The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
What Would America Have Been Like Without Slavery?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

My new column in Taki’s Magazine, Alternative America, critically evaluates the current dogma that America before recently would have been impoverished without slavery and blacks.

An anonymous iSteve commenter points us toward this passage about the impact of slavery on the American economy c. 1830 from Alexis De Tocqueville

… in general, the colonies in which there were no slaves became more populous and more rich than those in which slavery flourished. The more progress was made, the more was it shown that slavery, which is so cruel to the slave, is prejudicial to the master.

…That which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky, that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two States only differ in a single respect; Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the State of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders.

Thus the traveller who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi, may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of the surrounding objects will convince him as to which of the two is most favorable to mankind. Upon the left bank of the stream the population is rare; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primaeval forest recurs at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and of life. From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard which proclaims the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests, the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborer, and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor….”

Democracy in America (1831)

It would be interesting to create alternative timelines speculating on the historic path of an America without slavery.

For example, to rewrite Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America: in the 1940 election, Democratic incumbent Franklin D. Roosevelt lost to the Socialist-Populist-Isolationist fusion party with Norman Thomas as Presidential nominee, Huey Long as VP, and Charles Lindbergh as Secretary of State-designate. Running on a policy of “Practical Pacifism,” the new party swept the progressive German precincts of the Cotton Belt where mechanically ingenious immigrants from the Rhineland had finally made mass cotton growing economical in the high-wage South. Roosevelt carried the more warlike Scots-Irish Southern uplands, but it was not enough to win the Electoral Votes of deeply German Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, where left-leaning voters were adamant that WASPs would never again lead America into war with Germany.

 
Hide 119 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Truth says:

    LMAO!

    Steve you know you my Boy. I hope they breakin’ you off propper for this.

  2. It seems to me that your Taki’s column (though excellent) and this blog are beside what should be the main point. That is not what America would be like without slavery. It is what African Americans would be like had slavery not occurred. That is the legal and philosophical justification for any remedies they may be due. Like reparations.

    (Note that I do not mean to suggest that slaves were fortunate or well treated. Slavery was an abomination. But African Americans today are not slaves.)

    What is the counterfactual position of African Americans had slavery never happened? One would think it is that of Africa Africans, at least a portion of them. Doesn’t seem so great. Thomas Sowell has noted as much.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    , @Realist
  3. Buzz Mohawk says: • Website
    @Eleven-ahisi

    What is the counterfactual position of African Americans had slavery never happened?

    Had there been no slavery in America, there would be no African Americans.

    And those Africans who would instead be in Africa would be much worse off than they are in America.

    They owe us reparations, but if you’ve ever sued anyone incapable of paying what they owe you, you know we would never be able to collect.

  4. syonredux says:

    First Lovecraft, now John W Campbell:

    The John W. Campbell Award For Best New Writer is being renamed. The award’s sponsor announced today that the award would be given a new name after this year’s winner, Jeannette Ng, condemned the award’s namesake for his fascist and racist beliefs during their acceptance speech at the 2019 Hugo Awards ceremony. Starting next year, the award will be called the Astounding Award for Best New Writer.

    In his announcement, Analog Science Fact and Fiction editor Trevor Quachri said that “Campbell’s provocative editorials and opinions on race, slavery, and other matters often reflected positions that went beyond just the mores of his time and are today at odds with modern values, including those held by the award’s many nominees, winners, and supporters.”

    https://www.tor.com/2019/08/27/dell-magazines-is-changing-the-name-of-the-john-w-campbell-award/comment-page-1/#comment-824410

  5. slumber_j says:

    I’ll duplicate a comment on the Taki’s piece here:

    @The Alarmist

    Sure, we’ve evolved away from factory stores, but only because the oligarch robber barrons of today have learned that the flow of wealth among them is more useful than the stock of wealth their serfs generate directly for them.

    Right. And speaking of stocks and flows, my wife and I have recently discussed the Peculiar Institution of slavery in those terms.

    If you owned a plantation and wanted slaves, you had to buy them: a capital expense, and a resultant asset that must be maintained. When you pay people a wage, that’s a flow–and back then that was all it was. Why is one necessarily better financially than the other?

    Answer: it’s not, unless the expenses (including opportunity cost etc.) of the former are less than the straightforward labor cost of the latter.

    So why did plantation owners seemingly automatically opt for slave labor? My guess is that it’s a combination of stuff. People were still used to thinking in terms of serfs, so maybe that played into it: a certain amount of intellectual laziness. Or maybe buying slaves was mostly the only way to get your hands on Sub-Saharan African-descended labor, which was important for the reasons Mr. Sailer outlines in his piece.

    Anyway, it’s an interesting question.

  6. Corvinus says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Mr. Sailer is engaging in No Slavery Porn. Cheesy moustache, included.

    “Had there been no slavery in America, there would be no African Americans.”

    You are only (wildly) speculating here. More than likely there would have been immigration from Africa at some point in time to our shores, especially if there was not a distinct animosity toward them. Regardless, we do have much more certainty that had the peculiar institution not been part of the United States, several important components of the economy of the Thirteen Colonies, like the shipping and rum industries, would have been stunted. Moreover, plantations were an integral part of the local southern economies, in particular foodstuffs, horses, and building materials.

    “And those Africans who would instead be in Africa would be much worse off than they are in America.”

    Again, you are only (wildly) speculating. You are neglecting to consider the impact of European imperialism, which had a significant negative impact on their physical environment and their cultural ways of life.

    • Replies: @TGGP
  7. It might have taken a while, but eventually explorers would have discovered Wakanda, and after that we’d have had our influx of Africans, but instead of coming as slaves they would have come as scientists and inventors.

  8. Buzz Mohawk says: • Website
    @slumber_j

    As we know, the net costs of the former have extended down through history to this day. Some have tried to estimate them, and they number in the trillions of dollars. That is something the slave buyers did not consider.

    Cheap labor is expensive. The cheap labor that is now being imported will carry similar costs which will be paid by our Posterity.

    • Agree: slumber_j, NickG
    • Replies: @HammerJack
  9. Cave says:

    It takes two to tango. Each of the 400,000 initial slaves needed a partner. So there were an average of 200,000 couples (or couplings).

    So really, each has more like an average of 150 descendants, not a mere 75.

    Feel free to extrapolate that into how much worse the Bahamas were.

  10. jb says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Had there been no slavery in America, there would be no African Americans.

    And those Africans who would instead be in Africa would be much worse off than they are in America.

    One thing I wonder about is what would have happened if Europeans had simply left Sub-Saharan Africa alone, and traded with them instead of conquering them. It wouldn’t have been Wakanda, but it seems possible it would have been better off than it is now.

    Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a rather bizarre novel in which European civilization has collapsed and the remnants are being invaded by a black African empire. (Guess who saves the day — the Chinese!) Burroughs’ Africans are by no means the equals of the Americans or Chinese, but he shows them a certain respect. For example he makes a point of saying that the black soldiers are literate, and that their tanks and guns, while crude, are of their own design and manufacture. It’s possible that in the real world black Africans, left to themselves, would eventually have joined the modern world on their own, even if they never showed the same talent for it as the Japanese.

    Or course its also possible that they would have remained a collection of tribal Iron Age kingdoms and made no progress at all, in which case today there would be maybe 100 million black people worldwide. Either way, the non-engagement scenario is a vast improvement over what actually happened.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  11. V says:
    @slumber_j

    One of the problems with plantation agriculture is that is has a sharp peak of demand for labor at harvest time. This exposes the farmer to risk that they’ll have to pay too much for labor, and end up having to split the profits too much. Slavery ‘fixes’ this problem by giving the owner a guaranteed labor supply. Also if their harvest doesn’t do well, they can rent out their slaves to other plantations; so they’re invested in both sides of the table.

    But insurance contracts fix that about as well, with way less cruelty. The main thing you get from slavery is that you can force people to work shit jobs farming cash crops or mining when otherwise they would be content with subsistence agriculture, but it seems better to internalize the cost and make tobacco and sugar and cotton more expensive to properly compensate the workers.

  12. What about, what would America have been like with no White slavery?

  13. TGGP says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    Correct, as there are people descended from African immigrants in many western countries now, including Canada. They would be fewer in number though and have more cultural continuity with their countries of origin rather than being “African Americans” as we know them.

    In terms of the impact on Africa, it should be remembered that slavery already existed, and by some accounts I’ve read there were even larger numbers sent eastward to the Ottoman empire. Is the counterfactual to contain no slavery whatsoever? This would also imply no interventions to stamp out slavery, although there could still be justifications based on piracy or other matters. If slavery is only eliminated in the United States, that would still leave the Caribbean and Brazil.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  14. … the new party swept the progressive German precincts … where left-leaning voters were adamant that WASPs would never again lead America into war with Germany.

    German Americans and English Americans finding common cause:

    The Saxons United Party. “SUP, Kameraden! No more brother wars!”

    The SUP symbol would be a Hengist and Horsa gable cross, like the Raiffeisenbank logo:


    [MORE]

  15. @Buzz Mohawk

    Cheap labor is expensive. The cheap labor that is now being imported will carry similar costs which will be paid by our Posterity.

    Exactly. And arguably at least, one more reason so many white people are opting out of posterity. We certainly didn’t choose to have our nation flooded, and we’d rather not reap the whirlwind either.

    If only we had our own Wakanda. Well, we did–multiple places–but we foolishly shared it with implacable enemies.

  16. bomag says:
    @slumber_j

    So why did plantation owners seemingly automatically opt for slave labor?

    People very often act in uneconomic ways.

    As Buzz Mohawk notes, Black slavery in the US was one of the all-time worst economic decisions.

  17. @syonredux

    Like one of their own hapless characters, sci-fi is walking blithely into a self-fulfilling prophecy

  18. Sorry, Germany already won WWII because Dr. McCoy saved Edith Keeler

  19. @syonredux

    this year’s winner, Jeannette Ng, condemned the award’s namesake for his fascist and racist beliefs

    Ng? Uh! Please.

  20. Roger says:

    Perhaps some whites benefited from slavery before the Civil War, but it is hard to see how any net benefit could have survived the war.

    White Americans would have been much better off without slavery. African-Americans very much benefited from slavery, as American blacks are the richest in the world.

