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.
At the time of the Civil War, the north was richer. With the industrial explosion in the north after the Civil War, an even greater share of American wealth was generated outside of the south. In the 20th century the south was an economic laggard that contributed little wealth to the ledger outside of oil money in Texas and Oklahoma.
I was looking for state level GDP statistics over time going back to 1800 but could not find them. If anyone can point them to me I'd be interested.
So what proportion of America's wealth was generated by slaves? Even accounting for investment and compounding. I know that "this nation was built on slave labor" is just a slogan, but are there estimates as to how much wealth was generated by slaves, relative to the total over time?
At the time of the Civil War, the north was richer. With the industrial explosion in the north after the Civil War, an even greater share of American wealth was generated outside of the south. In the 20th century the south was an economic laggard that contributed little wealth to the ledger outside of oil money in Texas and Oklahoma.
I was looking for state level GDP statistics over time going back to 1800 but could not find them. If anyone can point them to me I'd be interested.
So what proportion of America's wealth was generated by slaves? Even accounting for investment and compounding. I know that "this nation was built on slave labor" is just a slogan, but are there estimates as to how much wealth was generated by slaves, relative to the total over time?
It's an interesting question. I lived in the South for over 25 years and both worked and knew people all around the region. At some point in time it did occur to me that rarely did I meet anyone, whose family had been well-to-do for more than a couple generations, that had made it from manufacturing or shipping, etc.
The wealth seemed to come from more land ownership, whether farmed or not. Some families of early settlers winded up owning alot of land which was used to grow things or was sold as cities expanded.
(This will freak-out some readers but....) It does seem that much of the OLD wealth of the South came from land taken from the Indians and labor taken from the imported Africans.
By the time Sherman was done any wealth created by labor exploitation was gone.
It is a myth that slaves generate more wealth for a society than free men. The negative impact of slavery impacts us till this day. This nation would be much wealthier if slavery had never touched our soil.
Also, for those Southerners who in fact did own slaves (the estimates range around 10% with most of that 10% having a couple to four) much of their wealth was tied up in the slaves themselves and not necessarily what they produced.
(This will freak-out some readers but....) It does seem that much of the OLD wealth of the South came from land taken from the Indians and labor taken from the imported Africans.
Of course that's true, and it's true in the north as well where land confiscation and genocide was also operative, and slavery existed during colonial times.
The difference is that in the north that agrarian wealth was superceded, many times over I suspect, by industrial and commercial wealth.
The thornier question, when assigning culpability, is whether the original agrarian masters rolled their wealth over into newer industrial and commercial ventures.
That's an aside from my question in the OP, which is really about national accounting.
Also, for those Southerners who in fact did own slaves (the estimates range around 10% with most of that 10% having a couple to four) much of their wealth was tied up in the slaves themselves and not necessarily what they produced.
That defies basic business sense. The "value" of a slave was their productive capacity. Otherwise, you're arguing that they were simply investing in slaves as a trading commodity. That would be a lousy trade as your investment could die, become debilitatingly sick and there were plenty more where they came from. Adequate supply keeps prices in check.
Plantation owners that had business smarts could make plenty of coin. Even if only average income was produced it allowed them to live and to keep the land which increased in value substantially over generations. That was the wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist
The thornier question, when assigning culpability, is whether the original agrarian masters rolled their wealth over into newer industrial and commercial ventures.
You answered that question yourself in the first paragraph of your OP.
At the time of the Civil War, the north was richer. With the industrial explosion in the north after the Civil War, an even greater share of American wealth was generated outside of the south. In the 20th century the south was an economic laggard that contributed little wealth to the ledger outside of oil money in Texas and Oklahoma.
I was looking for state level GDP statistics over time going back to 1800 but could not find them. If anyone can point them to me I'd be interested.
So what proportion of America's wealth was generated by slaves? Even accounting for investment and compounding. I know that "this nation was built on slave labor" is just a slogan, but are there estimates as to how much wealth was generated by slaves, relative to the total over time?
It’s a complicated question. As whogo said, any accumulated wealth was virtually wiped out during the Civil War. Much of the wealth that slaveowners acquired prior to that was re-invested into their farms, not accumulated. And much of the wealth derived from southern agriculture was acquired in the processing of that agriculture, not in the agriculture itself. So northern textile manufacturers and cigar makers made much of the wealth of cotton and tobacco. This is one of the causes of the Civil War. Southerners were upset that the Northerners were profitting more from their produce than they (the southerners) were. Also, much cotton was shipped to England for textile mills there, not even benefitting the northern Americans. You could say that the north enriched themselves on slavery even though they didn’t have them, but the north could just as easily imported the cotton or tabacco or other products.
I did a google search of “how much did slavery contribute to the GDP and got several good responses. You could tweak the search question a bit. I’ve read many books on slavery and economics and have come accross this type of information but do not have it readily available.
How much of America's wealth was generated by slaves compared to the wealth not generated by slaves? If you know it for a fact, what is the ratio?
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.
