Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It wasn't just America's rise it was also Europe. The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain and it was the cotton from the South that started it. None of it would have been possible but for the Cotton Gin. Before that, the institution of slavery was on the wane in the US.
Slavery after the Revolution was not limited to southern states growing cotton.
Too often people are unaware of the fact that northern and Mid-Atlantic states also had slavery, as did western (what would be considered Midwestern today) territories before they were states.
Slavery was a vital part of the economic output of various types of industry in this nation along with various agricultural crops outside of cotton.
Slaves worked in factories, mines, mills, and on small farms cultivating a variety of crops along with in southern states growing rice - especially in the Carolinas and parts of GA. The cotton gin was vital to slavery in the cotton growing portion of the south but not in states where cotton was not "king."
Note that in NY State slavery was not abolished until 1827 and even in states that had gradual abolition - like Pennsylvania, there were still slaves in those areas for decades after the gradual emancipation began and those born prior to 1780 in PA specifically were not covered by gradual emancipation and were slaves for life unless their owners manumitted them.
Will note, I've read this book and it is a great read and IMO all high school students really should learn the truth of the history of economics in this country and how intertwined the institution of slavery really was for our nation.
I think it would be a better way to combat the history revisionists who want to act like "states rights" and "economic issues" in regards to the south's "reasons" for the Civil War (them claiming it wasn't about slavery), were all about the institution of slavery and the wealth tied to the institution.
Will note, I've read this book and it is a great read and IMO all high school students really should learn the truth of the history of economics in this country and how intertwined the institution of slavery really was for our nation.
I think it would be a better way to combat the history revisionists who want to act like "states rights" and "economic issues" in regards to the south's "reasons" for the Civil War (them claiming it wasn't about slavery), were all about the institution of slavery and the wealth tied to the institution.
True the freedom of the slaves was an outcome of the civil war, but if it were the reason for it, why did Lincoln offer to let the states keep thier slaves if they agreed not secede?
True the freedom of the slaves was an outcome of the civil war, but if it were the reason for it, why did Lincoln offer to let the states keep thier slaves if they agreed not secede?
This has nothing to do with what I wrote. I said that history revisionist like to claim that the SOUTH seceded not over slavery but "states' rights" and "economic issues" also "taxation" issues (not included in previous post). However, all of the above reasons for the south seceding actually are about slavery. Slaves were the wealth of the south and drove the economy of the south. So the threat of slavery being ended is what caused them to secede.
Lincoln did not secede and he was not going to end slavery and woudn't have if it wasn't for the war.
Slavery didn't bring about America's success. If it did, every country that had slavery would be just as successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Industrialization brought america most of its successes and quality of life improvements
Every country did not have the system of slavery that our country did.
Too often today people think "slavery" is the same everywhere. I agree it did happen everywhere, but it was vital to the economic development and industrial movement here in America.
I've mentioned before that I do genealogical research. Slavery research into the lives of my enslaves ancestors has shown that most of them did not (actually none of them that I found) worked on cotton plantations. They were slaves in various industries, on small farms, even my TN ancestors were enslaved/owned by factories or hired out from their owners to work in factories. My VA ancestors were enslaved and worked in mines. Slaves also worked in mills performing a variety of jobs.
Again, too often people think of slavery as one way. It actually was not only the cotton plantation here in America. There were slaves in cities and who were owned by companies and who built the infrastructure of early America. Without them our country would not have achieved industrialized success or improved quality of life.
...the South grew from a narrow coastal strip of worn-out tobacco plantations to a continental cotton empire, and the United States grew into a modern, industrial and capitalist economy.
That economy of the so-called cotton empire was completely dessimated during and after the civil war. That much should be obvious to you. The modern economy that emerged from the ashes had nothing to do with slavery. Besides, Great Britain had found another source for cotton: Egypt. Southern states had what essentially amounted to economic sanctions placed on them for a century afterwards.
When you finish that book, you should read some more. A lot more. You won't find everything you should know by googling or reading one book. It would also do you good to dig into those primary sources yourself instead of relying on others to only show you the bits they want you to see and interpret them for you. It will broaden your perspective to study what authors omit.
P.S., the coastline was mostly rice plantations in the colonial south, and the primary reason the number of slaves increased dramatically - not cotton.