  21. @Buzz Mohawk

    I’ve got a guess who’d have ended up here without slavery. It really was hard for a white population to get established in the deep south due to disease. Of course there were eventually enough whites to form an impoverished class of landless workers but that was more than 200 years after Charleston was settled. For generations there was cheap land and a waiting cash crop gold mine but no workers.

    The early alternative to plantation slaves was not wage workers, it was indentured servants. Of course they were white but it’s likely planters would have eventually figured out what sugar growers in the Caribbean did when slavery ended. You need people who won’t drop dead the first malaria season. They tried free Africans, Indians, and Cantonese and quickly found Indians worked best. Not sure when voyaging to India became developed enough for that to be economical. Clearly in the 1600s it was not. When first tried in the 1840s it was.

  22. ‘My new column in Taki’s Magazine, Alternative America, critically evaluates the current dogma that America before recently would have been impoverished without slavery and blacks…’

    That really isn’t worth bothering with. It ranks down around flat-eartherism.

    I suppose it’s of interest to consider why people would advance such silliness.

  23. Corvinus says:

    The Taki’s Article thoroughly demonstrates Sailer’s rule of journalism in action–Always quickly follow up an initial post with another post to ensure the lede from the first post is further buried and to solidify a premise that will be used as Alt Right fodder.

    “As I mentioned last week, The New York Times has become obsessed with what it portrays as America’s mounting slavery crisis…”

    Another one of your false premises, which leads you to write a long-winded article on this topic. It seems lately to be your m.o.

    “But it’s worth contemplating an America without slaves.”

    According to Who/Whom?

    “But there wasn’t all that much worth exporting to Europeans at similar latitudes other than lumber.”

    Are you trying to be historically illiterate, Mr. Sailer?

    http://coachtatehistory.weebly.com/13-colonies.html

    The economy of New England began to diversify in the 1640’s, as the fur trading, lumber, and fishing industries found markets in Europe and the West Indies and the colony’s shipbuilding industry developed. The colony’s economy began to diversify in the 1640s, as the fur trading, lumber, and fishing industries found markets in Europe and the West Indies and the colony’s shipbuilding industry developed. One-third of all trade between England and her colonies were vessels built in New England.

    “Blacks were quite useful in raising these crops because Africans were genetically better adapted to resisting hot-country diseases. ”

    And northern and southern white Europeans at the time were programmed internally to subjugate what they perceived as inferior people and establishing a globalist agenda. So it all evens out.

    “We still aren’t fully aware of the specifics of why blacks tended to be healthier than whites in the South.”

    That would be a false statement on your part.

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html

    “The diets of enslaved people were inadequate or barely adequate to meet the demands of their heavy workload. They lived in crude quarters that left them vulnerable to bad weather and disease. Their clothing and bedding were minimal as well. Slaves who worked as domestics sometimes fared better, getting the castoff clothing of their masters or having easier access to food stores. The heat and humidity of the South created health problems for everyone living there. However, the health of plantation slaves was far worse than that of whites. Unsanitary conditions, inadequate nutrition and unrelenting hard labor made slaves highly susceptible to disease. Illnesses were generally not treated adequately, and slaves were often forced to work even when sick. The rice plantations were the most deadly. Black people had to stand in water for hours at a time in the sweltering sun. Malaria was rampant. Child mortality was extremely high on these plantations, generally around 66% — on one rice plantation it was as high as 90%.”

    Furthermore…Source –> https://psmag.com/news/how-slavery-changed-the-dna-of-african-americans

    “Do these genetic findings matter to anyone other than historians and genealogists? The answers is yes — studies of genetic history like this one are important because they help explain why blacks and whites often have different genetic risk factors for the same diseases. African Americans are disproportionately affected by many common diseases, and while much of this is due to poverty and limited access to good health care, genetics plays a role as well. If African Americans are to fully benefit from modern health care, where diagnoses and treatments are increasingly tailored to a patient’s DNA, it is critical that we understand African Americans’ genetic history, and how it contributes to their health today.”

    “It was noted in the 1920s that black Africans had some intrinsic resistance to malaria, but the basis for this remained unknown.”

    Research suggests otherwise. Between African ethnic groups, some may be more resistant to malaria. Source –> https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/2/3/ofv118/2460530

    In addition, “[t]he belief that West and Central Africans and their descendants in the New World enjoy an innate immunity or resistance to yellow fever persists in the writings of many historians. They offer three arguments that such a racial immunity actually exists: first, that a consensus on the matter prevailed among historical observers of the disease; second, that patterns of lethality during yellow fever epidemics demonstrate it to be true; and third, because a heritable resistance to malaria is known to have spread within these populations, a similar resistance to yellow fever must have developed as well. But in fact there was never a consensus among medical observers that black immunity to yellow fever actually existed, the evidence from epidemics indicates that in fact it did not, and the analogy to the very real and well-documented evolutionary consequences of endemic malaria is not apt.”

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/90017043?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    “During yellow fever epidemics, whites were several times more likely to die than blacks.”

    Sources, Mr. Sailer?

    “My guess is that the tobacco industry in Virginia and North Carolina would still have been profitable paying a market wage for free white labor.”

    LOL, a guess. That’s all you got? The fact is that as demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Southern landowners felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the inherent issues of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor. Why? Large, rather than small, returns on their investment. It’s called capitalism, friend.

    “Ironically, tobacco plantations were probably healthier for their workers than for their customers.”

    Maybe. Then again, probably not.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/1170958?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    “Judging from the spectacular growth of the black population from about 400,000 imported slaves to 41 million today, American slave-owners tended to treat their property fairly carefully.”

    About 600,000 slaves were transported to America, or 5% of the 12 million slaves taken from Africa. About 310,000 of these persons were imported into the Thirteen Colonies before 1776: 40% directly and the rest from the Caribbean. Assuredly, there was a natural population growth of slaves between 1776 and 1861 on southern plantations. As far as “treating their property fairly carefully”, it really depends on Who/Whom.

    During the antebellum era the expectation increased among members of the owning class that enslaved women would contribute to the economic success of the plantation not only through productive labor but also through procreation. It helped to justify the increased emphasis on the birth of children in the slave quarters. Every woman of appropriate age were REQUIRED to bear children. Women who did not readily become mothers were subjected to scrutiny and possible action. From the slave’s perspective, they were not being treated “fairly”, as they were demanded to bear children squarely for free labor, rather than to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Now, if only today’s white women were subject to such intense “criticism”…

    “Without slavery, cotton barons would have had to pay whites a lot to work in the cotton fields. But it sure seems as if in the long run paying an honest wage would have been a good deal.”

    A good deal for the worker, but not for the cotton baron. Their profits could potentially diminish, and a raise in prices would be the likely response.

    “Granted, an America without slavery would not have developed the lowland Deep South as rapidly as it did…”

    Burying the lede, New York Times style!

    “Similarly, if the cotton belt centered on Mississippi and Alabama had taken a few more generations to develop due to the requirement to either pay free white workers high enough wages or to develop better technology that could do without them, I doubt if Americans in our alternative 2019 would lament this history any more than Americans today mourn all the oranges that weren’t grown in Florida in the 19th century.”

    Not requirement, but interference.

    “Without slavery, there would have been much less to fight over…”

    An assumption on your part. Do not underestimate the materialism and greed of (white) Americans. There is ALWAYS something to fight over.

    “so secession over lesser questions like tariffs would have been unlikely.”

    Not quite. States’ rights was a powerful influence in the South. See: The Tariff of Abominations.

    “And without slavery to impose an aristocratic tone on Southern society, mechanically ingenious southrons would likely have made better use of their abundant natural resources, such as waterpower…Without slavery, the economic culture of the Southeast in late 19th and early 20th centuries would have been less patrician, less downcast, much less obsessed by race, and more like Texas: brash, optimistic, and dynamic.”

    More assumptions.

    Not your best work, Mr. Sailer. There’s always the next column.

    • Troll: peterike
    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    , @BenKenobi
  24. Montgomery Senior High School
    3250 Palm Avenue, San Diego, CA 92154

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7403439/Shocking-video-shows-high-schoolers-involved-massive-melee-halting-San-Diego-traffic.html

    90% Latino, 1% white. Situation Normal, as they say.

    This shows Test Score Ratings for different races/ethnicities. Big differences may suggest that some student groups are not getting the support they need to succeed.

    https://www.greatschools.org/california/san-diego/6291-Montgomery-Senior-High-School/

  25. Anonymous[330] • Disclaimer says:

    You’ll never guess what alternative history The Wire writer David Simon is working on.

    David Simon @AoDespair
    Is this mook reading our script pages? We’re filming a supposed alternate history in which Henry Ford, raving anti-Semite, is elevated by a demagogic,
    America-firsting POTUS. So incredibly, Trump wraps arms around the guy & hurls him back into the news cycle. #ScaredToWriteMore

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    Henry Ford would be very disappointed if he saw his modern-day descendants wanting to build a much more expensive car, that is far less safe and doesn’t work as well, because execs don’t want to fight California regulators. Car companies should know….

    • Replies: @Franz
    , @peterike
  26. anon[997] • Disclaimer says:

    “The Taki’s Article thoroughly demonstrates Sailer’s rule of journalism in action–Always quickly follow up an initial post with another post to ensure …”

    This has to be Steve Sailer trolling himself.

    “More assumptions.”

    Great comeback to that wall of text you quoted. You totally owned him /s.

    “Not your best work, Mr. Sailer. There’s always the next column.”

    Nearly every rebuttal this guy made was a one line point and sputter. Great job. There’s always the next post I guess, but then again you’ve had many over the years, and they’re always equally inept.

    “Sources, Mr. Sailer?”

    Well, since you asked politely:

    “Certain people may be more likely to die from yellow fever than others based on their genetics. A 2014 study published in the journal mBio reports that during 19th-century outbreaks in the United States, death was nearly seven times more likely in Caucasians (white people) than in non-Caucasians. They speculated that the difference was due to genetic differences in certain aspects of the immune system.”

    https://www.verywellhealth.com/yellow-fever-causes-and-risk-factors-4163409

    Took me all of ten seconds to find that.

    “Maybe. Then again, probably not.”

    This may be true, but since you’re not very smart, you couldn’t make your point very well. The reduction in overall life-expectancy from smoking is probably not comparable to the reduction in life expectancy from being a slave, but the increase in cancers and certain other ailments would have been somewhat higher among smokers of that era than slaves. Overall, it would have been much better to be a slave-owning tobacco farmer than a malnourished African slave.

