How slave labor built and financed major U.S. cities

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by goat314

There would have been no mighty empire for masses of impoverished European serfs to migrate to without African slave labor. The capital in American capitalism was literally picked in the cotton fields of Southern plantations. Without that free labor harvesting raw materials, you have no major industrial revolution in the North.

Yeah we should all be very ashamed of our history....... The capital in American capitalism comes from US citizens being free to take the chance to gain advantage from their skills or talent - then monetize it to the fullest extent possible, whether it be learned in a field, a shop, the military, or at school.

The Chinese Communists enslaved their people, murdered the landlords, chased the rest to Taiwan, and had free labor for the better part of half a century but couldn't seem to trigger an industrial revolution without ripping off plans from capitalist countries an subjecting their population to sub-minimum wages.

The Soviet Communists enslaved their people, starved 40-50 million to consolidate power, and had free labor plus the most resource rich and vast land in the world. They probably had a shot but wiped out the kulaks, and anyone who had any skills.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

Yeah we should all be very ashamed of our history.......

I'm not ashamed at all. It happened, it shaped our culture, it is what is. From your defensive stance, you seemed to be the one that is triggered.

Originally Posted by Reverberation

The capital in American capitalism comes from US citizens being free to take the chance to gain advantage from their skills or talent

No, the capital came from the cotton trade and enslavement of millions of people.

I suggest that you listen to this podcast and read this book. I know you won't, but I tried.

http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2014/...conomy-baptist

Originally Posted by Reverberation

- then monetize it to the fullest extent possible, whether it be learned in a field, a shop, the military, or at school.

That's true, it's just that millions did it for free.

All that stuff about China and Russia are just deflections. The sins of those countries do not absolve America's past.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by goat314

There would have been no mighty empire for masses of impoverished European serfs to migrate to without African slave labor. The capital in American capitalism was literally picked in the cotton fields of Southern plantations. Without that free labor harvesting raw materials, you have no major industrial revolution in the North.

This isn't fully accurate. The majority of early textile mills in the Northeast, especially the Blackstone River Valley and Merrimack River Valley mills (Pawtucket, Lowell, Manchester NH) were wool textile plants. Wool from local farms, not Southern cotton. At their height, the Boston Associates' mills were roughly split between cotton (from the South) and wool (from New England). Linen (from locally-farmed hemp) was also refined, especially in the Beverly and Waltham mills.

Also, the real European exodus to North American shores happened during the Second Industrial Revolution, and at that point, Northeast and Midwest factories were pumping out all types of stuff that had nothing to do with Southern cotton.

Please don't take this as my trying to mitigate the horrible effects slavery has had on our national consciousness. Just pointing out that Northeastern mills did not rely on Southern cotton, even if later in their lifespan Southern cotton accounted for about 40% of all raw materials processed.

(instead they relied on Yankee teenage farm girls for what largely amounted to child indentured servitude )

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

Yeah we should all be very ashamed of our history....... The capital in American capitalism comes from US citizens being free to take the chance to gain advantage from their skills or talent - then monetize it to the fullest extent possible, whether it be learned in a field, a shop, the military, or at school.

Exactly! Like how the Boston Associates group - being a bunch of free, skilled men with talent - invested their own hard-earned capital in land next to fast-flowing rivers, and modern mills sitting next to these rivers, and raw materials to process in their mills like cotton from the South which was farmed and packaged by . . . oh.

Originally Posted by Reverberation

The Chinese Communists enslaved their people, murdered the landlords, chased the rest to Taiwan, and had free labor for the better part of half a century but couldn't seem to trigger an industrial revolution without ripping off plans from capitalist countries an subjecting their population to sub-minimum wages.

The Soviet Communists enslaved their people, starved 40-50 million to consolidate power, and had free labor plus the most resource rich and vast land in the world. They probably had a shot but wiped out the kulaks, and anyone who had any skills.

Would you care for some sherry, mustard and dill with all that red herring? The hell does anything about China or the USSR have to do with American slavery??

[dc_denizen]

Yes, the greatest era of American economic growth and prosperity (the so called gilded age) came after slavery ended. The source of capital was often European banks, which were in turn well capitalized due to their global empires which the USA lacked. Cotton was an afterthought then.

On the other hand like all new world economies agricultural surplus was used by earlier, antebellum America to amass surplus and drive investment. Some of this surplus came from slave-farmed and thus more profitable cotton, but also other commodities derived from free labor.

In Victorian England children worked 6 days a week, 12 hours a day in the ‘satanic mills’. Russian serfs didn’t have an easy time either. Workers, slave and free, had it very bad in the early days of mass agriculture and industrialization.