Last edited by SimplySagacious; 10-30-2017 at 09:34 AM..
AllenSJC via the author That economy of the so-called cotton empire was completely dessimated during and after the civil war. That much should be obvious to you. The modern economy that emerged from the ashes had nothing to do with slavery. Besides, Great Britain had found another source for cotton: Egypt. Southern states had what essentially amounted to economic sanctions placed on them for a century afterwards.
When you finish that book, you should read some more. A lot more. You won't find everything you should know by googling or reading one book. It would also do you good to dig into those primary sources yourselfinstead of relying on others to only show you the bits they want you to see and interpret them for you. It will broaden your perspective to study what authors omit.
P.S., the coastline was mostly rice plantations in the colonial south, and the primary reason the number of slaves increased dramatically - not cotton.
ITA with the bold above and especially the underlined. People really should become more "active" readers and you should take note of the sources the author used and review those sources as well.
In regards to the blue, I also agree. My SC ancestors who were enslaved worked on rice plantations. Again, I have discovered no connection of my enslaved ancestors to cotton at all and most of the people who I research their families for them, it is not good to assume that blacks always worked on plantations that grew cotton. Cotton was a staple only in certain southern states/counties and not all over the south.
I think it's hard for people to believe or accept that slavery was only incidental to America's rise in fortunes. I think it surely helped make America "more rich".... but the country would have already been "rich." All other factors were there from the beginning to almost guarantee it.
Exploited labor of all kinds helps build infrastructure and wealth. The US - had it never had slavery - would simply have underpaid the lower classes like they did in the north (and in Canada) and continued with the indentured servant model that existed elsewhere.
It had the true ingredients of wealth creation at its benefit: plenty of land, lots of resources, and an expanding population fueled by immigration. Also, separation from the wars and entanglements of the "old world". And of course, laws and institutions beyond SLAVERY that to this day can be used to determine if a country will be rich vs. poor. Things like laws, courts, institutions dedicated to science and education.
[Compare truly organically rich and successful economies to "single resource" rich economies, like Saudi Arabia v. Germany]
You can't ignore cotton, slaves, and land in the (then) southwest (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, etc.). They fueled the manufacturing industries in northern states & the UK. They fueled high finance in New York & New Orleans. It is hard to overstate the centrality of slave cotton in the period from ~1800-1865.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
Two words: Cotton Gin.
It wasn't just America's rise it was also Europe. The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain and it was the cotton from the South that started it. None of it would have been possible but for the Cotton Gin. Before that, the institution of slavery was on the wane in the US.
Seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Slavery didn't bring about America's success. If it did, every country that had slavery would be just as successful.
You ought to read the book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
ITA with the bold above and especially the underlined. People really should become more "active" readers and you should take note of the sources the author used and review those sources as well.
In regards to the blue, I also agree. My SC ancestors who were enslaved worked on rice plantations. Again, I have discovered no connection of my enslaved ancestors to cotton at all and most of the people who I research their families for them, it is not good to assume that blacks always worked on plantations that grew cotton. Cotton was a staple only in certain southern states/counties and not all over the south.
The numbers tell a story. In 1810, there were just under 1.2 million slaves in the US. by 1860, there were just under 4 million. In 1860, Alabama had 435k slaves. Arkansas had 110k. Louisiana had 330k. Mississippi had 435k, and Texas had 160k. South Carolina had 400k. And yet: look back to 1850. Arkansas had 47k slaves (more than doubled in the decade from 1850-60). Texas had 58k (nearly tripled). Louisiana had 244k (added ~40%). Mississippi had 309k (added ~30%). Alabama had 342k (added ~25%). South Carolina had 384k (added 4%).
There was a boom in slavery in the cotton south. To compare the present: there are technology startups in New York, Wichita, and Austin, but the boom is in Silicon Valley. Of course, the cotton south was particularly brutal. Millions of people were tortured and brutalized by this regime. It is important to remember the human costs as we recognize the economic power of cotton slavery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That economy of the so-called cotton empire was completely dessimated during and after the civil war. That much should be obvious to you. The modern economy that emerged from the ashes had nothing to do with slavery. Besides, Great Britain had found another source for cotton: Egypt. Southern states had what essentially amounted to economic sanctions placed on them for a century afterwards.