    The average life expectancy of a cigarette smoker is 10 years less than average in the modern era, or approximately 13% off the average: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm

    The average slave life expectancy in the antebellum era was 21 – 22 compared with 40 -43 for whites: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3040

    A 13% reduction in life expectancy might be somewhere around 36 for whites (or 34-35 using higher mortality rate figures). Life expectancy for smokers might actually have been a little higher than that because, presumably, antebellum tobacco farmers didn’t live long enough to smoke as much as modern populations.

    This may be one reason why there was such reluctance to embrace the idea that smoking is unhealthy and dangerous until the 1990s. A lot of people in the 1940s and 50s, back when smoking in movies was considered cool, probably had parents born in the 1800s when life expectancy was much lower. As a result, probably fewer people noticed their parents dying of smoking-related cancers because they had not lived long enough to do so. They assumed smoking was safe because their parents and grandparents did it with little ill effect. The other obvious reason is that tobacco companies spent immense sums of money on advertising, something needed by America’s private broadcasting networks; so, networks weren’t willing to jeopardize their precious revenue stream. Everyone else went along with it out of ignorance. But hey, that’s just a guess Corvinus. Don’t go crazy in the comments or anything.

    “An assumption on your part. Do not underestimate the materialism and greed of (white) Americans. There is ALWAYS something to fight over.”

    Greed among white Americans? Lol. BTFO. Blacks are a net tax liability to the federal government of up to one-third trillion dollars annually. That’s more than three times the entire Marshall Plan in just one year. The overwhelming majority of that is paid by whites. Whites are, by a mile, the least greedy people on earth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

    “LOL, a guess. That’s all you got?”

    Well, that was the point of the article, as indicated by the words “what would”… Never mind, I’ll stop here. As I said before, it’s not fair for Steve to approve this man’s screechings. He’s way out of his depth here, and all he does is muck up the comments when he’s not outright embarrassing himself.

  27. Anonymous[313] • Disclaimer says:

    Steve wrote:

    Slavery was certainly an important part of the 18th- and 19th-century economy, so much so that it led to the great crisis of the Civil War.

    Mass immigration–and not even primarily that from Africa–is what led the South to secede.

  28. Neoconned says:

    I’m from the south…..1st, not many germans down this way….

    Also friend of mine from LA of all places called slaves and their descendants “the single most expensive pieces of farm equipment ever bought and financed…..”

    Think I’ve seen that quote on here before as well…

    Same friend also asked me once….”what would it be like now had we picked our own damn cotton
    …..???”

  29. And utter nonsense. A ride through the US by Alexis De Tocqueville tells us absolutely nothing about the economic impact of slavery.

    https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy

    https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense

    So in other words the founders and those that dealt in slavery were too stupid to grasp the economics of slavery but are lauded for creating a basis for a national economy. There’s a reason that the south wanted to extend slavery elsewhere — it was profitable.

    http://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/economics%20of%20slavery.asp

    The beauty of large plantations is that the profits of production far exceeded the costs once those initial investments were made the land provided the slaves with enough that costs per slave was minimal. Slaves produced their ow food from the land. They built relatively small miniature villages also provided by the land available.

    This is not complicated economics. It is fairly straight forward. It’s pyramid scheme, once I make that initial investment in you all your production aside from what I permit you to use, is mine. I don’t pay a penny in maintenance, you take care of that. I don’t pay a penny in food production, you take of that and that practice applies throughout. I guess one could make the case that what they produce for themselves would better utilized to maximize profits and that counts as cost. But that press is false. on two levels

    a. it would still cost to produce what is currently
    b. by removing slave labor, I must actually take from profits to pay for the same

    Mighty vicious circle of reasoning there.

    Maybe some of you would benefit from a trip to a plantation there and about.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    , @animalogic
  30. Tho a few times iSteve has mentioned the Martinique Marxist & psychiatrist Dr Frantz Fanon (1925-1961), am not sure Steve has mentioned the fact that the whole ‘reparations’ agenda was long ago set out by this icon of the left, whose words are now holy writ.

    For those unfamiliar, Fanon’s 1961 book, ‘The Wretched of the Earth – Les Damnés de la Terre’ is as sacred a text as there is amongst the leftist university set … Genuine, eloquent, third-world Marxism by a highly educated authentic Person of Colour, who took part in a real revolution helping kick the French out of Algeria, total leftist cred.

    On reparations, Dr Fanon laid out the leftist position firmly back in 1961:

    The wealth of the imperial countries is our wealth too. . . For in a very concrete way, Europe has stuffed herself inordinately with the gold and raw materials of the colonial countries: Latin America, China, and Africa. From all these continents, under whose eyes Europe today raises up her tower of opulence, there has flowed out for centuries toward that same Europe diamonds and oil, silk and cotton, wood and exotic products.

    Europe is literally the creation of the Third World. The wealth which smothers her is that which was stolen from the under-developed peoples.

    So when we hear the head of a European state declare with his hand on his heart that he must come to the aid of the poor un-developed peoples, we do not tremble with gratitude. Quite the contrary, we say to ourselves: “It’s a just reparation which will be paid to us.”

    Nor will we acquiesce in the help for under-developed countries being a programme of ‘sisters of charity’. This help should be the ratification of a double real­isation: The realisation by the colonised peoples that it is their due, and the realisation by the capitalist powers that in fact they must pay.

  31. @Corvinus

    Steve is trying for a NYT gig, dummy.

  32. HoekomSA says:

    Slavery was/is a non racist institution.
    Most of the early slaves in america were white angloceltic . The blacks arriving later as slaves were integrated into the existing structure of white slavery (Indentured servants). The (white) elite were quite happy with this until the Butler revolt in 1680 when white and black slaves started to try and overthrow their opressors. Remember flogging and other methods of control were applied to white and black equally….well into the 1800’s.

    After that, the elite recognised that they need to apply a bit of divide and conquer -and improved the lot of the whites and make the situation of blacks worse so that the whites would ally themselves with the white elite.
    It should also be noted that blacks had slaves and only after after a black slave holder applied for a change in law to make slavery hereditary that the slavery shown in the movies came about in america.

  33. Funny that the NYT is now taking a “Slavery was what made America GREAT!” line, rather than slavery being degrading to both slave and master.

  34. HoekomSA says:

    Talking of the movies, to understand the american dream/ nightmare one must see the film Hollywoodism.

    It outlines the rise of the Jewish movie moguls , shows how they created the american dream, and and also how they used blacks as the icebreaker to the old anglo values to create modern america and ultimately its preoccupation with slavery.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  35. anonymous[335] • Disclaimer says:

    Before he was a famous park designer, Frederick Olmstead was a journalist. His southern travelogue “Journey In The Slave States” is explicit about the contrast between the impoverished, backwards south and the orderly prosperous slave free north.

    • Replies: @Gringo
  36. Neoconned says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Well as Steve likes to point out using Lenin and his Who/Whom ideal: it’s not that it was profitable for society as a whole but rather the 5-10% of big time plantation owners who ruled the Deep South in my great great(and so on) grandparents day(early colonizers of NE Alabama & SW Mississippi and east Louisiana) as semi nobles akin to say Russian nobles of the Czars era.

    These were the ones who conscripted by force poor white southerners via threat and death to fight the radical Abolitionist nuts who did the same with Northern white nobodies.

    They under hell or high water “those damn Yankees ain’t telling me what to do ” logic ran into war. The average subsistence farmer in dirt poor Alabama did NOT benefit from slavery and probably suffered from it from wage depression etc

    Like what Tarantino said when making Django….southern slave owners were like manor owning European nobility. They were like mini kings….and the South at the time was a weird pastiche confederation of slave owning nobleman who owned and ran their state political machines with an iron fist and for their benefit.

    Ole Miss used to have a Confederate slave owner as its mascot. Its since been memoryholed.

    And good riddance to both the slave owners who stunted the sun belt and to their Confederacy of dunces, greed and stupidity.

    • Agree: animalogic
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @cmpx
  37. Franz says:
    @Anonymous

    Henry Ford would be very disappointed if he saw his modern-day descendants

    There are now two Henry Fords.

    One was the car guy long dead.

    The other, the oppressive White Privileged Racist about to be deep-sixed with all the rest.

    Just like the Confederate heroes and the Founding Fathers they are now working on.

    That’s just the opening. They won’t be happy till we’re all gone.

  38. @Brabantian

    In the English-speaking world, Frantz Fanon’s peer is Walter Rodney, another ‘POC’ who wrote How Europe Underdeveloped Africa which is just mumbo jumbo laced with the usual self-pity and politics of envy.

    The book is quite popular in the so-called Pan-Africanist movement.

  39. TTSSYF says:

    Wasn’t this summed up a few decades ago by the bumper stickers that read, “If I’d known all this, I’d have picked my own cotton”?

    As a group, AAs are unappeasible. It’s too bad we can’t simply ask them to name their price and pay them to leave the country permanently under some kind of legal accord. Not that that wouldn’t stop them from whining and complaining from afar that it wasn’t enough, after the money ran out…but at least, they wouldn’t be here, plaguing our society with their myriad pathologies.

    • Replies: @Nico
    , @Art Deco
    , @95Theses
  40. JackOH says:

    White Americans whose ancestry traces to indentured servants don’t raise a peep regarding the brutal conditions under which their ancestors arrived here and worked.

    I don’t think it does any disrespect to Black or White Americans to ask: are we missing something important here?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  41. Realist says:

    What Would America Have Been Like Without Slavery?

    More importantly, What Would America Be Like Now If It Never Had Slavery?

    The answer…much, much better.

  42. Realist says:
    @Eleven-ahisi

    (Note that I do not mean to suggest that slaves were fortunate or well treated. Slavery was an abomination. But African Americans today are not slaves.)

    Black descendants of slaves are the luckiest blacks on the planet.