[mademan404]

I'm surprised to see some of the back and forth here. These subtle justifications for hundreds of years of American involvement in Trans-Atlantic slave trading are disturbing. People tend to forget about the part of slavery that included kidnapping, rape, torture, buck-breaking, and other insidious psychological, sexual, and physical violence. Instead, this shit stain of a historic period gets reduced to 'commerce' and 'commodities'. Cut it out. There is absolutely no way this country would have been able to do the great things it has done without the convenience of free labor over an extended period of time.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by mademan404

I'm surprised to see some of the back and forth here. These subtle justifications for hundreds of years of American involvement in Trans-Atlantic slave trading are disturbing. People tend to forget about the part of slavery that included kidnapping, rape, torture, buck-breaking, and other insidious psychological, sexual, and physical violence. Instead, this shit stain of a historic period gets reduced to 'commerce' and 'commodities'. Cut it out. There is absolutely no way this country would have been able to do the great things it has done without the convenience of free labor over an extended period of time.

I don't think anyone is justifying it. Slavery in the US was wiped out over a bloody Civil War 150 or so years ago. The article, while interesting, frames the growth of cities in the US in a way that stirs resentment and cast collective guilt. Hence the conclusion:

Recognition of the price paid in human life and liberty for economic advancement—and the costs of resources extracted as nature’s systems were exploited—must inform and guide us as we work to transform our cities and regions. We must forge a new path illuminated by justice, respect for the dignity of each and every human being, and determination to maintain and restore the web of life as the foundation for health and sustainability.

I find that both condescending and irritating as it implies that we don't already subscribe to a system that stands for "liberty and justice for all", have not practiced affirmative action for 56 years now, and that somehow the infrastructure that our society runs on is illegitimate.

[initiald]

I think the fact remains that the U.S. has a compounding moral debt that has never been repaid, and there can never be true justice without addressing reparations.

Even beyond that, all wealth has come on the backs of and at the expense of the proletariat. Until late stage capitalism finally finishes its death rattle there will be no true freedom, no true social justice, and no true democracy.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by goat314

The legacy of slavery pretty much influences every aspect of American social, economic, and cultural issues. You say Jim Crow did more to define racial discrimination, but there would have been no Jim Crow without slavery.

Because we allow it to. Rather than relegate slavery as a dark chapter in our history, we choose to treat it as on an ongoing social conversation and keep those wounds open. Human history is littered with one group subjugating another but we here in the US seem to think we were unique that it only impacted or effected us. It started well before before we were a glimmer in King James I's eye and it still occurs in Africa.

No. Jim Crow did not have to exist because we had a history of slavery and racial discrimination occurs all over the world and in places where there was no slavery; the treatment of Aborigines in Australia for instance. Or Apartheid era South Africa.

Originally Posted by initiald

I think the fact remains that the U.S. has a compounding moral debt that has never been repaid, and there can never be true justice without addressing reparations.

To who?

I think the U.S. has repaid its debts and is still is to a degree atoning for it's sins. And probably will for a while.

[skyscraperpage17]

I don't see how anything good can come from this discussion.

It's ripe for a ton of bickering and personal attacks, given the nature of the topic.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by initiald

I think the fact remains that the U.S. has a compounding moral debt that has never been repaid, and there can never be true justice without addressing reparations.

Even beyond that, all wealth has come on the backs of and at the expense of the proletariat. Until late stage capitalism finally finishes its death rattle there will be no true freedom, no true social justice, and no true democracy.

When did Marxism become cool again? Capitalism only goes away (really just underground) when individuals surrender their will to be repressed by the state. Capitalism gives the proletariat hope because it is blind to race, gender, etc. It's not perfect, but the pursuit of a Marxist utopia is garbage. It's a divide and conquer strategy meant to sow discord.

Humans are not equally created, societies are not equally good. True equality can never exist and anyone who tells you otherwise just wants an excuse to break your stuff.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by mademan404

I'm surprised to see some of the back and forth here. These subtle justifications for hundreds of years of American involvement in Trans-Atlantic slave trading are disturbing. People tend to forget about the part of slavery that included kidnapping, rape, torture, buck-breaking, and other insidious psychological, sexual, and physical violence. Instead, this shit stain of a historic period gets reduced to 'commerce' and 'commodities'. Cut it out. There is absolutely no way this country would have been able to do the great things it has done without the convenience of free labor over an extended period of time.

I'm going to push back a little here. America was not involved in the slave trade for hundreds of years. That was a European institution that came to the shores of America. The United States of America abolished slavery after only 78 years and a civil war that killed half a million Americans in a successful attempt to finally put an end to this practice.

Prior to the war, there were many attempts to end slavery well before 1865 and shortly after the establishment of the United States of America such as the Slave Trade Act of 1794.


Then there was this: Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - 1807

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

This legislation was promoted by President Thomas Jefferson, who called for its enactment in his 1806 State of the Union Address. He had promoted the idea since the 1770s. It reflected the force of the general trend toward abolishing the international slave trade, which Virginia followed by all the other states had prohibited or restricted since then.

