consoles, Shoes and a fuckton of other stuff stupid cracker idiot, Africans arent some OOGA BOOGA savages you 14 year old fucks who piss their pants when they see black males, think they are.
You'd think a fucking history board would know history..
>southern cotton accounted for 60% of US exports
Slavery was a sunk cost and still profitable even into the 1850s. It also helped southern whites because it protected non plantation jobs for them. The whole slavery was bad economically is a meme so northern liberals can pretend they don't live in a nation built on the back of slavery. No slaves, No tabacco, No Cotton, No northern industrialization, No revolution.
>MUH AFRICAN HISTORY
>MUH MTV LIBERAL TOTALLY ACCURATE SOURCE
>MUH WHITIES COVERING UP MUH PEOPLES HERITAGE
>HEY DID U KNOW WE WERE IN SPACE IN 2000BC FUCK DA WHITE MAN...
>(now give me mo money for dem programs)
Well that's the price you have to take to make so that you can live off your parent's money in their basement all day long with a computer and anime.
Karma ain't a bitch, you are karma's bitch.
You're missing the part where both sides try to force their take on the issue onto an expanding frontier in order to manipulate the federal system against each other. The South certainly wasn't against controlling a far away population, they just didn't want to be on the receiving end.
Moral arguments aside, relying on slavery is bad for the long term welfare of an economy and development of the region it takes place in.
>muh america WOULD be doin fine if not for them Yankee boys i tell you what Cletus
toppest of keks, you faggots couldn't administrate your way out of a chick fil a sandwich box, the Confederacy was an abject failure in every regard except for convincing retards to fight for them of which there are plenty in the South
Are you really going to put MTV news as a source?
The problem was, as the South found out in the Civil War, is that other places can grow cotton as well. The foreign aid they thought they were going to get because they thought the world relied on them for cotton didn't come, because places like Egypt, among others, grew it.
Yes, people like Aaron Lopez should still have their group collectively held accountable for the slave trade.
As Nation of Islam so clearly elucidates in The Secret History Between Blacks and Jews, Jews were a major, major part of the slave trade, even going so far as Jewish holidays halting trade.
This really goes all the way to the modern age. Who makes blacks look like animals in porn? Who stigmatized the black community as gangsters via MTV? There is only one group. No one has done more harm to black people than Jews, and people like Marcus Garvey, Louis Farrakhan, and Malcomb X understood this.
Black people hate Jews and have for some time. In 1935, they went so far as to explicitly target their whole in the Harlem riots due to years of financial exploitation. They also never forgave them for setting up the NAACP, which had no black people on its board at its inception, and never fought for black rights. The true black leaders, like Marcus Garvey, were actually attacked by the NAACP, as claimed.
>overly reliant on agriculture
What the fuck does that even mean.
Agriculture does not prevent industrialization. Stop that shitty meme. Go out to a fucking farm and see what agriculture really is. Pro tip: it's not a single farmer tilling his family plot with a donkey.
Probably that an agrarian economy was too heavily ingrained in the South and the demographic and economic shifts necessary to transition towards an industrial economy weren't happening fast enough.
It's less that industrialization wasn't possible and more that the conditions in the South incentivized sticking to the agrarian economy for a bit longer.
There's no such thing as agrarian economy. Agriculture is industry and business, and it was both of those things in 19th century South. They were not subsistence farmers living the idyllic life.
Seriously, mook should just rename this board /myth/.
>Probably that an agrarian economy was too heavily ingrained in the South and the demographic and economic shifts necessary to transition towards an industrial economy weren't happening fast enough.
I don't think I've read a more vacuous and pointless sentence in my life.