  43. @slumber_j

    So why did plantation owners seemingly automatically opt for slave labor? ”
    They didn’t automatically opt for blacks, they tried white slaves first (sorry, bonded labour, ie convicts)
    Unfortunately, whites simply died in their thousands. It was a nasty pestilent place, the south, in the 1700’s, 1800’s.
    So, blacks were a known quantity from the Caribbean. But THEY had no desire to work such a shit jobs either….so we get slavery outright.
    Slavery, has the virtue, in an early settlement phase of predictability.
    That it should have been dispensed with in the early-mid 1800’s seems obvious now.
    Humans.
    At some point in the future we’ll wonder why the FIRE sector was allowed to poison economics & society so badly.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Romanian
  44. Corvinus says:
    @TGGP

    “In terms of the impact on Africa, it should be remembered that slavery already existed, and by some accounts I’ve read there were even larger numbers sent eastward to the Ottoman empire.”

    Not sure about the exact figures, but the Ottoman Empire benefitted from the African slave trade.

    “African slaves were considered quite valuable and typically came from Central Africa. They would be sold in the slave markets at Fezzan in Libya and Upper Egypt or might have been brought to Mecca during the time of the pilgrimage and sold there. From the 16th century, Egypt and most of the Arabian Peninsula were under Ottoman control and in the 17th century, the Ottomans took over the Fezzan region. That gave them greater access to African slaves. Perhaps as much of Istanbul’s population as 20 percent consisted of slaves, although we have no idea of what percentage would have been Africans.”

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/african-slaves-in-the-ottoman-empire-69858

    “This would also imply no interventions to stamp out slavery, although there could still be justifications based on piracy or other matters. If slavery is only eliminated in the United States, that would still leave the Caribbean and Brazil.”

    I’m surprised Mr. Sailer did not recognize that pattern. It was out in plain sight. Had there not been slavery in the States, it is reasonable to assume this institution would have expanded in those locations to meet market demand for cash crops. If plantation owners in those locations were making significant amounts of money, with American farmers making a small dent in the international marketplace, it is reasonable to believe that there would be an effort made to bring in slaves. Moreover, America would be considered a “safe haven” by slaves since it had not existed here. So, if they eventually gained their freedom, it is reasonable to assume that they would immigrate to a place to escape persecution and find employment, similar to Europeans who sought a better life for themselves.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @animalogic
  45. Corvinus says:
    @Neoconned

    “Well as Steve likes to point out using Lenin and his Who/Whom ideal: it’s not that it was profitable for society as a whole but rather the 5-10% of big time plantation owners…”

    Actually, slavery enriched shipping, banking, and insurance companies, benefitted slave auctioneers, and enabled local businesses near plantations to thrive. Moreover, the tax collected on slave sales, on property that included the value of slaves, and on estates served as a revenue stream for state and local governments.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#2be0149c7bd3

    “[T]he hard labor of slaves in places like Alabama, South Carolina, and Mississippi needs to be kept in view as well. In fact, more than half of the nation’s exports in the first six decades of the 19th century consisted of raw cotton, almost all of it grown by slaves, according to the book, which was edited by Sven Beckert, the Laird Bell Professor of History at Harvard University and visiting professor at HBS, as well as Seth Rockman, Associate Professor of History at Brown University. The slave economy of the southern states had ripple effects throughout the entire U.S. economy, with plenty of merchants in New York City, Boston, and elsewhere helping to organize the trade of slave-grown agricultural commodities—and enjoying plenty of riches as a result.”

    “And good riddance to both the slave owners who stunted the sun belt and to their Confederacy of dunces, greed and stupidity.”

    Whoa, blaming whitey in the open may not be a good idea around these parts, friend.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    , @syonredux
  46. @EliteCommInc.

    There’s a lot to what you say, but it should be balanced by to equally important facts that go to production.
    Firstly, forced or servile labour is only as good as its (let’s call it) supervision. Such workers are productive to the utter minimum. And to get even that you need to employ – unproductive – supervision. The greater the “foreman” element the better the production…in theory.
    Secondly, reliance on slave labour will TEND to disincentivise investment in fixed non-labour capital. As you say, slavery IS profitable….but not for ever.

  47. @Brabantian

    There’s nothing factually inaccurate in what this fanon guy says. His conclusion tho is unrealistic. Reparations are bunk.
    Cease our imperialistic ways, liquidate the IMF, World Bank etc, fair trade & a universal currency such as Keynes wanted (or a balanced basket of currencies) will better help.
    Don’t give a man fish. Give him a rod a teach him to fish.

  48. peterike says:
    @Anonymous

    We’re filming a supposed alternate history in which Henry Ford, raving anti-Semite, is elevated by a demagogic, America-firsting POTUS.

    The irony with idiot, white-hating Leftists like Simon is that they present an alternate universe where blacks are oppressed, Jews are denied rights, women are kept in their place, Asians are excluded, etc. and half the white people watching think, “Hey, that seems pretty good.”

  49. Truth says:

    Slavery was not about money. This is a myth, and money was merely a by-product. Slavery was about harassment, dispersal and confusion of rhe biblical tribe of Judah which had moved to West Africa on the run from the Roman Empire, 1500 years previously.

    The truths are finally coming out in this world and hooooooo-boy are things gomna change.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  50. @Corvinus

    Those Ottomans — they LOVED white slaves
    too !

  51. @Corvinus

    Moreover, America would be considered a “safe haven” by slaves since it had not existed here. So, if they eventually gained their freedom, it is reasonable to assume that they would immigrate to a place to escape persecution and find employment, similar to Europeans who sought a better life for themselves.”
    I’m sorry, WHAT ?

  52. cmpx says:
    @Neoconned

    “The average subsistence farmer in dirt poor Alabama did NOT benefit from slavery”

    Not in Alabama, but in Mississippi and South Carolina in 1860 nearly half of white households owned slaves, so at least in some states the average white family did benefit directly from slavery.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Neoconned
  53. Nico says:
    @TTSSYF

    As a group, AAs are unappeasible. It’s too bad we can’t simply ask them to name their price and pay them to leave the country permanently under some kind of legal accord.

    Reminds me of this little gem:

    [E]very black person has a price. The average price for a black person here in Bed-Stuy is $30,000 dollars. Up over there in East New York, it’s $10,000 dollars. Everyone wants them to leave, not because we don’t like them, it’s just they’re messing up — they bring everything down. Not all of them.

    Most of them don’t believe you at first. “Oh, you Jewish people you’re a bunch of thieves, you’re never going to give me my money.” But once you start actually having a base of people who know you, who you actually gave the money, it’s better. Sometimes it’s really tricky because you’ll have one person willing to leave for $2,000 and another wants $20,000. And the second this guy finds out that guy is getting 20 he says, “Hell no, I’m not leaving. I want 20, too.”

  54. Anon[233] • Disclaimer says:
    @slumber_j

    Go to Brookgreen Gardens (South Carolina), which was a successful pre-rev rice plantation. They used slaves for some tasks, indentured servants for other tasks. Now, they owned the slaves but only had the indentured for seven years. So the indentured were given all the very dangerous tasks of clearing the swamps among mosquitoes and snakes (to make rice paddies), while slaves generally did field labor…much safer. To moderns whole setup sort of stinks, but that was the 18th century for you.

    One must admit, even back then owners protected their capital investments.

    Oh, yeah: The remaining artifact from that period at Brookgreen is a 300-year old Oak Alley. Worth the visit just to see it.

  55. Neoconned says:
    @Corvinus

    I’m from the NOLA region, born and raised.

    My cousins still plague this region from Baton Rouge to Biloxi to Birmingham.

    As a white working class southerner I’ll say it again and I’m not anti white but anti slavery:

    I am aware for instance the mayor of NYC threatened to secede because of all the money the Wall Street scum made off slavery:

    http://behindthescenes.nyhistory.org/when-new-york-wanted-to-secede/

    …..and that corporate Yankee interests in shipping, banking etc profited from slavery in many ways BUT the 90% or whatever beneficiaries were the 5% of the plantation antebellum nobility who ruled this still stunted region with an iron fist.

    People here say tourism is our main industry….actually its SSDI and social security checks and other federal welfare achemes.

    That’s how both my parents pay their bills and how most of my cousins do the same.

    The South STILL has not recovered from the Civil War and still hasn’t recovered totally from the loss of the illusory slave “wealth” that has morphed into a multi trillion dollar federal welfare & make-work expense.

    They say tourism is the big industry down here but I’d you ask me…..its restaurants and food service crap.

    I worked 5 long yrs in fast food before moving on to a casino…..and trust me I looked HARD for ANY other kinda work and post 2009 W. BUSH depression there was NOTHING besides cleaning toilets at Mcds and making nugget orders at Wendy’s off the 10 freeway/interstate.

    I should know…..had to work both jobs…..slavery sure as hell didn’t benefit blacks and sure didn’t benefit southern whites, or at least working class ones….

    It sure benefited the slave holding oligarchs though. And good riddance to then and what is now called “old money” in the south.

  56. I’ve heard it said many times, “we should have picked our own cotton.”

  57. anon[414] • Disclaimer says:

    You would think more people would wish this, no slavery in America. But it’s a thought crime, because now your wishing there were no more or a lot fewer Africans. Just like I wish all the Jews remained in Israel and the Holocaust never ever happened and no slavery anywhere. I wish the Hebrews weren’t slaves either, no indentured servitude. What a wonderful world it would be.

  58. Art Deco says:
    @TTSSYF

    As a group, AAs are unappeasible.

    The politicians, chatterati, and NGO apparatchiks are. I doubt the rank-and-file have bought into much of this or care much about it.

    • Replies: @jb
    , @TTSSYF
  59. Art Deco says:
    @HoekomSA

    The position of Jewish businessmen in major media has been in a state of slow decline for 70-odd years. And the studio system ca. 1940 wasn’t working against conventional behaviors and moral understandings. You’re off by a generation.

  60. Anonymous[224] • Disclaimer says:

    The US without the history of slavery would be just like Canada, only bigger. And that would be fine, since Canada is a prosperous, clean, relatively crime-free country. No Blacks = no social problems.

  61. “Well as Steve likes to point out using Lenin and his Who/Whom ideal: it’s not that it was profitable for society as a whole but rather the 5-10% of big time plantation owners who ruled the Deep South . . .”

    As previously noted there’s no getting around the residual income streams and benefits from slavery. The poorer whites and those that did not own slaves found the matter beneficial enough to support it.

  62. Che Guava says:

    Helio Steve (as always, was tempted to say hello sailor)

    From my reading of both VDare and Baltimore’s
    Violence Guy, James la Fonde, I see that white slavery predated the first trans-Antlantic shipment from Africa, by some time, and persisted long after.