In the 18th century, Great Britain had become the world's largest slave trader.[2] During the American Revolution (1775–1783) against Great Britain, all the states banned the international slave trade. This was done for a variety of economic, political, and moral reasons depending on the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Pr...tion_of_Slaves

[mrnyc]

cue the russian server farms staff -- zdravstvuyte comrades !!! dasvidanya !

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by mademan404

I'm surprised to see some of the back and forth here. These subtle justifications for hundreds of years of American involvement in Trans-Atlantic slave trading are disturbing. People tend to forget about the part of slavery that included kidnapping, rape, torture, buck-breaking, and other insidious psychological, sexual, and physical violence. Instead, this shit stain of a historic period gets reduced to 'commerce' and 'commodities'. Cut it out. There is absolutely no way this country would have been able to do the great things it has done without the convenience of free labor over an extended period of time.

You're new here so I understand your surprise but if you had spent any time in the murder thread you'd understand why you actually shouldn't be surprised by these comments.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by JManc

Because we allow it to. Rather than relegate slavery as a dark chapter in our history, we choose to treat it as on an ongoing social conversation and keep those wounds open. Human history is littered with one group subjugating another but we here in the US seem to think we were unique that it only impacted or effected us. It started well before before we were a glimmer in King James I's eye and it still occurs in Africa.

No. Jim Crow did not have to exist because we had a history of slavery and racial discrimination occurs all over the world and in places where there was no slavery; the treatment of Aborigines in Australia for instance. Or Apartheid era South Africa.

Without getting into projecting today's worldview onto historical populations, I think that ultimately this is to our detriment. I don't believe that this can be precisely known, but I would bet that many if not most of the white population of the US descended from immigrants who came AFTER the Civil War and most of those who didn't were not tied to slave ownership. More than 2/3 of the non-slave population of the U.S. (pre-Civil War) lived in the North. So of the 31,000,000 people who lived in the US at the time, ~5,500,000 (18%) of them were whites who lived in the South. 600-800,000 people died fighting to end slavery. By 1930 the population of the U.S. had tripled, largely due to immigration (~31,000,000) from Europe.

I'm not discounting the evil of slavery - or the need to reflect on it, but to obsess over it so much when NOBODY today defends it, a civil war was fought to end it, and the population of the US at the time was 10% of what it is now, serves little purpose other than to unfairly cast guilt onto the majority of the U.S. population for superficial reasons. As for righting the wrongs of the past, something like 77% of the current US population fall into some form of protected classes for Affirmative Action.

[mademan404]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

You're new here so I understand your surprise but if you had spent any time in the murder thread you'd understand why you actually shouldn't be surprised by these comments.

I've been following these forums for nearly 10 years. I'm hardly new here. I just rather not insert myself into any and every conversation. This one, however, is a subject that is very relevant even today (see Libya), so I won't sit idly by and watch people equate African chattel slaves to Russian serfs. They don't belong in the same discussion, as serfs were not traded and sold as human livestock. The serfs were Russians...in Russia...serving Russians. That's a class issue. No kidnapping and force breeding involved.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by mademan404

I've been following these forums for nearly 10 years. I'm hardly new here. I just rather not insert myself into any and every conversation. This one, however, is a subject that is very relevant even today (see Libya), so I won't sit idly by and watch people equate African chattel slaves to Russian serfs. They don't belong in the same discussion, as serfs were not traded and sold as human livestock. The serfs were Russians...in Russia...serving Russians. That's a class issue. No kidnapping and force breeding involved.

Sorry assumed due to your post count. A lot of the comments are a product of ignorance and a society espousing color-blindness so I personally am not surprised. As a black man in America, I completely understand where you are coming from. American federalism is the direct result of chattel slavery yet people refuse to see how systemic the issue is in this country.

[initiald]

Originally Posted by JManc

To who?

I think the U.S. has repaid its debts and is still is to a degree atoning for it's sins. And probably will for a while.

Native Americans and African Americans. White society profited and continues to profit from their violent past. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ations/361631/

[initiald]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

...when individuals surrender their will to be repressed by the state.

You are conflating statism with democratic socialism. Works being able to have a democratic say regarding the wealth their labor creates rather than giving it to a capitalist class who do nothing to earn it doesn't have anything to do with statism or anti-statism. Google "libertarian socialism" or do some basic research.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by initiald

Native Americans and African Americans. White society profited and continues to profit from it's violent past. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ations/361631/

don't forget our melanin challenged european-americans. slavery and death for fighting against slavery clearly indicates misery across the full range of the color spectrum on that ugly topic.

also, lighter skin people tend to fare better around the world, not just the usa. that might be thee dumbest thing humanity has ever concocted, but there it is.