    I am surprised that you forget it. It is, I would think, an important point.

  63. jb says:
    @Art Deco

    I agree. I see blacks doing all kinds of jobs on my commute to work or walking about town, and I’m not at all convinced that they are all feeling the sort of unappeasable rage that they are supposed to be feeling. (I’m sure they vote for their own people though, because hey, that’s what normal people normally do).

    • Disagree: TTSSYF
  64. BenKenobi says:
    @Corvinus

    lol we don’t care.

    nice blogpost tho, fag. I NOTICED again you can’t CITE.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  65. syonredux says:
    @jb

    Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a rather bizarre novel in which European civilization has collapsed and the remnants are being invaded by a black African empire. (Guess who saves the day — the Chinese!) Burroughs’ Africans are by no means the equals of the Americans or Chinese, but he shows them a certain respect. For example he makes a point of saying that the black soldiers are literate, and that their tanks and guns, while crude, are of their own design and manufacture.

    ERB makes a point of noting that the elite of the Black Empire are Ethiopian (the Emperor, for example, is Menelek XIV), whereas the rank-and-file are more West African in type:

    The Abyssinians themselves are a fine looking race of black men—tall, muscular, with fine teeth, and regular features, which incline distinctly toward Semitic mold—I refer to the full-blooded natives of Abyssinia. They are the patricians—the aristocracy. The army is officered almost exclusively by them. Among the soldiery a lower type of negro predominates, with thicker lips and broader, flatter noses. These men are recruited, so the colonel told me, from among the conquered tribes of Africa. They are good soldiers—brave and loyal. They can read and write, and they are endowed with a self-confidence and pride which, from my readings of the words of ancient African explorers, must have been wanting in their earliest progenitors. On the whole, it is apparent that the black race has thrived far better in the past two centuries under men of its own color than it had under the domination of whites during all previous history.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/149/149-h/149-h.htm

    • Replies: @jb
  66. syonredux says:
    @Corvinus

    1. Cotton was the largest export from the U.S., but exports were only about 9 % of GDP. Similarly, cotton accounted for about 23 % of income in the South, but the South accounted for only 26% of U.S. income. See D. A. Irwin, “The Optimal Tax on Antebellum U.S. Cotton Exports,” Journal of International Economics 60(2003):287) Ultimately, the value of cotton production was equal to about 6% of GDP.

    . The South had lower average incomes than the North; and per capita income was growing more slowly in the South even before the Civil War. See Unequal Gains by Lindert and Williamson Chapter 5. In addition, about twice as many people lived in the Union states.

    The more important slavery was in a country or state the lower the level of income was in the future. Nathan Nunn “Slavery, Inequality and Economic Development in the Americas: An Examination of the Engerman-Sokoloff Argument (October 2007).

    Slave states had lower levels of educational attainement and less innovation (measured by patents) than states without slavery. This was true even in the areas that were most like the North in geography and economic activity. See John Majewski “Why Did Northerners Oppose the Expansion of Slavery? Economic Developemnt and Education in the Limestone South” Chapter 14 in Slavery’s Capitalsm.

    http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2016/12/capitalism-and-slavery-debate-is-not.html

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  67. @slumber_j

    So why did plantation owners seemingly automatically opt for slave labor?

    They didn’t have a ready supply of illegals?

    The reason is the same one Ben Franklin made–that Steve keeps pointing out–life was *good* in North America, because land was cheap and labor dear:

    From Observations:

    6. Land being thus plenty in America, and so cheap as that a labouring Man, that understands Husbandry, can in a short Time save Money enough to purchase a Piece of new Land sufficient for a Plantation, whereon he may subsist a Family; such are not afraid to marry; for if they even look far enough forward to consider how their Children when grown up are to be provided for, they see that more Land is to be had at Rates equally easy, all Circumstances considered.
    7. Hence Marriages in America are more general, and more generally early, than in Europe. And if it is reckoned there, that there is but one Marriage per Annum among 100 Persons, perhaps we may here reckon two; and if in Europe they have but 4 Births to a Marriage (many of their Marriages being late) we may here reckon 8, of which if one half grow up, and our Marriages are made, reckoning one with another 20 Years of Age, our People must at least be doubled every 20 Years.
    8. But notwithstanding this Increase, so vast is the Territory of North-America, that it will require many Ages to settle fully; and till it is fully settled, Labour will never be cheap here, where no Man continues long a Labourer for others, but gets a Plantation of his own, no Man continues long a Journeyman to a Trade, but goes among those new Settlers, and sets up for himself, etc. Hence Labour is no cheaper now, in Pennsylvania, than it was 30 Years ago, tho’ so many Thousand labouring People have been imported.

    But don’t worry we have these “American” elites now who hate actual Americans and are dead set against them having a great prosperous, high-wage republic. So even though we have sub-replacement fertility, we are getting “nation of immigrants”‘d out of our cheap land and into living stacked up like cord wood like Asiatics.

    Those plantation owners were just born too soon. Now our elites would insure them they’ll get all the labor they need lest the cotton “rot in the fields”.

  68. What do think would become of Louisiana Mr. Sailer? It saw a significant influx of Mediterranean and African (slave) populations in the later 18th and early 19th Centuries under Spanish, French, and American ownership?

    • Replies: @Travis
  69. Travis says:

    Mexico outlawed Slavery in 1829. From 1525-1825 an estimated 150,000 African slaves were imported into Mexico. by 1820 the population of Mexico was 6 million and the estimated Black population was 500,000. While the United states had 5 million people and 900,000 Blacks in 1800.

    interesting to see that the 900,000 Black Americans in 1800 became 43 million Blacks today. While the 500,000 Blacks in Mexico in 1800 have virtually vanished today. The racial mixing in Mexico ethically cleansed their nation of negroids.

    The population growth of Mexico was much slower than in the USA. While Mexico had a larger population than the US in 1800 , by 1900 the US population was 90 million verse just 12 million Mexicans. It took Mexico 100 years to double their population from 6 million in 1800 to 12 million in 1900. While the US doubled their 1800 population in 22 years.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Prodigal son
  70. Slavery was absolutely dead weight in VA/Kent/Tenn/Mo/NC /Md. – the only place it made any sense was in SC and Gulf states where you couldn’t farm any crash crops except grow cotton and sugar. Some people recognized that, Henry Clay advocated abolitionism in Kentucky, Senator Benton of Missouri did the same. Lee, after the war, advocated massive English immigration for VA – stating that wherever you saw the white man predominated you had prosperity, wherever the black man predominated you had inequality and general poverty.

    But the old southern power elite loved slavery – it was good for THEM. Just like the Power elite TODAY loves their cheap foreign labor and illegals. Put the Koch Brothers back in the Old South and they’d be the biggest proponents of slavery EVER. Hands off my slaves, that’s “Free Enterprise”! And “lets open up the slave trade, its a win, win for everyone!”

  71. Anonymous[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @animalogic

    Unfortunately, whites simply died in their thousands. It was a nasty pestilent place, the south, in the 1700’s, 1800’s.

    Yet black birthrates skyrocketed. Did they lead better lives than they would have in Africa? They certainly had many of their needs satisfied under the system.

  72. Anonymous[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @Truth

    and money was merely a by-product. Slavery was about harassment, dispersal and confusion of rhe biblical tribe of Judah which had moved to West Africa on the run from the Roman Empire, 1500 years previously.

    Slavery was about the rescue of that biblical tribe in West Africa and its removal to the safe refuge of the English colonies, where it thrived and multiplied within English civilization.

    English civilization, antebellum and after, has been a “safe haven” for that tribe.

    • Replies: @Truth
  73. Anonymous[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @cmpx

    Not in Alabama, but in Mississippi and South Carolina in 1860 nearly half of white households owned slaves, so at least in some states the average white family did benefit directly from slavery.

    The slaves also benefited from the relationship, perhaps moreso. It was symbiotic.

  74. Anonymous[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @Travis

    Mexico outlawed Slavery in 1829. From 1525-1825 an estimated 150,000 African slaves were imported into Mexico.

    Fascinating. That is only half the number imported by the United States. Yet, does Mexico even have a black population? One gets the impression from news and other media that it doesn’t. Perhaps it is just that they are marginalized?

    by 1820 the population of Mexico was 6 million and the estimated Black population was 500,000. While the United states had 5 million people and 900,000 Blacks in 1800.

    Do you have any apples to apples statistics? (1800 to 1800, or 1820 to 1820?)

    interesting to see that the 900,000 Black Americans in 1800 became 43 million Blacks today. While the 500,000 Blacks in Mexico in 1800 have virtually vanished today. The racial mixing in Mexico ethically cleansed their nation of negroids.

    What is the evidence they were mixed away? Is it possible some were killed or forced to migrate? Judging by relations in the United States, Mexicans do not seem to get along especially well with blacks.

    Or were death rates of black workers higher in Mexico than in the United States due to tropical heat and diseases?

    • Replies: @Travis
  75. nebulafox says:
    @JackOH

    The indentured servants chose to come to a new strange world of their own free will and signed on the dotted line knowing what they were getting into. The slaves… didn’t. That’s not exactly irrelevant, you know?

    The indentured servants also looked forward to a determinate end to their condition seven years later. The slaves couldn’t look forward to that. Manumission was not unheard of in wills, usually for slaves particularly close to a well-off owner (for example, George Washington and his long time valet, William Lee), but that was the exception, not the rule. If you were an average, run-of-the-mill slave-or weren’t, but didn’t get lucky enough to have an owner you jived with on a personal basis for decades-you were going to die a slave, and you could expect your children would, too, unless you escaped.

    Unique among all ethnic groups in the United States, Americans blacks (i.e, the modern Caribbean and African immigrants that prestigious colleges want to claim as their black quota shouldn’t count) didn’t have ancestors who chose to be here of their own free wills. That’s why any discussion of AA should be limited to them, and the native peoples for obvious reasons. The son of an South Asian doctor who emigrated here voluntarily and is making six digits-or even that of a Mexican peasant who, again, came *voluntarily*, no different from the Europeans-encroaching on the AA game is objectively ludicrous.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @JackOH
  76. @Travis

    It is amazing that the population of Mexico was greater than The United States in 1800. More notable that it took 100 years for the Mexican population to double. Mexico was never a land of immigrants, very few Spaniards settled in Mexico , which is why Mexicans are mostly mestizos with very few Europeans. Yet Mexican television is dominated by Europeans , with mestizos relegated to playing maids.

    Interesting to see that Mexico had no Black population 100 years after they ended slavery. Although the average Mexican is 4% African ancestry today , there is no significant Black population in Mexico. Hard to believe the Mexican population was 9% Black in 1800 and was less than 1% Black in 1930.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  77. “interesting to see that the 900,000 Black Americans in 1800 became 43 million Blacks today. While the 500,000 Blacks in Mexico in 1800 have virtually vanished today. The racial mixing in Mexico ethically cleansed their nation of negroids.”

    The old Spanish families held the same views about blacks as did most other whites at the time. That s accurate. And where ever and when ever it could the US pressured countries to avoid any association with blacks and replacements were made right quick.

    Though admittedly the black population in Mexico even at its peak was never that high as noted previously.

    When the US entered WWI, it even insisted that the use of blacks as pilots there were but a few be not be included in the French and British units.

    I hate myself for knowing too much far to late — as a conservative I find myself betraying what I once thought standard conservative ethos.

    • Replies: @Prodigal son
  78. Travis says:
    @Kaplan Turqweather

    what became of Mexico ? They imported 200,000 African Slaves until they banned slavery in 1829. Yet almost no trace of the 500,000 Mexican Blacks from 1800 remained 150 years later.

  79. Corvinus says:
    @syonredux

    Your link offers competing positions about the financial importance of slavery. It is other than surprising that economists and historians who use economic methodologies would hold to different opinions. Those four statistics were addressed in Edward Baptist’s work on the financial impact of slavery–The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. As a result, an intellectual pissing match erupted between Baptist and Hansen.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  80. Corvinus says:
    @BenKenobi

    Do you ever tire of resorting to your old standby of rapid responses?

    • Replies: @BenKenobi
  81. Anonymous[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    The indentured servants chose to come to a new strange world of their own free will and signed on the dotted line knowing what they were getting into. The slaves… didn’t. That’s not exactly irrelevant, you know?

    But why is it relevant? And who truly had “freedom” back then? For most people in the world, the freedom was the freedom to starve.

    The more relevant issues are: How well did Africans live–as “slaves”–compared to how they would have lived in Africa, or even as compared to the vast majority of other people in the planet then? Were their needs satisfied in the United States? Did they have children and grandchildren? Did they have cradle to grave security? Did the population increase or decrease? Are their descendants better or worse off for slavery?

    Remember, much of human history is people killing other people. Yet the masters of discourse have gotten people obsessed with “slavery.”

  82. @Buzz Mohawk

    “Had there been no slavery in America, there would be no African Americans.”

    Hah!

    bored identity is aghast to learn after all those years that brutalism is not applicable only in the architecture.

  83. syonredux says:
    @Corvinus

    Your link offers competing positions about the financial importance of slavery. It is other than surprising that economists and historians who use economic methodologies would hold to different opinions. Those four statistics were addressed in Edward Baptist’s work on the financial impact of slavery–The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. As a result, an intellectual pissing match erupted between Baptist and Hansen.

    Baptist is simply wrong:

    Baptist, in his “back of the envelope” calculation, uses some creative accounting to come up with a multiplier of nine, such that cotton worth 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) ends up contributing 40 percent

    Baptist, The Half That Has Never Been Told, 321–22. Baptist’s calculation is marred by double-counting and inclusion of transfers (which are excluded from the total GDP estimate he uses). He als0 fails to recognize that all economic activities have second- and third-order effects of the kind he describes. If we added them all up we could account for 1,000 percent of GDP.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283670502_Capitalism_and_Slavery

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  84. Neoconned says:
    @cmpx

    Owning 1 or 2 slaves did not make you rich and if anything was probably longer term a net liability as they had to feed their 1 to 10 slaves to keep the family farm going or whatever.

    Also I’ve read the claim near half of southerners owned slaves and not so sure I buy the story. Even if it was true they were marginal owners aka think the equivalent of a small businessman.

    To use a rap term, they weren’t “balling” like Jefferson did….having hundreds of slaves to do everything from clean kitchens to do the farm work to carpentry work to cook the food. And they unlike Jefferson didn’t have a 75% or whatever it was WHITE slave girl 30 years his junior to service him in bed every night.

    Jefferson is actually a good example of a “Colonel Reb” plantation owner 1%er…..and good riddance to that “class” of “planters” or whatever terminology they used to make themselves sound sophisticated when they weren’t. Jefferson, Jefferson Davis etc were these types:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Reb

    As a southerner I like to think of us “as we could be” aka akin to Texas….not “what we are or were in the past,” which is the ass end of a joke from every other part of this country given how normal everybody is and we aren’t

  85. TTSSYF says:
    @Art Deco

    I don’t agree. More of them harbor deep resentment toward whites than you would think. (I gave up on AAs — as a group, not individuals — after the O.J. Simpson verdict. It would have cost them nothing to return the obvious verdict of guilty, and yet, they could not…celebrating wildly nationwide as though it were a great victory, never realizing how stupid they looked.)

  86. JackOH says:
    @nebulafox

    There’ve been a few persuasive comments above that the limited terms of indentures created an incentive for holders of both slaves and indentured servants to assign the more arduous and dangerous work to the servants. So, I’m not sure what “determinate end” means when a particularly cruel master has the incentive to work you to exhaustion before your term is up.

    “The indentured servants chose to come to a new strange world of their own free will . . .”. Really? What English lad or Rhenish girl would sign himself or herself over to debt bondage, a lengthy voyage to an unknown land, and employment by persons unknown to you by experience or reputation if there were any reasonable hope of finding work on home turf?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  87. BenKenobi says:
    @Corvinus

    your old standby

    that would be fake news on your part.

    millions of White americans have chosen to reject YOUR “arguments”, who are YOU to deny them their basic rights enshrined in the constitution?

    if you don’t like it, why don’t YOU lead the charge? what are YOU doing?

    p.s. here’s you, except with blegs:

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  88. @Buzz Mohawk

    Hi there Nazi. Are you a repressed incel? Cuz you sure sound like one!

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  89. Gringo says:
    @anonymous

    Before he was a famous park designer, Frederick Olmstead [sic]was a journalist. His southern travelogue “Journey In The Slave States” is explicit about the contrast between the impoverished, backwards south and the orderly prosperous slave free north.

    Your one sentence summary is quite accurate. For those who want more detail, Frederick Law Olmsted wrote three books on his journeys in the South:
    A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States (1856),
    A Journey Through Texas (1857),
    A Journey in the Back Country in the Winter of 1853-4 (1860)

    These were later published in a two volume abridgement: Journeys and Explorations in the Cotton Kingdom (1861),

    These books are available a no cost in digital form from Google Books. Amazon sells digital versions of these books at 99 cents a copy, which is a better value than no-cost, as the mistakes from mass scanning have been cleaned up. Frederick Law Olmsted @Amazon.

  90. LA Smitty says:

    Hate to burst your bubble Steve but….

    Forget about 1776 and slavery, the current America is a slave state, we have $ 22TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT and its growing more than a trillion dollars a year every year while were forced to fund our own hostile invasion of alien tax parasites.

    Our slave military was whored out to both Iran in Iraq and Saudi Arabia in Yemen and Syria, our bombers provide air cover for ISIS ethnic cleansing in Iraq and Syria all with the tab given to US taxpayers who benefitted zero from it.

    https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy
    “At the time, there were nearly 700,000 slaves living in the United States, worth an estimated $210 million in today’s dollars.”

    Open borders with Socialist mob rule is a far more successful business model than owning cotton picking slaves.

    That 1 trillion dollars in new debt year doesnt include the growth of unfunded liabilities (slave debts owned by slaves to slaves) which were over 200Trillion dollars in 1998 when I stopped counting.

    To put the numbers in perspective every structure in Beverly Hills CA combined isn’t worth 50 billion dollars.

  91. nebulafox says:
    @Prodigal son

    Mexico’s wealth lay in the silver mines, not in cash crops. That, and the local peoples, while decimated, still existed (unlike, say, Haiti) and couldn’t just flee into the jungle like in Brazil. I guess the Spanish didn’t see the need to import massive amounts of African slaves to Mexico.

    Mexico never got the massive numbers of European immigrants that the USA and Brazil and Argentina and Canada did. But they did receive a pretty non-trivial amount relative to its Central American neighbors that would intermarry with the local Spaniard creoles. Add onto that the most successful mestizos intermarrying with the white population and producing castizo kids that would usually go onto marry white or other castizo people, and you’ve got a pretty reliably pale-skinned bourgeoisie in Mexico. They’ve also got a modest East Asian presence now.

    By contrast, in places like El Salvador or Guatemala, you’ve got the tiny Spanish elite that dominates the country, the impoverished indio masses, and occasionally a harried imported middleman minority of Middle Eastern extraction (the “turcos”) that serves as the whipping boy for the local populist demagogues. There is little in the way of interaction or mixing between these groups.

    This all underlines the point that Mexico is an upper-middle income country, unlike its neighbors to the south or the east. One that has some major issues with corruption and security, and one that has some stability issues concerning the bottom part of its economy (hey, so do we), but it’s reasonably developed. To put it more crudely, no, South Korea Mexico is not: but neither is it the Philippines or India, and it hasn’t been that way for a while. That’s probably evidenced by the fact that Mexico is dealing with an illegal immigration problem of its own on its own southern border.

  92. 95Theses says:
    @TTSSYF

    AAs are unappeasible

    As close to a reliable truth as the sun rising or water being wet.

    Oh, and that business about paying them to leave the country permanently? That would have to include any progeny into perpetuity.

    I’d settle for a quarter million apiece. One-time offer. After that, no more affirmative action, preferences, or any approximation thereof, ever. Period.

  93. nebulafox says:
    @JackOH

    >There’ve been a few persuasive comments above that the limited terms of indentures created an incentive for holders of both slaves and indentured servants to assign the more arduous and dangerous work to the servants. So, I’m not sure what “determinate end” means when a particularly cruel master has the incentive to work you to exhaustion before your term is up.

    But such an economic incentive would also lead the same master to conclude that it would be cheaper to buy new slaves than to preserve the ones you already had. This was a conclusion that the sugar lords in Haiti and Brazil came to all the time, and I’d be surprised if there weren’t some masters in the US that thought the same way. Probably not as many, for a host of reasons-above all, sugar plantations weren’t the primary backbone of the US economy in the way that it was for St. Domingue-but why would a master come to that conclusion regarding his indentured servants and not his slaves? If it is cheaper to simply buy replacements for one, it would certainly be the case for the other.

    If you signed the contract for X amount of years, your goal is simply to survive those years. Then you have your life back. You get put on the slave ship? Your life is over unless you escape or somehow get manumission.

    >What English lad or Rhenish girl would sign himself or herself over to debt bondage, a lengthy voyage to an unknown land, and employment by persons unknown to you by experience or reputation if there were any reasonable hope of finding work on home turf?

    Being poor in Europe in the 1700s can have that effect.

  94. @EliteCommInc.

    8% of the Mexican population was Black in 1800. Seems pretty high , higher than the current Black population of California. Imagine no blacks left in California in the year 2100 ?

  95. J.Ross says:
    @Not a nazi

    Oh no, you called people names, I am now a Democrat.

    • Replies: @Not a nazi
  96. @J.Ross

    No, you are probably just a racist asshole.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  97. J.Ross says:
    @Not a nazi

    Oh no, you called people names again, I am now a Libertarian. This is surely the most effective strategy in the history of politics.

  98. Corvinus says:
    @syonredux

    The author from your link states, “This emerging consensus among US historians is a welcome development, foreach of the four points outlined above are indeed salient features of antebellum slavery. My concern, however, is that none of these authors provide a framework within which to make sense of these points, leaving them often free-floating and disconnected. The problem is not that they lack the “correct” definition of capitalism. The problem is that by dodging the problem of definition altogether they fail to provide a coherent account of capitalist slavery. One doesn’t need to believe in such a thing as “pure” capitalism in order to recognize that modern capitalist societies have certain core features in common. Nor does one have to be a structuralist to see that capitalism lends itself to systematic analysis. Yet these authors fail to explain how the various features of the antebellum economy that they identify form part of a coherent capitalist system.”

    Therein lies the rub…

    “One of the most promising features of history’s turn to capitalism is that it seems to be pushing back against the cultural and linguistic turns of the last decades. A new generation of historians is apparently tired of the interminable pursuit of “agency,” as well as the pressure to keep up with the latest in continental philosophy. But while the old theory is dying, the new has yet to be born. In the interim, many historians, relying on their intimate knowledge of primary sources, **appear to be reverting to an antitheoretical empiricism**. The danger is that in trying to do without theory they will unwittingly reproduce. Indeed, to anyone familiar with the historiography of slavery, there is something of an irony to this “new” direction. In the 1960s and 1970s, the principle opponents of the Genovese thesis were neoclassical economists who had ventured onto historical terrain. **These “cliometricians” (as they called themselves) used quantitative methods with which traditional historians were unfamiliar and came to conclusions they found controversial.** Thus Alfred Conrad and John Meyer employed modern asset-price theory to show that slave ownership remained profitable in most states in the run up to the Civil War, and Douglass North analyzed trade flows to argue that cotton exports drove Western expansion and Northern industrialization.19Most controversially, Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman’s Time on the Cross launched a barrage of statistics against the traditional view, defended by both Phillips and Genovese, that slaves were less efficient than free laborers.”

    …and the intellectual pissing match between competing theories. Note Clegg’s premise, which may not necessarily be true. His argument is based on that premise. It is certainly likely that new methodologies may be develop to argue something that was looked at differently compared to the past. As a result, “traditionalists” may view such pathways with extreme skepticism.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  99. Corvinus says:
    @BenKenobi

    I see you doubled down on ad hominem. Just can’t help yourself.

    “millions of White americans have chosen to reject YOUR “arguments”, who are YOU to deny them their basic rights enshrined in the constitution?”

    That would be a strawman on your part. Rough day at the office, my fellow white?

    • Replies: @BenKenobi
  100. jb says:
    @syonredux

    It’s been a long time since I read the book, but yes, that’s the quote I was thinking of. For 1915 it might count as progressive.

    I’ll point out though that Burroughs was wrong about blacks being dominated by whites “during all previous history.” In fact most of black Africa was conquered only in the late 19th century. Prior to that, Africa was full of independent kingdoms that had had hundreds of years of contact and trade with Europeans, time which they could have used to adopt Western ways. The Japanese did it in 50 years, once they set their minds to it. Africa, for some reason, never did — except, to a limited degree, Ethiopia, the only African country that was never colonized. A country where, as recent genetic studies have shown (and Burroughs seems to intuit), the ancestry of the population is half Eurasian.

  101. Travis says:
    @Anonymous

    The disappearance of Blacks from Mexico was partly due to higher infant mortality and Miscegenation with mestizos and Indians. The average Mexican today is genetically 4% African. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35981727

    Blacks were generally treated better on Mexico than in the United States. At the time of Mexican independence, with the Plan of Iguala in 1821, it was declared that all persons were equal citizens of the country; hence, no racial distinction should be made among the people. The Plan of Iguala established three central principles for the nascent Mexican state: the primacy of Roman Catholicism, the political independence of Mexico, and full social equality for all social and ethnic groups in the new country. These are the “Three Guarantees” by which the Plan is sometimes known, summarized as “Religion, Independence and Unity”. The flag of the tricolor flag of the Army of Three Guarantees is a symbolic representation of the three guarantees, and is the color scheme for the post-independence red, green, and white Mexican flag.

    sources indicate the Mexican population in 1800 almost 6 million, with 400,000 Blacks and Mulattos. Most of the slaves brought into Mexico were males and many of them had obtained freedom prior to 1800 and bred with the amerindians.
    http://users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxpoprev/cambridg3.htm

    Alexander von Humboldt was a German scientists who left a detailed description of his visits to the Spanish Empire around 1800. The laws of Spain prevented entry to all non-Spanish Europeans to the Spanish Empire. Humboldt’s comments as an outsider are then, especially valuable.
    https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1800humboldt-mexico.asp
    He estimated the Mexican population to be about 5.8 million in 1803 with 10% of the population being black or mulattos.. During his stay in Mexico Humboldt visited the most populous and agriculturally most productive parts of the central region of New-Spain, which had a total population of 5.8 million. His work on Mexico is a very detailed and differentiated geographic study in terms of population, economy, and society. The descriptions of the population, their racial differentiation and social classification as well as the little importance of slavery – in Mexico-City, unlike in La Habana, Caracas, and Lima, he did not see any slaves in private households – belong to his best accounts. Humboldt saw the source of the viceroyalty’s wealth not only in the mines but also in agriculture. He drew a strict distinction between the manifold production of food in Mexico and the inhumane plantation economy based on slave labor in Cuba and Jamaica. Their exports depended heavily upon European pricing. He highlighted their better situation, in comparison to farmers in many parts of Europe. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0001-37652005000200010

  102. BenKenobi says:
    @Corvinus

    I see you doubled down on ad hominem

    that’s all you deserve, you nasty little faggot.

    That would be a strawman on your part.

    more fake news.

    Rough day at the office?

    nope just throwing your horseshit right back at you verbatim.

    my fellow white?

    lol I bet. cry some more.

    p.s. you STILL CAN’T CITE

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  103. If we assume that indentured servitude continues, although outright slavery is banned in this alternate timeline, the South might have simply become more Irish and less black. In the Caribbean there still remain a few unadmixed descendants of Irish indentured servants, known colloquially as “redlegs”, as well as many blacks and mulattoes with ancestry from this group. Irish workers often did low-wage, dangerous work in the South during the era of slavery. Perhaps in this alternate timeline, Irish indentured servants and their descendants end up forming a majority of the South’s population, turning it into a highly Catholic region, as the overwhelming deluge of Papists overwhelms any effort to assimilate them into Protestant culture, which the High Church cavalier planters have little interest in achieving anyway. Despite their historic antipathy to perfidious Albion, the promise of religious toleration similar to that afforded the French residents of Quebec, combined with the view of the rebellious elements as either fanatical Puritans similar to the hated Cromwell, or wealthy landlords demanding Irish workers to die for their independence, leads the Irish majority to side with the Crown and Parliament during the short-lived colonial rebellion of 1775-1776. The rebellion is crushed, and direct Parliamentary governance of the centers of rebel activity in the Northeast is established, along with a greater Parliamentary role in all other colonies, save New York, where rebel sentiment was tepid in our timeline, and where the even lower odds of success in alternate America tipped the colony decisively away from participation in the foolhardy rebellion. In the 19th century, after the passions of war have cooled and the British Parliament begins granting more self-government to its other settler colonies, several dominions are formed from the different regions of the American colonies, which extend to the Mississippi. The Dominion of New England, the Dominion of Virginia (including much of the Southern mid-Atlantic), New York, and the Dominion of Carolina (including the former colony of Georgia) form semi-autonomous political entities. The lands taken from France after the Napoleonic Wars west of the Mississippi are primarily used for the resettlement of red Indians, who are governed under a British administration similar to that of Britain’s colonies in Africa. After the Great European War of 1921-1925, Britain gradually cedes more autonomy to its colonies and dominions, eventually leading to the de facto independence of the Dominions and colonies. America is basically several Australias and some Amerindian statelets. Better in some ways than our world, worse in others.

  104. Arguing about how profitable slavery was to slaveowners misses the point of how it affected the Southern economy as a whole. Because owners of capital in the Southern colonies/states invested in slaves, as opposed to labor-saving devices, factories, railroads, etc. the South was set on a path of economic development that would relegate largely to low level agricultural and resource-extracting activities. Industrialization in the region didn’t happen to any significant degree until the Civil War, and was vastly behind the north until the 20th century.

    The claim, made by slaveowner-landlords in the antebellum South and White-hating black nationalists today, that northern industry needed southern slavery to survive, is directly contradicted by the fact that, for one, most southern cotton was sold internationally, and secondly, that northern industry boomed during the Civil War, when cotton from the South was cut off, and after, when slavery had been abolished. If anything, the north’s industrialization was probably also hampered by being shackled to the backward, agrarian South with its outsized influence on national economic policy.

    Of course, the slaves, much less their descendants, are not responsible for this. They, after all, didn’t choose to be slaves. But the idea that slavery made the US as a whole, or even the South, richer in an economic sense doesn’t accord with what we can observe directly or infer indirectly.

  105. @Buzz Mohawk

    Detroit native Keith Richburg’s 1997 book “Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa” answered the question about the legacy of slavery for today’s African Americans – today’s African Americans are better off (by far) than their counterparts in modern Africa.

    Richburg looked carefully for three years (he lived in and reported on Africa from 1991 to 1994 for the Washington Post) at all of the disfunction, war, senseless violence, suffering and horrors of modern Africa (all across the continent.) He concluded that he personally was very grateful that his ancestors had wound up in the United States of America, so that he could live in the USA in the late 20th century.

    Otherwise, he reasoned, his life might just as hellish as those of the (then) 500 million Africans about whom he wrote.

    https://www.amazon.com/Out-America-Confronts-Republic-Hardcover/dp/B010TSW3P2/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=7Q58Q07N6G5FFN5N7HND

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  106. Romanian says: • Website
    @animalogic

    At some point in the future we’ll wonder why the FIRE sector was allowed to poison economics & society so badly.

    I doubt that will ever happen, if by “we” you mean a mainstream consensus resulting from some underlying change to the FIRE sector which neutralized its toxicity. If you mean s0me random people, then we have that today, and there are plenty of books and discussion boards for it.

  107. syonredux says:
    @Corvinus

    and the intellectual pissing match between competing theories. Note Clegg’s premise, which may not necessarily be true

    This isn’t complicated. Baptist is simply bad at math:

    Baptist, The Half That Has Never Been Told, 321–22. Baptist’s calculation is marred by double-counting and inclusion of transfers (which are excluded from the total GDP estimate he uses). He als0 fails to recognize that all economic activities have second- and third-order effects of the kind he describes. If we added them all up we could account for 1,000 percent of GDP.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283670502_Capitalism_and_Slavery

    And Baptist likes to distort evidence. Here’s another article pointing out the numerous problems with his work:

    https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/law-economics-studies/olmstead_-_cotton_slavery_and_history_of_new_capitalism_131_nhc_28_sept_2016.pdf

  108. Anonymous[371] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul Jolliffe

    today’s African Americans are better off (by far) than their counterparts in modern Africa.

    Is it conceivable that yesterday’s African Americans (slaves) also were better off than their counterparts in pre-modern Africa?

  109. Corvinus says:

    “Baptist is simply bad at math and likes to distort evidence”.

    That may or may not be the case. As I correctly stated, there is an ideological pissing match taking place.

    https://s-usih.org/2018/08/asking-new-questions-of-the-new-history-of-capitalism/

    “The debate over the validity of the insights of the new history of capitalism—especially into the relation between slavery and capitalism—has been intense and interminable. I do plan on writing about Alan L. Olmstead and Paul W. Rhode’s piece from earlier this year, “Cotton, Slavery, and the New History of Capitalism” [not paywalled pdf], which is an important intervention in this debate, but my objective is not to adjudicate the matter but to think more about its framing, and about some of the boundary policing between economic history and the history of capitalism that we can see there. Aside from the new history of capitalism’s validity, historians (and sometimes journalists) have focused on two “what” questions—“what is new about the new history of capitalism?” and “what is ‘capitalism’ in the new history of capitalism?”—i.e., how do the historians in this field define capitalism, implicitly or explicitly?”

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @syonredux
  110. Corvinus says:
    @BenKenobi

    “nope just throwing your horseshit right back at you verbatim”

    Such butthurt … Much cry …

  111. syonredux says:
    @Corvinus

    “Baptist is simply bad at math and likes to distort evidence”.

    That may or may not be the case.

    No, that is the case:

    Baptist, The Half That Has Never Been Told, 321–22. Baptist’s calculation is marred by double-counting and inclusion of transfers (which are excluded from the total GDP estimate he uses). He als0 fails to recognize that all economic activities have second- and third-order effects of the kind he describes. If we added them all up we could account for 1,000 percent of GDP.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283670502_Capitalism_and_Slavery

    He got the math wrong.And he distorted evidence:

    https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/law-economics-studies/olmstead_-_cotton_slavery_and_history_of_new_capitalism_131_nhc_28_sept_2016.pdf

    Frankly, the whole “Cotton built America” thesis is wrongheaded:

    It’s true that cotton was among the world’s most widely traded commodities, and that it was America’s principal antebellum export. But it’s also true that exports constituted a small share of American GDP (typically less than 10 percent) and that the total value of cotton was therefore small by comparison with the overall American economy (less than 5 percent, lower than the value of corn).

    It’s true that slavery made many fortunes, in both cotton and sugar, such that there were more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the country. But it’s also true that most of that wealth stayed in the South, where it was tied up in land and slaves, such that the net effect on real accumulation was probably negative.

    Finally, both Desmond and many of the historians on whom he relies neglect other ways that slavery imposed constraints on economic growth and development. The renowned historian of slavery Gavin Wright recently delivered the Tawney lecture to the Economic History Society on these constraints. He pointed out that Southern slave-owners opposed almost every policy of state and federal economic development, including investments in education and agricultural improvement.

    it cannot be denied that the size of the Southern economy as a share of the national economy fell from 1800 to 1860. Simply put: despite all the evidence of its economic dynamism, the slave South was falling behind the free North.

    https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/how-slavery-shaped-american-capitalism

  112. syonredux says:
    @Corvinus

    Why don’t you try reading Gavin Wright’s work:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZLLNGFiwtrjeza5oZwFQRG-J3MQdn1cP/view

    Some telling quotes:

    Baptist asserts that “almost half of the economic activity of the United States in 1836
    derived directly or indirectly from cotton produced by… slaves” (2014, p. 322). As Olmstead
    and Rhode show, this figure is an egregious overstatement, generated by double-counting
    outputs, inputs, asset sales and financial transactions (2018, p. 13). Cotton production
    accounted for about five percent of GDP at that time. Cotton dominated U.S. exports after
    1820, but exports never exceeded seven percent of GDP during the antebellum period. True,
    cotton textiles were important for U.S. industrialization, and New England mills used the same
    slave-grown raw material as their competitors in Lancashire. But location within national
    boundaries had little economic significance for this industry. As a bulky but lightweight
    commodity, raw cotton travels easily, and transportation costs play little if any role in textiles
    geography. The protective tariff – strongly opposed by the slave South – was of far greater
    importance for the competitiveness of the antebellum industry (Harley 1992, 2001).

    The preceding section suggests that if slavery had been abolished nationally at the time
    of the Constitution, the Cotton South would have developed through family-scale farms like the
    rest of the country, delivering as much or perhaps more cotton to the eager textile mills of
    Lancashire, and building a more diverse and prosperous regional economy in the process.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  113. Truth says:
    @Anonymous

    …If being tied to poles and horse-whipped for not making your daily quota is what you considered “safe.”

    • Replies: @syonredux
  114. syonredux says:

    What Would America Have Been Like Without Slavery?

    A vastly better place. Just do the math: fewer Blacks=lower homicide rate.

  115. syonredux says:
    @Truth

    Every sane person agrees that bringing Blacks to Anglo-America was a tragic mistake.

  116. Corvinus says:
    @syonredux

    It is CONTENDED that Baptist “got the math wrong and he distorted evidence”.

    As John Clegg stated, “The resulting balance of strong property protections and weak regulatory and taxing power may or may not have been conducive to economic growth (that’s for economic historians to figure out). But there is no doubt that it helped shift American capitalism onto the low road. In addition to the profound effect of slavery on America’s enduring racial inequality, slavery’s legacy for American capitalism may thus be found more in the structural constraints on US politics than in its direct contributions to the nineteenth-century American economy.”

    Gavin Wright is merely asserting Olmstead and Rhode’s work is definitive. He explains “In case any economic historian has been asleep or on Mars for the past three years, you may want to know that the economics-of-slavery culture wars have broken out again. Though only a pale shadow of the dust-up we had back in the 1970s, the aggressive assertions of the “new history of capitalism” regarding the centrality of slavery for U.S. economic development, and critiques of this work by economic historians, have generated much commotion in academic circles, including numerous review articles and a lengthy survey in The Chronicle of Higher Education (December 8, 2016). The present volume is a manifesto of sorts for the slavery wing of the NHC insurgency, originating in a conference at Brown University (co-sponsored by Harvard) in 2011.”

    Again, there is an intellectual pissing match between two competing ideologies, which mirrors what is taking place on a grander scale in our nation.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  117. syonredux says:
    @Corvinus

    It is CONTENDED that Baptist “got the math wrong and he distorted evidence”.

    Again, no. This is simple stuff:

    Baptist, The Half That Has Never Been Told, 321–22. Baptist’s calculation is marred by double-counting and inclusion of transfers (which are excluded from the total GDP estimate he uses). He als0 fails to recognize that all economic activities have second- and third-order effects of the kind he describes. If we added them all up we could account for 1,000 percent of GDP.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283670502_Capitalism_and_Slavery

    And Baptist keeps on making mistakes/distorting evidence:

    Putting the editors’ introduction aside, only the chapter by Edward E. Baptist stands out for tendentious claims in support of a preconceived agenda. Here Baptist is somewhat defensive, his book having been roundly criticized by Alan Olmstead and Paul Rhode for inventing the term “pushing system,” neglecting improvements in cotton varieties, and misusing historical sources, including the WPA slave narratives. But this does not stop Baptist from adding a few more half-baked morsels to his mélange. Among many candidates, most irksome to this reviewer is this one: “The three million white people in the cotton states were per capita the richest people in the United States, and probably the richest group of people of that size in the world” (p. 36). A footnote cites James Huston’s Calculating the Value of the Union (the whole book) and p. 87 of Robert Fogel’s Without Consent or Contract. The statement gets the population wrong, conflates wealth with income, ignores the widening gap between slave owners and non-owners, and aggregates real and slave property. To be sure, the value of slave property was very real to the owners. The essential point is that the South was the wealthiest region in the nation when slave values are included, but the poorest when they are not. (See Gavin Wright, Slavery and American Economic Development, p. 60.) This deficiency, coupled with the failure to invest in education and infrastructure — not the purported decline in plantation productivity (p. 43) — explains the emergence of southern economic backwardness when slavery was abolished.

    https://eh.net/book_reviews/slaverys-capitalism-a-new-history-of-american-economic-development/

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS