The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Reparations Now, Reparations Tomorrow, Reparations Forever!
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

We are increasingly hearing rhetoric in the mainstream media asserting that America’s wealth today is due to the unpaid labor of slaves picking cotton, which therefore justifies “Reparations now, reparations tomorrow, reparations forever!”

iSteve commenter commenter Barnard responds with an excellent idea for how to pay reparations:

Of all the stupid ideas taught about American history today, “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people” has to be the dumbest and most easily debunked. The percentage of American wealth that was created by agricultural based slave labor is minuscule. I fully support all reparations being paid in Confederate dollars.

 
Hide 133 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: “Canada”.

    That’s what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @onetwothree


    The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: “Canada”.
     
    Or "Australia".

    Plain fact is the US has a much, much better overall geographical situation--farmland, resources, river transport, access to markets--as either Canada or Australia, plus the scale of a much larger internal market that comes with those advantages. Yet those places do not suck.

    The key, shared ingredient was a reasonable intelligent, capable, hard-working Anglo-Saxon settler population gaining access to undeveloped (to Euro ag/tech) lands. They created prosperity and the rule-of-law.

    I.e. the key ingredient was deplorable white people. No blacks were required. No immigrants post-1776 were required. (Could have skipped taking in my ancestors and this joint would still be awesome just from the founding population.) The plain fact is blacks were a "get rich quick" scheme for some landholders that the rest of us have been paying for--in civil war, in taxes, in depreciated real-estate, in lower quality of life, in extra social and political contention and of course in crime, ever since.

    Not trying to piss all over anyone or rub it in anyone's face. But that's just the reality. And if people are spewing these objectively ridiculous minoritarian fables to attack whitey then this reality needs to be spoken out loud and repeatedly.

    Replies: @we

    , @syonredux
    @onetwothree

    If anything, slavery was holding America back:


    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 attainment 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 Development and Education in the Limestone South” Chapter 14 in Slavery’s Capitalism
     
    http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2016/12/capitalism-and-slavery-debate-is-not.html




    Here’s Gavin Wright on how things would have turned out if the USA had abolished slavery shortly after the Revolution:

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



    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.

     

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

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Wilkey
    @onetwothree


    The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: “Canada”. That’s what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.
     
    Nope. You also need to include Australia and New Zealand in that, just to drive home the point that Canada isn’t merely a one off, or simply well-off due to its proximity to the United States. The colonies established by Anglo-Saxon settlers from Great Britain are all doing quite well, thank you, and our success has absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder

    , @Buffalo Joe
    @onetwothree

    onetwothree, but but,there would be no peanut butter.

    , @Antonius
    @onetwothree

    Why on earth would anyone credit the modern savage and his antecedents with anything. I would sooner give Seabiscuit et al reparations and credit for helping build the nation. Ek is wragtag gatvol!

  2. Reparations could be the key to solving America’s race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.

    In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.

    Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.

    According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that’s true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).

    • Agree: syonredux
    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • LOL: IHTG
    • Replies: @216
    @Dave Pinsen

    Our present tax policy appears to discourage expatriates, unlike in the European Union which seems to almost encourage it.

    We've heard stories of retirees moving abroad for lower cost of living, but we could grant further tax breaks to incentivize people to retire in the Old Country.

    Expats can be an incorrigible bunch, like Mr. Roosh, but blacks don't have even a Second World African country to arbitrage. (In his earlier days, I recall his black PUA followers liking Brazil)

    ---

    If we split the US into Redstan and Bluestan(s), its reasonable that relocation assistance could be provided.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Dave Pinsen


    Reparations could be the key to solving America’s race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.
     
    Spot on Dave. Spot on.

    The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.

    If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.

    But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?

    Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite

    , @Corvinus
    @Dave Pinsen

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRZN7IzvCVs

    , @MBlanc46
    @Dave Pinsen

    That’s a reasonable enough proposal, Dave, but you know that, not only will it never be implemented, it could never seriously be proposed.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    , @Chris Mallory
    @Dave Pinsen


    In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama.
     
    No. The yankees fought to free them then worked for desegregation. Move the blacks north. Massachusetts would be a perfect homeland for 40 million blacks. Don't let any of the current residents move out either.
    , @anon
    @Dave Pinsen

    The US could purchase a large plot of land in west Africa that could be used as a game park

  3. One word:

    AUSTRALIA

  4. I fully support all reparations being paid in Confederate dollars.

    Great idea. Or, to remind them of what they escaped by getting to America, Zimbabwean dollars.

    • Agree: trelane, Thulean Friend
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Rob McX


    Great idea. Or, to remind them of what they escaped by getting to America, Zimbabwean dollars.
     
    American slaves received far more from Whites than they gave back in labor. What they received for their labor was more than the global market rate. Food, shelter, medical care, care in old age, stability, protection from violence. On average they clearly had it better under White governance than they did in Africa.
  5. OT: Berkeley police make arrest in fatal shooting of Cal student

    https://www.berkeleyside.com/2020/08/21/berkeley-police-make-arrest-in-fatal-shooting-of-cal-student

    I am utterly shocked that the suspect is an oppressed man of color with an extensive criminal record who is a victim of system racism, implicit bias and the legacy of slavery who deserves long-overdue reparations.

    • Thanks: Thulean Friend
  6. Anonymous[369] • Disclaimer says:

    Hey, that’s Judah Benjamin on that Confederate currency!

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/judah-p-benjamin-and-the-jewish-goal-of-whiteness-in-the-antebellum-south/

    Times of Israel Blog

    Judah P. Benjamin and the Jewish goal of whiteness [sic] in the antebellum South

    It happened supporting the slavery and then the Confederacy was ticket to that acceptance for Jews living in the South and they took advantage of everything their whiteness [sic] could offer them in America.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Anonymous


    It happened supporting the slavery and then the Confederacy was ticket to that acceptance for Jews living in the South
     
    They would not have wanted to be slave traders or slaveholders. But the racist US-system did not allow them to make the other choice.
    , @slumber_j
    @Anonymous

    It was all about the Benjamins!!

  7. What ever happened to the biblical injunction that said (to paraphrase) “the sins of the father does not lie on the sons?”

    Most people barely acknowledge or pay for their own mistakes, much less that of people who lived and died long before them? Since American blacks on average are many times more wealthy than African blacks still living there, are they going to make reparations to the descendants of the victims of their own tribal oppressions? Why limit reparations to Americans?

    Do any of the reparations mongers plan on compensating any of the crime victims of their own ancestors? (Not all have those, but no one mentions that.)

    We don’t live in a world where all that we now have magically dropped from the sky into our bank accounts and homes, due to our ancestors. Yes, a few who have wealthy parents benefit from that, but even then, over time, few living today are fat and happy Rockefellers. So why all the grousing?

    It’s just a naked scam as anyone can see. Places now with black governments are all poorer and have been, than the US. Per that evidence, as is painfully clear to everyone not scamming, there is no actual moral or economic argument to be made about slave reparations.

    As we all know, people who always blame their current troubles on others are doomed to a life of misery and psychological dysfunction. It’s bad enough to blame one’s parents. But to blame the long dead ancestors of people no one alive knew is absurd.

    But con artists and scammers often prefer the Big Lie, since the details and logic don’t matter. I have yet to read of any Woke celebrity who has personally made “reparations” to individual Americans of African descent. Alex Baldwin? Bill & Hil? Bernie? AOC? Who?

    • Replies: @216
    @Muggles

    We live in a society where conservatives have nil cultural power. The media and academia are entirely leftist.

    Conservative elites are often either covert liberals, or coerced to shift liberal to maintain social status. Their audience inevitable has followed along.

    Con Inc doesn't want to stop the Culture Industry's white guilt, indeed they want to make it a religious dogma.

    If people are angry at what the establishment is doing, and at black rioting; the solution is found by targeting the funds by which the Culture Industry operates.

    You don't need to have Netflix.

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Muggles


    What ever happened to the biblical injunction that said (to paraphrase) “the sins of the father does not lie on the sons?”
     
    I

    Actually, this Biblical thought you refer to is central to Christianity and one of the results of the existence of the Old (rather unforgiving and tribal) and the New Testament. - so forgiveness instead of rage and vengeance has morphed into a structural (=founding) element of not only our juridical system but of our culture as a whole. -

    II

    But our capitalist/democratic system and our culture have - since roughly 1968 - been attacked as being one of the core reasons for - suppression as such. The postmodern/deconstructivist equation which is acknowledged by the media-mainstream and practically all of the academia now is: The (capitalist) system represents nothing but unjust power - ad must, therefore, be eradicated - including Christianity, which is an integral part of said system.

    III

    Which, as I stated in paragraph one above, is actually true: Christianity is indeed an integral part of our culture and our political system.

    IV

    So - the mainstream and the left have sided against the core of our system and our tradition. This is ironically no problem for lots of Silicon Valley and Wall Street protagonists, - because they - as the Masters of the Universe (Tom Wolfe) - act as if they'd be above religion, culture, and the constitution of the US for example. In their world-view, US religion, culture, and tradition altogether are just aspects of a regional (=backwards) "configuration". Things they don't need at all and oftentimes look at as nothing but outdated hindrances (or artifacts).

    , @S
    @Muggles


    Since American blacks on average are many times more wealthy than African blacks still living there, are they going to make reparations to the descendants of the victims of their own tribal oppressions?
     
    Speaking of reparations..

    Since 1945 the citizens of Okinawa, Japan have been opressed by Black rapists amongst the US occupation troops based there.

    In the summer of 1945 three Black US marines whom had made it a habit of coming to a particular Okiniwa village to rape its women with impunity were ambushed and killed. The formerly powerless villagers had recruited two unsurrendered and armed Japanese soldiers from the surrounding jungle to do the deed.

    The Black marines lifeless corpses were secretly dumped by the villagers in a cave known since by the locals in memorium as 'the cave of the dark skinned boys'.

    Fifty years later, and in the same tradition as the earlier 1945 incident, three Black serviceman raped a twelve year old Okiniwa girl. Tried and convicted, each was given approximately seven years in a no nonsense Japanese prison.

    The Black serviceman's families accusations of 'discrimination' by the Japanese were given short shrift, and ultimately withdrawn. Instead, these Black rapists families were ordered by the Japanese to pay reparations to the Japanese family of the little girl.

    As a postscript, one of the three rapists after their release in 2003 complained the Japanese prison labor he performed was like slavery.

    Another one, who claimed he only 'pretended' to take part in the rape, in 2006 raped a young 22 year old college woman he'd had a past passing acquainship with, then strangled her, before committing suicide.

    The young woman, Lauren Cooper, is pictured below.

    https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2012/21/78323361_132726659114.jpg

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Katsuyama_killing_incident

  8. The average per capita income in sub-Saharan Africa is $1500 dollars. The average black income in the US is about $17,000. Roughly a delta of $15,000 per year. The median age of black Americans is 30.1 years. So, to a first order, every black American can just cut us a check for $450,000 and we’ll call it even.

  9. The bizarre show Watchmen on HBO had a compelling idea, although I dont think I would support it.

    In it, direct descendents of victims of the 20s Tulsa riot (which I believe began as a battle between white and black criminal gangs and is filled with fanciful apocrypha like a plane bombing the so called “black wall street” (because blacks were so oppressed)) are given homesteads in the Tulsa area. It is implied that the community contains a thriving black middle class.

    Its an interesting idea – it would be far easier to verify the details of crimes that happened in 1920, as opposed to assumed non specific crimes before then, and the scenes where people would get their DNA read was amusing.

    It seems like the real victims of the United States propserity were the industrial workers of all color in the pre progressive era.

    I am white, so incapable of really understanding these issues, but isnt it a bit dismissive of the very real sacrifice of civil rights era blacks? We are to believe there has been absolutely no progress I guess. Very insulting to these people who endured far more than any black born since 1970 or so.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Paul Rise

    Most of what you hear from the MSM about the Tulsa Riot is distorted/fabricated.

    The Tulsa Riot was caused by armed Blacks who marched to the courthouse in an attempt to protect a Black man who was accused of assaulting a White woman:


    In Greenwood, rumors began to fly—in particular, a report that whites were storming the courthouse. Shortly after 10 pm, a second, larger group of approximately 75 armed black men decided to go to the courthouse. They offered their support to the sheriff, who declined their help. According to witnesses, a white man is alleged to have told one of the armed black men to surrender his pistol. The man refused, and a shot was fired. That first shot may have been accidental, or meant as a warning; it was a catalyst for an exchange of gunfire.[15]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre#Stand-off_at_the_courthouse

    If the armed Blacks had not intervened, there likely would have been no riot.And Blacks did most of the killing on the first day of the riot:

    Day one death toll:

    Whites: 10

    Blacks: 2

    The stories about aeroplanes firebombing black-owned properties is utter crap. What person in his right mind would fill a Curtiss JN-4 Jenny (a highly combustible aircraft; WWI-era pilots were well-known for their fear of fire) with turpentine-soaked rag balls, which would have to be lit by hand before being dropped ? Even this overly credulous aviation site seems to have trouble imaging that scenario:


    In the hour or so that followed, each plane let loose their loads of these fire bombs from low altitude, setting them alight just before they were dropped. This was a dangerous thing to attempt from inside the cockpit of a wood, wire and fabric biplane, yet they were successful.


     

    http://fly.historicwings.com/2017/02/the-bombing-of-tulsa/


    And the high numbers of deaths that you see people tossing around (100 to 300) are just pulled out of thin air. The official tally from The Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 is 39 deaths(counting a stillborn infant), 26 Blacks and 13 Whites, which is quite a distance from the mass slaughter of legend:

    https://www.okhistory.org/research/forms/freport.pdf

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  10. BTW – I believe that guy on the confederate $2 bill is Judah P. Benjamin, the only non-racist Confederate who ever lived.

  11. The question that should be answered by anyone demanding reparations is “Would you rather have been born in Africa or the United States?” If they answer “Africa” give them their reparations but deduct the cost of a ticket back to their beloved Wakanda. The remainder of their reparations will be paid upon their successful repatriation to their Motherland. If they answer “United States” then they forfeit any claims for reparation in recognition of their good fortune of being born here.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Enemy of Earth

    Or, would you rather not have been born at all? It’s not like there is a set number of black souls waiting in the wings for their cue to enter stage right whether the play is being staged in Africa or America.

    For every single American descendant of a slave there would be no play at all. No gleam of light between two eternities of darkness for them. Only darkness. They would never have existed.

    Reparations for blacks is essentially reparations for the unfortunate natural fact that they are black.

  12. You would have to be the biggest idiot in the history of stupid not to realize how much gigantically better off the USA would be if it had never seen a Negro.

    No one, and I mean NO ONE, actually believes this crap. Just a scam, and a scam about to go seriously a cropper, as the Economy continues to deteriorate.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @theMann


    Just a scam, and a scam about to go seriously a cropper, as the Economy continues to deteriorate
     
    .

    The economy is improving.

    Replies: @theMann

  13. @onetwothree
    The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: "Canada".

    That's what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @syonredux, @Wilkey, @Buffalo Joe, @Antonius

    The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: “Canada”.

    Or “Australia”.

    Plain fact is the US has a much, much better overall geographical situation–farmland, resources, river transport, access to markets–as either Canada or Australia, plus the scale of a much larger internal market that comes with those advantages. Yet those places do not suck.

    The key, shared ingredient was a reasonable intelligent, capable, hard-working Anglo-Saxon settler population gaining access to undeveloped (to Euro ag/tech) lands. They created prosperity and the rule-of-law.

    I.e. the key ingredient was deplorable white people. No blacks were required. No immigrants post-1776 were required. (Could have skipped taking in my ancestors and this joint would still be awesome just from the founding population.) The plain fact is blacks were a “get rich quick” scheme for some landholders that the rest of us have been paying for–in civil war, in taxes, in depreciated real-estate, in lower quality of life, in extra social and political contention and of course in crime, ever since.

    Not trying to piss all over anyone or rub it in anyone’s face. But that’s just the reality. And if people are spewing these objectively ridiculous minoritarian fables to attack whitey then this reality needs to be spoken out loud and repeatedly.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute, Charlotte
    • Replies: @we
    @AnotherDad

    So Lee, Bragg, and Hood aren't the great heroes that Southerners belive them to be. Where do you stand on the renaming controversy?

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Lagertha, @Anonymous

  14. @Dave Pinsen
    Reparations could be the key to solving America's race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.

    In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.

    Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.

    According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).

    Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon

    Our present tax policy appears to discourage expatriates, unlike in the European Union which seems to almost encourage it.

    We’ve heard stories of retirees moving abroad for lower cost of living, but we could grant further tax breaks to incentivize people to retire in the Old Country.

    Expats can be an incorrigible bunch, like Mr. Roosh, but blacks don’t have even a Second World African country to arbitrage. (In his earlier days, I recall his black PUA followers liking Brazil)

    If we split the US into Redstan and Bluestan(s), its reasonable that relocation assistance could be provided.

  15. @Muggles
    What ever happened to the biblical injunction that said (to paraphrase) "the sins of the father does not lie on the sons?"

    Most people barely acknowledge or pay for their own mistakes, much less that of people who lived and died long before them? Since American blacks on average are many times more wealthy than African blacks still living there, are they going to make reparations to the descendants of the victims of their own tribal oppressions? Why limit reparations to Americans?

    Do any of the reparations mongers plan on compensating any of the crime victims of their own ancestors? (Not all have those, but no one mentions that.)

    We don't live in a world where all that we now have magically dropped from the sky into our bank accounts and homes, due to our ancestors. Yes, a few who have wealthy parents benefit from that, but even then, over time, few living today are fat and happy Rockefellers. So why all the grousing?

    It's just a naked scam as anyone can see. Places now with black governments are all poorer and have been, than the US. Per that evidence, as is painfully clear to everyone not scamming, there is no actual moral or economic argument to be made about slave reparations.

    As we all know, people who always blame their current troubles on others are doomed to a life of misery and psychological dysfunction. It's bad enough to blame one's parents. But to blame the long dead ancestors of people no one alive knew is absurd.

    But con artists and scammers often prefer the Big Lie, since the details and logic don't matter. I have yet to read of any Woke celebrity who has personally made "reparations" to individual Americans of African descent. Alex Baldwin? Bill & Hil? Bernie? AOC? Who?

    Replies: @216, @Dieter Kief, @S

    We live in a society where conservatives have nil cultural power. The media and academia are entirely leftist.

    Conservative elites are often either covert liberals, or coerced to shift liberal to maintain social status. Their audience inevitable has followed along.

    Con Inc doesn’t want to stop the Culture Industry’s white guilt, indeed they want to make it a religious dogma.

    If people are angry at what the establishment is doing, and at black rioting; the solution is found by targeting the funds by which the Culture Industry operates.

    You don’t need to have Netflix.

  16. Honestly I’d be ok with fairly substantial reparations being paid to all black citizens, as long as we all agree that it’s done and we never have to talk about it again.

    • Replies: @tyrone
    @Anon

    That's what white people said years ago about civil rights ,desegregation ,affirmative action ,blah,blah,blah…………here we are sixty five years later ……will you be OK with debasing the currency by printing the seventeen trillion they want?

  17. @onetwothree
    The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: "Canada".

    That's what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @syonredux, @Wilkey, @Buffalo Joe, @Antonius

    If anything, slavery was holding America back:

    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 attainment 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 Development and Education in the Limestone South” Chapter 14 in Slavery’s Capitalism

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

    Here’s Gavin Wright on how things would have turned out if the USA had abolished slavery shortly after the Revolution:

    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.

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

    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.

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

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @syonredux

    I think that without slavery, the South would have developed more slowly with population growing slower, rather like Florida south of the Panhandle was pretty empty until the late 19th Century.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  18. @Dave Pinsen
    Reparations could be the key to solving America's race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.

    In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.

    Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.

    According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).

    Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon

    Reparations could be the key to solving America’s race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.

    Spot on Dave. Spot on.

    The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.

    If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they’ve gotten from slavery–US citizenship.

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.

    But the beauty of advancing “separation” is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. “Separation” simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you’re oppressed why don’t you want to split?

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Cato
    @AnotherDad

    Were I Black, and could walk through the [safer] streets of Kinshasa without being recognized as a foreigner, I think it would be a cool place to live. Especially if I had $200K to start me off. I wouldn't try anywhere in East Africa, because I wouldn't look local -- especially not in Ethiopia. But Kinshasa! The few women I've met from there were extremely hot.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Dave Pinsen, @Giancarlo M. Kumquat

    , @Cloudbuster
    @AnotherDad

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    So on what will we spend the $200k each of those blacks owes us for the benefit of being born in in a fantastically better, more prosperous country? ... I'm assuming you are saying each will pay the US $200k, right, to help balance the scales and put them back where they would be if they had been born in Africa?

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    , @B36
    @AnotherDad

    "The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery."

    It's been said on these boards that African Americans on average have greater incomes and wealth today than Africans in any country on the old continent.

    But something else: only a very small fraction of Africans brought to the New World as slaves by the European colonial powers were deposited in what is now the United States. The vast majority went to the Caribbean and South America. So why do today's American proponents of reparations ignore this, why are they so provincial, as if racial justice stops at the border? Why aren't they pushing reparations throughout the New World? If reparations are just, there should be reparations in Brazil, Haiti, and so on. Of course these other countries are usually poor so payments would be paltry. But the African Americans, having won the lottery, would surely be willing to chip in and redistribute some of their reparation payments to their poorer brothers and sisters in the rest of the New World. Considering the original international slave trade numbers, 95% of AA reparations would be a fair amount to redistribute elsewhere.

    https://chocolateclass.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/09.jpg

    , @ziggurat
    @AnotherDad

    Here's my restatement of the idea, with some ebellishments, expressed in a more formal way:

    Whereas our government is presently printing trillions and trillions, and
    whereas there has recently been much talk of reparations, and
    whereas there is widespread belief in the incurability of systemic, anti-black racism, and
    whereas there is urgency to quickly address reparations and systemic racism,

    ... let us immediately enact the following proposal …

    … 200K to any black U.S. citizen, with these conditions:
    1) must give up U.S. citizenship and any U.S. residency/visa status
    2) move to a majority black country, with no option to ever return

    … and these national conditions:
    3) end affirmative action and all other existing, explicitly race-conscious governmental policies
    4) require that all immigrants have to be of Western European heritage

    You might say, “wait that’s too expensive!” But a trillion is a big number. With one trillion, you could pay 5 million people 200K. And Congress just created a 2 trillion dollar stimulus package, while seemingly every day, the Federal Reserve is announcing a new trillion dollar program. What’s a few more trillion on the heap?

    With 8 trillion, you could pay all 40 million blacks to leave.

    However, would they leave? Maybe not all at once, but after a few have left and got settled, then others would follow. But which countries would take them? We might need to incentivize those countries too.

    How many would need to leave to make it worth it? If 50% left, would that be better? Should it just apply to those in their "fertility prime"? Perhaps, if past the "fertility prime", the reparations is just 100K?

    In one way, it's a win just talking about it, as AnotherDad says:


    But the beauty of advancing “separation” is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. “Separation” simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you’re oppressed why don’t you want to split?
     

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder

    , @Anonymous
    @AnotherDad


    The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.
     
    Did their ancestors suffer? African workers and their families received food, shelter, medical care, cradle-to-grave social security, a degree of education and technical training (some quite a lot, actually). They got to live under the protective umbrella of White governance, with the security, stability, and rule of law that comes with it, and that the rest of the world is still clamoring to get a piece of.

    How did the rest of humanity live at the time? How did standards of living, life spans, and fertility compare? What were the life prospects of the average African then?

    , @William Badwhite
    @AnotherDad


    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa
     
    It has to be all of them or this never ends. All or none. If all, it needs to be followed by complete and permanent separation.
  19. This is all very funny but remember Steve King being the sanest man in Congress and being castigated by his own party for it. When the enemies of America have enough anti-white nonwhites occupying our government it will be “our” nominal side that votes reparations into effect, as a Lucy football proving non-racism.

  20. PLANTATION OWNER: “You, Boy! Where are all my darkies at?”

    SLAVE BOY: “Dey’s gone off to build another neoclassical public building, Massa.”

    PLANTATION OWNER: “Dagnabbit! Tell them to get back here and pick my dang cotton!”

  21. @onetwothree
    The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: "Canada".

    That's what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @syonredux, @Wilkey, @Buffalo Joe, @Antonius

    The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: “Canada”. That’s what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.

    Nope. You also need to include Australia and New Zealand in that, just to drive home the point that Canada isn’t merely a one off, or simply well-off due to its proximity to the United States. The colonies established by Anglo-Saxon settlers from Great Britain are all doing quite well, thank you, and our success has absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

    • Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
    @Wilkey

    Come January mention of any of those countries will get you hauled up on hate speech charges.

  22. @AnotherDad
    @Dave Pinsen


    Reparations could be the key to solving America’s race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.
     
    Spot on Dave. Spot on.

    The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.

    If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.

    But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?

    Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite

    Were I Black, and could walk through the [safer] streets of Kinshasa without being recognized as a foreigner, I think it would be a cool place to live. Especially if I had $200K to start me off. I wouldn’t try anywhere in East Africa, because I wouldn’t look local — especially not in Ethiopia. But Kinshasa! The few women I’ve met from there were extremely hot.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Cato

    The few women I’ve met from there were extremely hot.

    Hot Congo women? *shudder*

    , @Dave Pinsen
    @Cato

    Kigali looks nice. https://youtu.be/FFGtGfLUP4o

    Replies: @Cato

    , @Giancarlo M. Kumquat
    @Cato

    Did you offer them a cool drink,seeing as they were hot?

  23. Reminder:

    Precious few African-Americans have ever gone “home” when they’ve been free to do so since 1865.

  24. @onetwothree
    The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: "Canada".

    That's what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @syonredux, @Wilkey, @Buffalo Joe, @Antonius

    onetwothree, but but,there would be no peanut butter.

  25. Forty acres and a mule.

    In Liberia.

    Sure we will miss their contributions to math and science, but we’ve held them back long enough.

    Fair is Fair.

    • Replies: @Yngvar
    @Sandy Berger's Socks

    Liberia is constitutionally racist. As Wiki lays bare:


    Article 27(b) of the [1986] Constitution retains the controversial nationality requirements of Article V, Section 13 of the 1847 Constitution, which limits citizenship to "persons who are Negroes or of Negro descent."
     
    I can't imagine any American black wanting to move to another deeply racist nation. They'll stay.
  26. @AnotherDad
    @Dave Pinsen


    Reparations could be the key to solving America’s race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.
     
    Spot on Dave. Spot on.

    The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.

    If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.

    But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?

    Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    So on what will we spend the $200k each of those blacks owes us for the benefit of being born in in a fantastically better, more prosperous country? … I’m assuming you are saying each will pay the US $200k, right, to help balance the scales and put them back where they would be if they had been born in Africa?

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Cloudbuster



    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
     
    So on what will we spend the $200k each of those blacks owes us for the benefit of being born in in a fantastically better, more prosperous country? … I’m assuming you are saying each will pay the US $200k, right, to help balance the scales and put them back where they would be if they had been born in Africa?
     
    Cloudbuster, think this through. Starting with jumping back to reality. Black Americans have rights just like any Americans. The current incentive for them to abandon American citizenship is zero, and unsurprisingly--because all this "oppression" stuff is nonsense--very few of them leave.

    What will it say about all the crap the minoritarians have rained down upon us for 60 years--"racism!" "legacy of slavery", "oppression", "systemic racism", etc.--when we offer $200K to young blacks to renounce and move back to Africa ... and almost none of them do? Or all the shrieks and howls at this reparations offer itself?

    Minoritarianism--minorities oppressed/virtuous, majorities (white gentiles) oppressive/evil; now the official establishment ideology, more important than trivial stuff like "equal justice under law" or even "rule of law" itself--is an end-to-end lie. A lie debunked by the actual behavior of ... pretty much everyone in the world, immigrants, blacks, the whites who parrot it, even the Jews who have peddled it.

    Demonstrating the absolute fraudulence of the entire minoritarian project is the critical PR task of patriots.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Ben tillman

  27. @Cato
    @AnotherDad

    Were I Black, and could walk through the [safer] streets of Kinshasa without being recognized as a foreigner, I think it would be a cool place to live. Especially if I had $200K to start me off. I wouldn't try anywhere in East Africa, because I wouldn't look local -- especially not in Ethiopia. But Kinshasa! The few women I've met from there were extremely hot.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Dave Pinsen, @Giancarlo M. Kumquat

    The few women I’ve met from there were extremely hot.

    Hot Congo women? *shudder*

  28. @Paul Rise
    The bizarre show Watchmen on HBO had a compelling idea, although I dont think I would support it.

    In it, direct descendents of victims of the 20s Tulsa riot (which I believe began as a battle between white and black criminal gangs and is filled with fanciful apocrypha like a plane bombing the so called "black wall street" (because blacks were so oppressed)) are given homesteads in the Tulsa area. It is implied that the community contains a thriving black middle class.

    Its an interesting idea - it would be far easier to verify the details of crimes that happened in 1920, as opposed to assumed non specific crimes before then, and the scenes where people would get their DNA read was amusing.

    It seems like the real victims of the United States propserity were the industrial workers of all color in the pre progressive era.

    I am white, so incapable of really understanding these issues, but isnt it a bit dismissive of the very real sacrifice of civil rights era blacks? We are to believe there has been absolutely no progress I guess. Very insulting to these people who endured far more than any black born since 1970 or so.

    Replies: @syonredux

    Most of what you hear from the MSM about the Tulsa Riot is distorted/fabricated.

    The Tulsa Riot was caused by armed Blacks who marched to the courthouse in an attempt to protect a Black man who was accused of assaulting a White woman:

    In Greenwood, rumors began to fly—in particular, a report that whites were storming the courthouse. Shortly after 10 pm, a second, larger group of approximately 75 armed black men decided to go to the courthouse. They offered their support to the sheriff, who declined their help. According to witnesses, a white man is alleged to have told one of the armed black men to surrender his pistol. The man refused, and a shot was fired. That first shot may have been accidental, or meant as a warning; it was a catalyst for an exchange of gunfire.[15]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre#Stand-off_at_the_courthouse

    If the armed Blacks had not intervened, there likely would have been no riot.And Blacks did most of the killing on the first day of the riot:

    Day one death toll:

    Whites: 10

    Blacks: 2

    The stories about aeroplanes firebombing black-owned properties is utter crap. What person in his right mind would fill a Curtiss JN-4 Jenny (a highly combustible aircraft; WWI-era pilots were well-known for their fear of fire) with turpentine-soaked rag balls, which would have to be lit by hand before being dropped ? Even this overly credulous aviation site seems to have trouble imaging that scenario:

    In the hour or so that followed, each plane let loose their loads of these fire bombs from low altitude, setting them alight just before they were dropped. This was a dangerous thing to attempt from inside the cockpit of a wood, wire and fabric biplane, yet they were successful.

    http://fly.historicwings.com/2017/02/the-bombing-of-tulsa/

    And the high numbers of deaths that you see people tossing around (100 to 300) are just pulled out of thin air. The official tally from The Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 is 39 deaths(counting a stillborn infant), 26 Blacks and 13 Whites, which is quite a distance from the mass slaughter of legend:

    https://www.okhistory.org/research/forms/freport.pdf

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @syonredux


    Most of what you hear from the MSM about the Tulsa Riot is distorted/fabricated.
     
    Though not by Paul Harvey who, like Tony Randall, was still in diapers in 1921 Tulsa.
  29. Send them all over to England. Slavery was their idea, not ours.

    Besides, it would serve them right – after spending the last 15o years staggering towards the fainting couch, swooning “Slavery…….my word; how infradig you colonists are” – to open their front door and find themselves trapped in an endless loop of reruns of THE WIRE.

    • Troll: LondonBob
  30. @Anon
    Honestly I’d be ok with fairly substantial reparations being paid to all black citizens, as long as we all agree that it’s done and we never have to talk about it again.

    Replies: @tyrone

    That’s what white people said years ago about civil rights ,desegregation ,affirmative action ,blah,blah,blah…………here we are sixty five years later ……will you be OK with debasing the currency by printing the seventeen trillion they want?

    • Agree: HammerJack
  31. @AnotherDad
    @Dave Pinsen


    Reparations could be the key to solving America’s race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.
     
    Spot on Dave. Spot on.

    The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.

    If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.

    But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?

    Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite

    “The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery.”

    It’s been said on these boards that African Americans on average have greater incomes and wealth today than Africans in any country on the old continent.

    But something else: only a very small fraction of Africans brought to the New World as slaves by the European colonial powers were deposited in what is now the United States. The vast majority went to the Caribbean and South America. So why do today’s American proponents of reparations ignore this, why are they so provincial, as if racial justice stops at the border? Why aren’t they pushing reparations throughout the New World? If reparations are just, there should be reparations in Brazil, Haiti, and so on. Of course these other countries are usually poor so payments would be paltry. But the African Americans, having won the lottery, would surely be willing to chip in and redistribute some of their reparation payments to their poorer brothers and sisters in the rest of the New World. Considering the original international slave trade numbers, 95% of AA reparations would be a fair amount to redistribute elsewhere.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  32. I’ll see your deuce, raise you a buck:

    • Replies: @Escher
    @Reg Cæsar

    An African currency is the way to go.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y9XJ0cv3Pz8/TZM1VebkUyI/AAAAAAAACEw/u1foQRwIHIM/s1600/zimbabwe1.JPG

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  33. Was a slave in the old South, who received housing, food, health care and clothing, etc. from his owner significantly worse off than an Irish immigrant working in the factories of the North for pay, but having to provide all those things for himself? They both seem like slaves to me.

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
    @Spud Boy

    You are right, but I’d like to talk about the slaves who are seldom brought into the conversation.

    The slaves who had it the worst were those who were drafted into the armed forces of the United States. Tally the number of dead and compare it to any ludicrously exaggerated death toll a Lefty ascribes to slavery in this country.

    Another recently fabricated narrative is that the GI Bill was an example of systemic racism in that blacks allegedly got shafted in regard to the program’s benefits, and that this is a big part of the current wealth difference. But what did they do to earn those benefits?

    Of more than 400,000 dead US servicemen, a grand total of 708 were black.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  34. @syonredux
    @Paul Rise

    Most of what you hear from the MSM about the Tulsa Riot is distorted/fabricated.

    The Tulsa Riot was caused by armed Blacks who marched to the courthouse in an attempt to protect a Black man who was accused of assaulting a White woman:


    In Greenwood, rumors began to fly—in particular, a report that whites were storming the courthouse. Shortly after 10 pm, a second, larger group of approximately 75 armed black men decided to go to the courthouse. They offered their support to the sheriff, who declined their help. According to witnesses, a white man is alleged to have told one of the armed black men to surrender his pistol. The man refused, and a shot was fired. That first shot may have been accidental, or meant as a warning; it was a catalyst for an exchange of gunfire.[15]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre#Stand-off_at_the_courthouse

    If the armed Blacks had not intervened, there likely would have been no riot.And Blacks did most of the killing on the first day of the riot:

    Day one death toll:

    Whites: 10

    Blacks: 2

    The stories about aeroplanes firebombing black-owned properties is utter crap. What person in his right mind would fill a Curtiss JN-4 Jenny (a highly combustible aircraft; WWI-era pilots were well-known for their fear of fire) with turpentine-soaked rag balls, which would have to be lit by hand before being dropped ? Even this overly credulous aviation site seems to have trouble imaging that scenario:


    In the hour or so that followed, each plane let loose their loads of these fire bombs from low altitude, setting them alight just before they were dropped. This was a dangerous thing to attempt from inside the cockpit of a wood, wire and fabric biplane, yet they were successful.


     

    http://fly.historicwings.com/2017/02/the-bombing-of-tulsa/


    And the high numbers of deaths that you see people tossing around (100 to 300) are just pulled out of thin air. The official tally from The Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 is 39 deaths(counting a stillborn infant), 26 Blacks and 13 Whites, which is quite a distance from the mass slaughter of legend:

    https://www.okhistory.org/research/forms/freport.pdf

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Most of what you hear from the MSM about the Tulsa Riot is distorted/fabricated.

    Though not by Paul Harvey who, like Tony Randall, was still in diapers in 1921 Tulsa.

  35. @syonredux
    @onetwothree

    If anything, slavery was holding America back:


    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 attainment 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 Development and Education in the Limestone South” Chapter 14 in Slavery’s Capitalism
     
    http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2016/12/capitalism-and-slavery-debate-is-not.html




    Here’s Gavin Wright on how things would have turned out if the USA had abolished slavery shortly after the Revolution:

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



    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.

     

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

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    I think that without slavery, the South would have developed more slowly with population growing slower, rather like Florida south of the Panhandle was pretty empty until the late 19th Century.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    "Of all the stupid ideas taught about American history today, “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people” has to be the dumbest and most easily debunked."

    LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?

    Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.

    The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660


    By the time shots were fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, cotton was the core ingredient of the world’s most important manufacturing industry. The manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth had grown into “the greatest industry that ever had or could by possibility have ever existed in any age or country,” according to the self-congratulatory but essentially accurate account of British cotton merchant John Benjamin Smith. By multiple measures—the sheer numbers employed, the value of output, profitability—the cotton empire had no parallel.

    One author boldly estimated that in 1862, fully 20 million people worldwide—one out of every 65 people alive—were involved in the cultivation of cotton or the production of cotton cloth. In England alone, which still counted two-thirds of the world’s mechanical spindles in its factories, the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of the population was based on the industry; one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth. Whole regions of Europe and the United States had come to depend on a predictable supply of cheap cotton. Except for wheat, no “raw product,” so the Journal of the Statistical Society of London declared, had “so complete a hold upon the wants of the race.”…

    Slavery stood at the center of the most dynamic and far-reaching production complex in human history. Too often, we prefer to erase the realities of slavery, expropriation, and colonialism from the history of capitalism, craving a nobler, cleaner capitalism. Nineteenth-century observers, in contrast, were cognizant of cotton’s role in reshaping the world. Herman Merivale, British colonial bureaucrat, noted that Manchester’s and Liverpool’s “opulence is as really owing to the toil and suffering of the negro, as if his hands had excavated their docks and fabricated their steam-engines.” Capital accumulation in peripheral commodity production, according to Merivale, was necessary for metropolitan economic expansion, and access to labor, if necessary by coercion, was a precondition for turning abundant lands into productive suppliers of raw materials.
     


    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776

    That cotton came almost exclusively from the slave plantations of the Americas—first from the West Indies and Brazil, then from the United States. When American cotton growers began to enter global markets in the 1790s after the revolution on Saint Domingue—once the world’s most important cotton-growing island—they quickly came to play an important, in fact dominant, role. Already in 1800, 25 percent of cotton landed in Liverpool (the world’s most important cotton port) originated from the American South. Twenty years later that number had increased to 59 percent, and in 1850 a full 72 percent of cotton imported to Britain was grown in the United States. U.S. cotton also accounted for 90 percent of total imports into France, 60 percent of those into the German lands and 92 percent of those shipped to Russia. American cotton captured world markets in a way that few raw material producers had before—or have since…

    When war broke out in April of 1861, this global economic relationship collapsed. At first, the Confederacy hoped to force recognition from European powers by restricting the export of cotton. Once the South understood that this policy was bound to fail because European recognition of the Confederacy was not forthcoming, the Union blockaded southern trade for nearly four years. The “cotton famine,” as it came to be known, was the equivalent of Middle Eastern oil being removed from global markets in the 1970s. It was industrial capitalism’s first global raw materials crisis.

    The effects were dramatic: In Europe, hundreds of thousands of workers lost employment, and social misery and social unrest spread through the textile cities of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Russia. In Alsace, posters went up proclaiming: Du pain ou la mort. Bread or death. Since very little cotton had entered world markets from non-enslaved producers in the first 80 years after the Industrial Revolution, many observers were all but certain that the crisis of slavery, and with it of war capitalism, would lead to a fundamental and long-lasting crisis of industrial capitalism as well. Indeed, when Union Gen. John C. Frémont emancipated the first slaves in Missouri in the fall of 1861, the British journal The Economist worried that such a “fearful measure” might spread to other slaveholding states, “inflict[ing] utter ruin and universal desolation on those fertile territories” and also on the merchants of Boston and New York, “whose prosperity … has always been derived” to a large extent from slave labor.
     
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3

    Contrary to popular belief, the small farmers of New England weren’t alone responsible for establishing America’s economic position as capitalism expanded. Rather, the 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.
     
    http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860

    By 1860, Great Britain, the world’s most powerful country, had become the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and a significant part of that nation’s industry was cotton textiles. Nearly 4,000,000 of Britain’s total population of 21,000,000 were dependent on cotton textile manufacturing. Nearly forty percent of Britain’s exports were cotton textiles. Seventy-five percent of the cotton that supplied Britain’s cotton mills came from the American South, and the labor that produced that cotton came from slaves.

    Because of British demand, cotton was vital to the American economy. The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Douglass C. North, stated that cotton “was the most important proximate cause of expansion” in the 19th century American economy. Cotton accounted for over half of all American exports during the first half of the 19th century. The cotton market supported America’s ability to borrow money from abroad. It also fostered an enormous domestic trade in agricultural products from the West and manufactured goods from the East. In short, cotton helped tie the country together.



    New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.
     
    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king

    Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

    Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.

    What did cotton production and slavery have to do with Great Britain? The figures are astonishing. As Dattel explains: “Britain, the most powerful nation in the world, relied on slave-produced American cotton for over 80 per cent of its essential industrial raw material. English textile mills accounted for 40 percent of Britain’s exports. One-fifth of Britain’s twenty-two million people were directly or indirectly involved with cotton textiles.”

    And, finally, New England? As Ronald Bailey shows, cotton fed the textile revolution in the United States. “In 1860, for example, New England had 52 percent of the manufacturing establishments and 75 percent of the 5.14 million spindles in operation,” he explains. The same goes for looms. In fact, Massachusetts “alone had 30 percent of all spindles, and Rhode Island another 18 percent.” Most impressively of all, “New England mills consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, or 67 percent of the 422.6 million pounds of cotton used by U.S. mills in 1860.” In other words, on the eve of the Civil War, New England’s economy, so fundamentally dependent upon the textile industry, was inextricably intertwined, as Bailey puts it, “to the labor of black people working as slaves in the U.S. South.”
     

    Replies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester

  36. @Steve Sailer
    @syonredux

    I think that without slavery, the South would have developed more slowly with population growing slower, rather like Florida south of the Panhandle was pretty empty until the late 19th Century.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Of all the stupid ideas taught about American history today, “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people” has to be the dumbest and most easily debunked.”

    LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?

    Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.

    The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660

    By the time shots were fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, cotton was the core ingredient of the world’s most important manufacturing industry. The manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth had grown into “the greatest industry that ever had or could by possibility have ever existed in any age or country,” according to the self-congratulatory but essentially accurate account of British cotton merchant John Benjamin Smith. By multiple measures—the sheer numbers employed, the value of output, profitability—the cotton empire had no parallel.

    One author boldly estimated that in 1862, fully 20 million people worldwide—one out of every 65 people alive—were involved in the cultivation of cotton or the production of cotton cloth. In England alone, which still counted two-thirds of the world’s mechanical spindles in its factories, the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of the population was based on the industry; one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth. Whole regions of Europe and the United States had come to depend on a predictable supply of cheap cotton. Except for wheat, no “raw product,” so the Journal of the Statistical Society of London declared, had “so complete a hold upon the wants of the race.”…

    Slavery stood at the center of the most dynamic and far-reaching production complex in human history. Too often, we prefer to erase the realities of slavery, expropriation, and colonialism from the history of capitalism, craving a nobler, cleaner capitalism. Nineteenth-century observers, in contrast, were cognizant of cotton’s role in reshaping the world. Herman Merivale, British colonial bureaucrat, noted that Manchester’s and Liverpool’s “opulence is as really owing to the toil and suffering of the negro, as if his hands had excavated their docks and fabricated their steam-engines.” Capital accumulation in peripheral commodity production, according to Merivale, was necessary for metropolitan economic expansion, and access to labor, if necessary by coercion, was a precondition for turning abundant lands into productive suppliers of raw materials.

    [MORE]

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776

    That cotton came almost exclusively from the slave plantations of the Americas—first from the West Indies and Brazil, then from the United States. When American cotton growers began to enter global markets in the 1790s after the revolution on Saint Domingue—once the world’s most important cotton-growing island—they quickly came to play an important, in fact dominant, role. Already in 1800, 25 percent of cotton landed in Liverpool (the world’s most important cotton port) originated from the American South. Twenty years later that number had increased to 59 percent, and in 1850 a full 72 percent of cotton imported to Britain was grown in the United States. U.S. cotton also accounted for 90 percent of total imports into France, 60 percent of those into the German lands and 92 percent of those shipped to Russia. American cotton captured world markets in a way that few raw material producers had before—or have since…

    When war broke out in April of 1861, this global economic relationship collapsed. At first, the Confederacy hoped to force recognition from European powers by restricting the export of cotton. Once the South understood that this policy was bound to fail because European recognition of the Confederacy was not forthcoming, the Union blockaded southern trade for nearly four years. The “cotton famine,” as it came to be known, was the equivalent of Middle Eastern oil being removed from global markets in the 1970s. It was industrial capitalism’s first global raw materials crisis.

    The effects were dramatic: In Europe, hundreds of thousands of workers lost employment, and social misery and social unrest spread through the textile cities of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Russia. In Alsace, posters went up proclaiming: Du pain ou la mort. Bread or death. Since very little cotton had entered world markets from non-enslaved producers in the first 80 years after the Industrial Revolution, many observers were all but certain that the crisis of slavery, and with it of war capitalism, would lead to a fundamental and long-lasting crisis of industrial capitalism as well. Indeed, when Union Gen. John C. Frémont emancipated the first slaves in Missouri in the fall of 1861, the British journal The Economist worried that such a “fearful measure” might spread to other slaveholding states, “inflict[ing] utter ruin and universal desolation on those fertile territories” and also on the merchants of Boston and New York, “whose prosperity … has always been derived” to a large extent from slave labor.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3

    Contrary to popular belief, the small farmers of New England weren’t alone responsible for establishing America’s economic position as capitalism expanded. Rather, the 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.

    http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860

    By 1860, Great Britain, the world’s most powerful country, had become the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and a significant part of that nation’s industry was cotton textiles. Nearly 4,000,000 of Britain’s total population of 21,000,000 were dependent on cotton textile manufacturing. Nearly forty percent of Britain’s exports were cotton textiles. Seventy-five percent of the cotton that supplied Britain’s cotton mills came from the American South, and the labor that produced that cotton came from slaves.

    Because of British demand, cotton was vital to the American economy. The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Douglass C. North, stated that cotton “was the most important proximate cause of expansion” in the 19th century American economy. Cotton accounted for over half of all American exports during the first half of the 19th century. The cotton market supported America’s ability to borrow money from abroad. It also fostered an enormous domestic trade in agricultural products from the West and manufactured goods from the East. In short, cotton helped tie the country together.

    New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.

    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king

    Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

    Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.

    What did cotton production and slavery have to do with Great Britain? The figures are astonishing. As Dattel explains: “Britain, the most powerful nation in the world, relied on slave-produced American cotton for over 80 per cent of its essential industrial raw material. English textile mills accounted for 40 percent of Britain’s exports. One-fifth of Britain’s twenty-two million people were directly or indirectly involved with cotton textiles.”

    And, finally, New England? As Ronald Bailey shows, cotton fed the textile revolution in the United States. “In 1860, for example, New England had 52 percent of the manufacturing establishments and 75 percent of the 5.14 million spindles in operation,” he explains. The same goes for looms. In fact, Massachusetts “alone had 30 percent of all spindles, and Rhode Island another 18 percent.” Most impressively of all, “New England mills consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, or 67 percent of the 422.6 million pounds of cotton used by U.S. mills in 1860.” In other words, on the eve of the Civil War, New England’s economy, so fundamentally dependent upon the textile industry, was inextricably intertwined, as Bailey puts it, “to the labor of black people working as slaves in the U.S. South.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    So....you failed completely to address why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand prospered without slavery, and most of Latin America -- which had slavery in far vaster forms... didn't? Honestly, you seem very slow on the uptake -- based directly on your bolded portions -- on the idea that in the 19th Century ownership of people as a measurement of wealth actually mattered as a real factor in economic development. So, to break it down to your comprehension level: a non-slave region with lots of factories and railroads could be on paper poorer than a slave region with lots of slaves...the fact this is so should be a deep lesson in humility for economists and economic historians. Free those slaves with a stoke of a pen, and suddenly that wealth disappears...the region is not nearly so wealthy or productive per free citizen. (Factories and railroads can also be destroyed, it just takes more than laws, and the societies that produced them are more intrinsically productive.) I'm also curious about the fact the abolition of slavery did nothing to retard the growth of the British Empire in 1833 -- Brazil had 60 years of slavery advantage there -- nor was the British Empire more than slightly inconvenienced by the American Civil War. It seems risible, by the way, to any thinking man, that Yankee trading ships, roaming the oceans even before the United States was formed, would not have found other cheap sources of cotton for Northern factories. What I think cute, but ironic, and also not to a small extent pathetic, is anyone defending slavery reparations droning on about the importance of King Cotton with the earnestness of a Mississippi plantation owner circa 1857. My opinion is anyone asserting slavery is responsible for American growth is a provincial rube ignorant of global history, and should study said subject with much more diligence...but if you are merely a propagandist, I do apologise -- I understand you are just doing your job. We all have to make a living.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @syonredux
    @Corvinus

    I would recommend that you read Gavin Wright's work, dear fellow:



    "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.
    "



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

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Grahamsno(G64)
    @Corvinus

    Yes thanks and if the Slaves were liabilities rather than assets why did the South fight to death over the issue?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AnotherDad

    , @Ben tillman
    @Corvinus

    Any analysis that doesn’t address opportunity cost is worthless.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @AnotherDad
    @Corvinus

    LOL -- "King Cotton" Corny

    It's funny to see all the little apparatchiks of the latest minoritarian fantasy--1619! America built on slavery!--now babbling like Mississippi plantation owners.

    But guess what Corny. The King Cotton boys proved wrong.

    Cotton had been about 5% of the US economy. Important, but hardly "the economy". It was a larger share--10%ish--of investment capital. But most of the surplus generated went into more land and slaves--i.e. a faster increase of the US black population--and fancy plantation homes and consumption.

    Corny, do you even realize what a statement like:


    ... shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks, seven times ...”
     
    means? It means that the profits of slavery went into breeding more blacks. Not actual capital accumulation for the US at all. Slavery's profits resulted in black bodies around today. Black--legacy black--Americans are the slavery's big result, not real economic growth.

    The northern economy turned out not to be dependent on cotton. The North prevailed in the War without even being stretched economically.

    European cotton mills had an immediate crisis, kicking off a recession ... while the British figured out where else they could grow cotton. "Oh, how about Egypt?" And more exported from India. And probably a bunch of other places i don't know about.

    US slavery was so critical that shutting it down was a speed bump in the world economy, while the US took off in the next generation to become the leading economy in world, the leading industrial power and a world power.

    ~~

    Again, this nonsense doesn't even rise to the level of "interesting". This is one of histories counterfactuals where we actually have comparable factuals--Canada, Australia. The US was much, much, much better naturally endowed than those nations and ... they don't suck.

    We also have the "factual" that we killed slavery off ... and the world didn't end. In fact, the South with blacks picking cotton was a continual laggard--a backwater--while the north took off.

    The US would be a richer nation today if the South had developed via yeoman farmers--owning and cultivating their own land. Better, more even, organic growth. Not to say it would have been like the north, malaria would have found it's way in even without blacks and before window and door screens and DDT and chloroquine and AC the South wasn't going be as habitable for a white man as the North. But the South would have have been much better with more even, complete and stable development.

    No slavery was a massive screwup, false path, wrong turn. Slavery's result wasn't wildly improved growth, but rather a bunch of blacks around... who aren't exactly engines of economic progress.

    When you blow something up ... and the world rolls on, and actually gets better! ... that's kind of a hint.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Jester... or jester
    @Corvinus

    The question is whether you're a paid smart ideologue or you're a middling, innumerate simpleton who's appealing to whatever "authority" du jour is most fashionable. An unsure, uninformed person might fall for that, and many most certainly do, but the fact that you keep pitching more and more indefensible positions speaks volumes to what you really are.

    For anyone needing to refresh their knowledge and shield themselves from Corvinus' drivel, here's a concise economic assessment of slavery with meaningful numbers.

    http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2018/06/was-slavery-central-to-american.html

    The topic has been exhaustively researched, way more than it actually should, and you need some serious mental gymnastics to come to a different conclusion.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Corvinus

  37. @Dave Pinsen
    Reparations could be the key to solving America's race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.

    In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.

    Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.

    According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).

    Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon

  38. @Cato
    @AnotherDad

    Were I Black, and could walk through the [safer] streets of Kinshasa without being recognized as a foreigner, I think it would be a cool place to live. Especially if I had $200K to start me off. I wouldn't try anywhere in East Africa, because I wouldn't look local -- especially not in Ethiopia. But Kinshasa! The few women I've met from there were extremely hot.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Dave Pinsen, @Giancarlo M. Kumquat

    Kigali looks nice.

    • Replies: @Cato
    @Dave Pinsen

    Tropical mountains -- always nice weather!! Maybe I'll see you there?

  39. @Dave Pinsen
    Reparations could be the key to solving America's race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.

    In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.

    Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.

    According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).

    Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon

    That’s a reasonable enough proposal, Dave, but you know that, not only will it never be implemented, it could never seriously be proposed.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @MBlanc46


    That’s a reasonable enough proposal, Dave, but you know that, not only will it never be implemented, it could never seriously be proposed.
     
    This is where i disagree--with a number of folks here.

    The point of this sort of "reparations with separation" or any of the other "separation" ideas is that merely proposing them and stoking the outrage precisely gives away the minoritarian game.

    The plain fact is the minoritarians are parasitic upon whites. (Which to be clear does not mean there aren't talented minorities doing real work and contributing.) Minorities keep demanding to come toward whites--immigration, integration of your school, country club, neighborhood, nations ... while endlessly whining.

    Saying "We can solve your 'oppression' problem, we'll just separate" unmasks the game. It is absolutely critical that conservatives, patriots, do precisely this. Until we blow up their sleazy narrative the minoritarians will keep burying us in bucket after bucket of their sad sack "oppression" shit.

    Replies: @MBlanc46

  40. The reparations money would/will be used to decamp to White places. There will be plenty of decamping money left over after Nikes; how many pairs of Nikes do you need? Even if acceptance of reparations is expressly tied to separation, the promise to separate would/will be ignored. The Supreme Court would invalidate any “I will not decamp” promise as fast as you can say “Roberts.”

    “Sorry“ number two: The idea of speaking out. Today you would merely be fired, and, lose your family and friends, unless you happen to live in a dwindling number of places. After the ‘la Justice Department takes control in 2021, you will be jailed for a “hate crime.” The chilling effect will silence you. Heck, you might say something over the dinner table, and your own kids would repeat it to the teacher, and off you go. So you don’t say it in the first place.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @SafeNow


    The reparations money would/will be used to decamp to White places.
     
    Will it?

    Blacks in the West have an almost pathological need to be surrounded by urban squalor, and a pathological aversion to rural areas and nature.
  41. @Rob McX

    I fully support all reparations being paid in Confederate dollars.
     
    Great idea. Or, to remind them of what they escaped by getting to America, Zimbabwean dollars.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Great idea. Or, to remind them of what they escaped by getting to America, Zimbabwean dollars.

    American slaves received far more from Whites than they gave back in labor. What they received for their labor was more than the global market rate. Food, shelter, medical care, care in old age, stability, protection from violence. On average they clearly had it better under White governance than they did in Africa.

  42. @Reg Cæsar
    I'll see your deuce, raise you a buck:


    https://c8.alamy.com/comp/AAKARR/3-dollar-bill-paper-money-from-the-bahamas-AAKARR.jpg

    Replies: @Escher

    An African currency is the way to go.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Escher

    Careful. Many of those are counterfeit. Seriously-- collectors want them.

    The Mugabe dollar is the rare currency the value of which has appreciated over time. You can't get the hundred-trillion note for 40¢ anymore.

  43. @Escher
    @Reg Cæsar

    An African currency is the way to go.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y9XJ0cv3Pz8/TZM1VebkUyI/AAAAAAAACEw/u1foQRwIHIM/s1600/zimbabwe1.JPG

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Careful. Many of those are counterfeit. Seriously– collectors want them.

    The Mugabe dollar is the rare currency the value of which has appreciated over time. You can’t get the hundred-trillion note for 40¢ anymore.

  44. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    Meanwhile, a Georgia cop just lost his job over the incident as shown below.

    Perhaps reparation costs could be significantly reduced in relation to black people’s time-honored tradition of the abuse of law enforcement, and inherent consequential costs of processing them. In that context, black people are very expensive to have around.

    Thinking it through, coupled with their reliance on Roosevelt’s “new deal,” I think they might owe white people money.

  45. We already know the score on reparations, straight from the Marxist mouths of Black Lives Matter – when black people break in and steal what they want, that’s reparations.

    So you see, all inner-city armed robbery, every break-in, every riot with looting – it’s all reparations. But what if you’ve looted everything within reach?

    Black activists have already identified the problem, and found the solution. Call it the Willie Sutton strategy – to get the money, go where the whites are. The expensive shopping districts, and ESPECIALLY the suburbs.

    In a related story, Michigan’s Leftist governor won’t let go of her pet program – some sort of direct public transportation that goes from inner city Detroit into wealthy Ann Arbor. Ballot initiatives have failed miserably – there’s nothing Democrat strategists hate more than needing the approval of voters. There’s got to be a way!

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Anon7


    In a related story, Michigan’s Leftist governor won’t let go of her pet program – some sort of direct public transportation that goes from inner city Detroit into wealthy Ann Arbor.
     
    Of course. She's a Michigan State alum, and any opportunity to stick it to U of M is the most important thing.

    Geography also works in her favor since East Lansing is much farther from Detroit.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Ron Mexico, @Anon7

  46. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    "Of all the stupid ideas taught about American history today, “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people” has to be the dumbest and most easily debunked."

    LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?

    Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.

    The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660


    By the time shots were fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, cotton was the core ingredient of the world’s most important manufacturing industry. The manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth had grown into “the greatest industry that ever had or could by possibility have ever existed in any age or country,” according to the self-congratulatory but essentially accurate account of British cotton merchant John Benjamin Smith. By multiple measures—the sheer numbers employed, the value of output, profitability—the cotton empire had no parallel.

    One author boldly estimated that in 1862, fully 20 million people worldwide—one out of every 65 people alive—were involved in the cultivation of cotton or the production of cotton cloth. In England alone, which still counted two-thirds of the world’s mechanical spindles in its factories, the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of the population was based on the industry; one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth. Whole regions of Europe and the United States had come to depend on a predictable supply of cheap cotton. Except for wheat, no “raw product,” so the Journal of the Statistical Society of London declared, had “so complete a hold upon the wants of the race.”…

    Slavery stood at the center of the most dynamic and far-reaching production complex in human history. Too often, we prefer to erase the realities of slavery, expropriation, and colonialism from the history of capitalism, craving a nobler, cleaner capitalism. Nineteenth-century observers, in contrast, were cognizant of cotton’s role in reshaping the world. Herman Merivale, British colonial bureaucrat, noted that Manchester’s and Liverpool’s “opulence is as really owing to the toil and suffering of the negro, as if his hands had excavated their docks and fabricated their steam-engines.” Capital accumulation in peripheral commodity production, according to Merivale, was necessary for metropolitan economic expansion, and access to labor, if necessary by coercion, was a precondition for turning abundant lands into productive suppliers of raw materials.
     


    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776

    That cotton came almost exclusively from the slave plantations of the Americas—first from the West Indies and Brazil, then from the United States. When American cotton growers began to enter global markets in the 1790s after the revolution on Saint Domingue—once the world’s most important cotton-growing island—they quickly came to play an important, in fact dominant, role. Already in 1800, 25 percent of cotton landed in Liverpool (the world’s most important cotton port) originated from the American South. Twenty years later that number had increased to 59 percent, and in 1850 a full 72 percent of cotton imported to Britain was grown in the United States. U.S. cotton also accounted for 90 percent of total imports into France, 60 percent of those into the German lands and 92 percent of those shipped to Russia. American cotton captured world markets in a way that few raw material producers had before—or have since…

    When war broke out in April of 1861, this global economic relationship collapsed. At first, the Confederacy hoped to force recognition from European powers by restricting the export of cotton. Once the South understood that this policy was bound to fail because European recognition of the Confederacy was not forthcoming, the Union blockaded southern trade for nearly four years. The “cotton famine,” as it came to be known, was the equivalent of Middle Eastern oil being removed from global markets in the 1970s. It was industrial capitalism’s first global raw materials crisis.

    The effects were dramatic: In Europe, hundreds of thousands of workers lost employment, and social misery and social unrest spread through the textile cities of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Russia. In Alsace, posters went up proclaiming: Du pain ou la mort. Bread or death. Since very little cotton had entered world markets from non-enslaved producers in the first 80 years after the Industrial Revolution, many observers were all but certain that the crisis of slavery, and with it of war capitalism, would lead to a fundamental and long-lasting crisis of industrial capitalism as well. Indeed, when Union Gen. John C. Frémont emancipated the first slaves in Missouri in the fall of 1861, the British journal The Economist worried that such a “fearful measure” might spread to other slaveholding states, “inflict[ing] utter ruin and universal desolation on those fertile territories” and also on the merchants of Boston and New York, “whose prosperity … has always been derived” to a large extent from slave labor.
     
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3

    Contrary to popular belief, the small farmers of New England weren’t alone responsible for establishing America’s economic position as capitalism expanded. Rather, the 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.
     
    http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860

    By 1860, Great Britain, the world’s most powerful country, had become the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and a significant part of that nation’s industry was cotton textiles. Nearly 4,000,000 of Britain’s total population of 21,000,000 were dependent on cotton textile manufacturing. Nearly forty percent of Britain’s exports were cotton textiles. Seventy-five percent of the cotton that supplied Britain’s cotton mills came from the American South, and the labor that produced that cotton came from slaves.

    Because of British demand, cotton was vital to the American economy. The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Douglass C. North, stated that cotton “was the most important proximate cause of expansion” in the 19th century American economy. Cotton accounted for over half of all American exports during the first half of the 19th century. The cotton market supported America’s ability to borrow money from abroad. It also fostered an enormous domestic trade in agricultural products from the West and manufactured goods from the East. In short, cotton helped tie the country together.



    New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.
     
    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king

    Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

    Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.

    What did cotton production and slavery have to do with Great Britain? The figures are astonishing. As Dattel explains: “Britain, the most powerful nation in the world, relied on slave-produced American cotton for over 80 per cent of its essential industrial raw material. English textile mills accounted for 40 percent of Britain’s exports. One-fifth of Britain’s twenty-two million people were directly or indirectly involved with cotton textiles.”

    And, finally, New England? As Ronald Bailey shows, cotton fed the textile revolution in the United States. “In 1860, for example, New England had 52 percent of the manufacturing establishments and 75 percent of the 5.14 million spindles in operation,” he explains. The same goes for looms. In fact, Massachusetts “alone had 30 percent of all spindles, and Rhode Island another 18 percent.” Most impressively of all, “New England mills consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, or 67 percent of the 422.6 million pounds of cotton used by U.S. mills in 1860.” In other words, on the eve of the Civil War, New England’s economy, so fundamentally dependent upon the textile industry, was inextricably intertwined, as Bailey puts it, “to the labor of black people working as slaves in the U.S. South.”
     

    Replies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester

    So….you failed completely to address why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand prospered without slavery, and most of Latin America — which had slavery in far vaster forms… didn’t? Honestly, you seem very slow on the uptake — based directly on your bolded portions — on the idea that in the 19th Century ownership of people as a measurement of wealth actually mattered as a real factor in economic development. So, to break it down to your comprehension level: a non-slave region with lots of factories and railroads could be on paper poorer than a slave region with lots of slaves…the fact this is so should be a deep lesson in humility for economists and economic historians. Free those slaves with a stoke of a pen, and suddenly that wealth disappears…the region is not nearly so wealthy or productive per free citizen. (Factories and railroads can also be destroyed, it just takes more than laws, and the societies that produced them are more intrinsically productive.) I’m also curious about the fact the abolition of slavery did nothing to retard the growth of the British Empire in 1833 — Brazil had 60 years of slavery advantage there — nor was the British Empire more than slightly inconvenienced by the American Civil War. It seems risible, by the way, to any thinking man, that Yankee trading ships, roaming the oceans even before the United States was formed, would not have found other cheap sources of cotton for Northern factories. What I think cute, but ironic, and also not to a small extent pathetic, is anyone defending slavery reparations droning on about the importance of King Cotton with the earnestness of a Mississippi plantation owner circa 1857. My opinion is anyone asserting slavery is responsible for American growth is a provincial rube ignorant of global history, and should study said subject with much more diligence…but if you are merely a propagandist, I do apologise — I understand you are just doing your job. We all have to make a living.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "So….you failed completely to address why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand prospered without slavery, and most of Latin America — which had slavery in far vaster forms… didn’t?"

    --Red herring. The assertion I countered was “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people”.

    "Honestly, you seem very slow on the uptake — based directly on your bolded portions — on the idea that in the 19th Century ownership of people as a measurement of wealth actually mattered as a real factor in economic development".

    --Based on the sources, indeed. So, what specific statements in the bolded portions do you disagree with? What is your reasoning?

    "So, to break it down to your comprehension level: a non-slave region with lots of factories and railroads could be on paper poorer than a slave region with lots of slaves…the fact this is so should be a deep lesson in humility for economists and economic historians."

    --On what basis do you believe these authors neglected to take into account your objection?

    "Free those slaves with a stoke of a pen, and suddenly that wealth disappears..."

    --So how does this statement directly fit with the thesis offered?

    "It seems risible, by the way, to any thinking man, that Yankee trading ships, roaming the oceans even before the United States was formed, would not have found other cheap sources of cotton for Northern factories."

    --During the colonial period, a symbiotic economic relationship developed between the regions, so northern merchants focused on obtaining southern cotton. Recall that cotton was considered a luxury good prior to the English Industrial Revolution in the 1700's, and that northern factories for textiles did not develop in earnest until the early 1800's.

    "What I think cute, but ironic, and also not to a small extent pathetic, is anyone defending slavery reparations droning on about the importance of King Cotton with the earnestness of a Mississippi plantation owner circa 1857"

    --Strawman. I did not directly nor indirectly defend slavery reparations in my post.

    "My opinion is anyone asserting slavery is responsible for American growth is a provincial rube ignorant of global history, and should study said subject with much more diligence…but if you are merely a propagandist."

    --You do realize that your ad hominems are not arguments, right? So, please offer your cogent rebuttal to the sources I provided. Otherwise, you have done nothing to refute the ideas presented by the authors I cited.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  47. @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    "Of all the stupid ideas taught about American history today, “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people” has to be the dumbest and most easily debunked."

    LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?

    Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.

    The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660


    By the time shots were fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, cotton was the core ingredient of the world’s most important manufacturing industry. The manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth had grown into “the greatest industry that ever had or could by possibility have ever existed in any age or country,” according to the self-congratulatory but essentially accurate account of British cotton merchant John Benjamin Smith. By multiple measures—the sheer numbers employed, the value of output, profitability—the cotton empire had no parallel.

    One author boldly estimated that in 1862, fully 20 million people worldwide—one out of every 65 people alive—were involved in the cultivation of cotton or the production of cotton cloth. In England alone, which still counted two-thirds of the world’s mechanical spindles in its factories, the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of the population was based on the industry; one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth. Whole regions of Europe and the United States had come to depend on a predictable supply of cheap cotton. Except for wheat, no “raw product,” so the Journal of the Statistical Society of London declared, had “so complete a hold upon the wants of the race.”…

    Slavery stood at the center of the most dynamic and far-reaching production complex in human history. Too often, we prefer to erase the realities of slavery, expropriation, and colonialism from the history of capitalism, craving a nobler, cleaner capitalism. Nineteenth-century observers, in contrast, were cognizant of cotton’s role in reshaping the world. Herman Merivale, British colonial bureaucrat, noted that Manchester’s and Liverpool’s “opulence is as really owing to the toil and suffering of the negro, as if his hands had excavated their docks and fabricated their steam-engines.” Capital accumulation in peripheral commodity production, according to Merivale, was necessary for metropolitan economic expansion, and access to labor, if necessary by coercion, was a precondition for turning abundant lands into productive suppliers of raw materials.
     


    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776

    That cotton came almost exclusively from the slave plantations of the Americas—first from the West Indies and Brazil, then from the United States. When American cotton growers began to enter global markets in the 1790s after the revolution on Saint Domingue—once the world’s most important cotton-growing island—they quickly came to play an important, in fact dominant, role. Already in 1800, 25 percent of cotton landed in Liverpool (the world’s most important cotton port) originated from the American South. Twenty years later that number had increased to 59 percent, and in 1850 a full 72 percent of cotton imported to Britain was grown in the United States. U.S. cotton also accounted for 90 percent of total imports into France, 60 percent of those into the German lands and 92 percent of those shipped to Russia. American cotton captured world markets in a way that few raw material producers had before—or have since…

    When war broke out in April of 1861, this global economic relationship collapsed. At first, the Confederacy hoped to force recognition from European powers by restricting the export of cotton. Once the South understood that this policy was bound to fail because European recognition of the Confederacy was not forthcoming, the Union blockaded southern trade for nearly four years. The “cotton famine,” as it came to be known, was the equivalent of Middle Eastern oil being removed from global markets in the 1970s. It was industrial capitalism’s first global raw materials crisis.

    The effects were dramatic: In Europe, hundreds of thousands of workers lost employment, and social misery and social unrest spread through the textile cities of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Russia. In Alsace, posters went up proclaiming: Du pain ou la mort. Bread or death. Since very little cotton had entered world markets from non-enslaved producers in the first 80 years after the Industrial Revolution, many observers were all but certain that the crisis of slavery, and with it of war capitalism, would lead to a fundamental and long-lasting crisis of industrial capitalism as well. Indeed, when Union Gen. John C. Frémont emancipated the first slaves in Missouri in the fall of 1861, the British journal The Economist worried that such a “fearful measure” might spread to other slaveholding states, “inflict[ing] utter ruin and universal desolation on those fertile territories” and also on the merchants of Boston and New York, “whose prosperity … has always been derived” to a large extent from slave labor.
     
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3

    Contrary to popular belief, the small farmers of New England weren’t alone responsible for establishing America’s economic position as capitalism expanded. Rather, the 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.
     
    http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860

    By 1860, Great Britain, the world’s most powerful country, had become the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and a significant part of that nation’s industry was cotton textiles. Nearly 4,000,000 of Britain’s total population of 21,000,000 were dependent on cotton textile manufacturing. Nearly forty percent of Britain’s exports were cotton textiles. Seventy-five percent of the cotton that supplied Britain’s cotton mills came from the American South, and the labor that produced that cotton came from slaves.

    Because of British demand, cotton was vital to the American economy. The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Douglass C. North, stated that cotton “was the most important proximate cause of expansion” in the 19th century American economy. Cotton accounted for over half of all American exports during the first half of the 19th century. The cotton market supported America’s ability to borrow money from abroad. It also fostered an enormous domestic trade in agricultural products from the West and manufactured goods from the East. In short, cotton helped tie the country together.



    New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.
     
    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king

    Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

    Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.

    What did cotton production and slavery have to do with Great Britain? The figures are astonishing. As Dattel explains: “Britain, the most powerful nation in the world, relied on slave-produced American cotton for over 80 per cent of its essential industrial raw material. English textile mills accounted for 40 percent of Britain’s exports. One-fifth of Britain’s twenty-two million people were directly or indirectly involved with cotton textiles.”

    And, finally, New England? As Ronald Bailey shows, cotton fed the textile revolution in the United States. “In 1860, for example, New England had 52 percent of the manufacturing establishments and 75 percent of the 5.14 million spindles in operation,” he explains. The same goes for looms. In fact, Massachusetts “alone had 30 percent of all spindles, and Rhode Island another 18 percent.” Most impressively of all, “New England mills consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, or 67 percent of the 422.6 million pounds of cotton used by U.S. mills in 1860.” In other words, on the eve of the Civil War, New England’s economy, so fundamentally dependent upon the textile industry, was inextricably intertwined, as Bailey puts it, “to the labor of black people working as slaves in the U.S. South.”
     

    Replies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester

    I would recommend that you read Gavin Wright’s work, dear fellow:

    “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.

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

    • Thanks: HammerJack
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @syonredux

    I am familiar with his argument, as you highlighted it before. Of course, there are competing theories, but in my estimation the sources I provided undercut Wright's thesis.

    Nonetheless...

    https://journalofthecivilwarera.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Final-Rockman.pdf


    This brief survey has attempted to highlight the latest research on the American economy during the decades between the Revolution and the Civil War. It is worth noting the methodological eclecticism of this scholarship, a testament to new claims on the economic past by those who by no means identify as “economic historians.” To be sure, social, political, and cultural historians could afford to be in greater dialogue with scholars inclined toward quantification and armed with technical expertise on issues like specie flows and currency discounts; likewise, the highly specialized work of economic historians on essential topics like banking must be made accessible to lay readers. Ultimately, the economic past is open for reconsideration by historians using whatever tools they have at their disposal. One of the most promising opportunities for the study of slavery and capitalism is in the fruitful collaboration of scholars working across fields like visual and material culture, the history of management and accounting, and political economy (just to name a few possibilities). Particularly liberating is that this research need not pursue a causal relationship between capitalism and slavery as its ultimate goal. The question of whether slavery caused capitalism or capitalism caused slavery carries much less urgency than it once did; so too does the matter of whether slavery is in, of, or outside capitalism. What seems most important here is that slavery was indispensible to the American economy as it rose to global importance in the nineteenth century, and that no narrative can explain the nation’s spectacular pattern of development without placing slavery front and center.
     
    and...

    https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/History/Fall-2020-Slavery-and-Capitalism.pdf

    No scholar seriously doubts that there was a strong relationship between the development of capitalism and the emergence of New World slave plantations. Where they disagree is over the nature of that relationship. Was slavery itself a form of capitalism, or was the master-slave relationship fundamentally different from capitalist social relations? Did slavery give rise to capitalism, or did capitalism give rise to slavery? This course will address these questions, beginning with a survey of the way scholars have addressed them. Then, with a particular focus on the United States, we will address the theoretical and empirical question of whether the slave economy of the Old South was or was not capitalist. Finally, we will shift to the very different question of the relationship between southern slavery, especially the cotton economy, and the industrialization of the North.
     

    Replies: @blake121666, @syonredux

  48. @AnotherDad
    @Dave Pinsen


    Reparations could be the key to solving America’s race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.
     
    Spot on Dave. Spot on.

    The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.

    If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.

    But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?

    Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite

    Here’s my restatement of the idea, with some ebellishments, expressed in a more formal way:

    Whereas our government is presently printing trillions and trillions, and
    whereas there has recently been much talk of reparations, and
    whereas there is widespread belief in the incurability of systemic, anti-black racism, and
    whereas there is urgency to quickly address reparations and systemic racism,

    … let us immediately enact the following proposal …

    … 200K to any black U.S. citizen, with these conditions:
    1) must give up U.S. citizenship and any U.S. residency/visa status
    2) move to a majority black country, with no option to ever return

    … and these national conditions:
    3) end affirmative action and all other existing, explicitly race-conscious governmental policies
    4) require that all immigrants have to be of Western European heritage

    You might say, “wait that’s too expensive!” But a trillion is a big number. With one trillion, you could pay 5 million people 200K. And Congress just created a 2 trillion dollar stimulus package, while seemingly every day, the Federal Reserve is announcing a new trillion dollar program. What’s a few more trillion on the heap?

    With 8 trillion, you could pay all 40 million blacks to leave.

    However, would they leave? Maybe not all at once, but after a few have left and got settled, then others would follow. But which countries would take them? We might need to incentivize those countries too.

    How many would need to leave to make it worth it? If 50% left, would that be better? Should it just apply to those in their “fertility prime”? Perhaps, if past the “fertility prime”, the reparations is just 100K?

    In one way, it’s a win just talking about it, as AnotherDad says:

    But the beauty of advancing “separation” is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. “Separation” simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you’re oppressed why don’t you want to split?

    • Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
    @ziggurat


    If you’re oppressed why don’t you want to split?
     
    Because the USA is increasingly run on old-testament (jewish) precepts rather than new-testament (christian). Hence revenge for all slights (real or imagined) is preferred to peaceful accommodation, or even peaceful separation.
  49. @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    "Of all the stupid ideas taught about American history today, “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people” has to be the dumbest and most easily debunked."

    LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?

    Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.

    The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660


    By the time shots were fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, cotton was the core ingredient of the world’s most important manufacturing industry. The manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth had grown into “the greatest industry that ever had or could by possibility have ever existed in any age or country,” according to the self-congratulatory but essentially accurate account of British cotton merchant John Benjamin Smith. By multiple measures—the sheer numbers employed, the value of output, profitability—the cotton empire had no parallel.

    One author boldly estimated that in 1862, fully 20 million people worldwide—one out of every 65 people alive—were involved in the cultivation of cotton or the production of cotton cloth. In England alone, which still counted two-thirds of the world’s mechanical spindles in its factories, the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of the population was based on the industry; one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth. Whole regions of Europe and the United States had come to depend on a predictable supply of cheap cotton. Except for wheat, no “raw product,” so the Journal of the Statistical Society of London declared, had “so complete a hold upon the wants of the race.”…

    Slavery stood at the center of the most dynamic and far-reaching production complex in human history. Too often, we prefer to erase the realities of slavery, expropriation, and colonialism from the history of capitalism, craving a nobler, cleaner capitalism. Nineteenth-century observers, in contrast, were cognizant of cotton’s role in reshaping the world. Herman Merivale, British colonial bureaucrat, noted that Manchester’s and Liverpool’s “opulence is as really owing to the toil and suffering of the negro, as if his hands had excavated their docks and fabricated their steam-engines.” Capital accumulation in peripheral commodity production, according to Merivale, was necessary for metropolitan economic expansion, and access to labor, if necessary by coercion, was a precondition for turning abundant lands into productive suppliers of raw materials.
     


    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776

    That cotton came almost exclusively from the slave plantations of the Americas—first from the West Indies and Brazil, then from the United States. When American cotton growers began to enter global markets in the 1790s after the revolution on Saint Domingue—once the world’s most important cotton-growing island—they quickly came to play an important, in fact dominant, role. Already in 1800, 25 percent of cotton landed in Liverpool (the world’s most important cotton port) originated from the American South. Twenty years later that number had increased to 59 percent, and in 1850 a full 72 percent of cotton imported to Britain was grown in the United States. U.S. cotton also accounted for 90 percent of total imports into France, 60 percent of those into the German lands and 92 percent of those shipped to Russia. American cotton captured world markets in a way that few raw material producers had before—or have since…

    When war broke out in April of 1861, this global economic relationship collapsed. At first, the Confederacy hoped to force recognition from European powers by restricting the export of cotton. Once the South understood that this policy was bound to fail because European recognition of the Confederacy was not forthcoming, the Union blockaded southern trade for nearly four years. The “cotton famine,” as it came to be known, was the equivalent of Middle Eastern oil being removed from global markets in the 1970s. It was industrial capitalism’s first global raw materials crisis.

    The effects were dramatic: In Europe, hundreds of thousands of workers lost employment, and social misery and social unrest spread through the textile cities of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Russia. In Alsace, posters went up proclaiming: Du pain ou la mort. Bread or death. Since very little cotton had entered world markets from non-enslaved producers in the first 80 years after the Industrial Revolution, many observers were all but certain that the crisis of slavery, and with it of war capitalism, would lead to a fundamental and long-lasting crisis of industrial capitalism as well. Indeed, when Union Gen. John C. Frémont emancipated the first slaves in Missouri in the fall of 1861, the British journal The Economist worried that such a “fearful measure” might spread to other slaveholding states, “inflict[ing] utter ruin and universal desolation on those fertile territories” and also on the merchants of Boston and New York, “whose prosperity … has always been derived” to a large extent from slave labor.
     
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3

    Contrary to popular belief, the small farmers of New England weren’t alone responsible for establishing America’s economic position as capitalism expanded. Rather, the 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.
     
    http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860

    By 1860, Great Britain, the world’s most powerful country, had become the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and a significant part of that nation’s industry was cotton textiles. Nearly 4,000,000 of Britain’s total population of 21,000,000 were dependent on cotton textile manufacturing. Nearly forty percent of Britain’s exports were cotton textiles. Seventy-five percent of the cotton that supplied Britain’s cotton mills came from the American South, and the labor that produced that cotton came from slaves.

    Because of British demand, cotton was vital to the American economy. The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Douglass C. North, stated that cotton “was the most important proximate cause of expansion” in the 19th century American economy. Cotton accounted for over half of all American exports during the first half of the 19th century. The cotton market supported America’s ability to borrow money from abroad. It also fostered an enormous domestic trade in agricultural products from the West and manufactured goods from the East. In short, cotton helped tie the country together.



    New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.
     
    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king

    Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

    Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.

    What did cotton production and slavery have to do with Great Britain? The figures are astonishing. As Dattel explains: “Britain, the most powerful nation in the world, relied on slave-produced American cotton for over 80 per cent of its essential industrial raw material. English textile mills accounted for 40 percent of Britain’s exports. One-fifth of Britain’s twenty-two million people were directly or indirectly involved with cotton textiles.”

    And, finally, New England? As Ronald Bailey shows, cotton fed the textile revolution in the United States. “In 1860, for example, New England had 52 percent of the manufacturing establishments and 75 percent of the 5.14 million spindles in operation,” he explains. The same goes for looms. In fact, Massachusetts “alone had 30 percent of all spindles, and Rhode Island another 18 percent.” Most impressively of all, “New England mills consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, or 67 percent of the 422.6 million pounds of cotton used by U.S. mills in 1860.” In other words, on the eve of the Civil War, New England’s economy, so fundamentally dependent upon the textile industry, was inextricably intertwined, as Bailey puts it, “to the labor of black people working as slaves in the U.S. South.”
     

    Replies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester

    Yes thanks and if the Slaves were liabilities rather than assets why did the South fight to death over the issue?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    Is this a serious question? Are iSteve readers even becoming less literate? Really? Is anyone arguing that slavery did not benefit plantation owners? Because there are plenty of systems with grossly inefficient growth mechanisms that survive for a long time because they benefit the elite of that society. That the Southern elite wanted slavery actually says nothing about how beneficial slavery was to the economic development of the South as a whole -- and certainly not remotely America as a whole. It's interesting that at the start of the American Civil War both the North and South primarily used a mixture of British and American firearms. At the end of 4 years the massive Union military was almost entirely armed with high quality Northern developed and locally manufactured weapons, the South relied on imported European weapons and captured Northern weapons. It's almost as if slavery was actually greatly injurious to the economic and industrial development of the South, yet strangely, and simultaneously, responsible for the great wealth of the non-slave portion of the country that defeated it. I actually do think at some deep level BLM protestors are indeed correct to pull down statues of men like Grant, as one must not look to closely at mid 19 Century American history in general. Such a close look would reveal how little slaves actually contributed to America, at such a great human price.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Ron Mexico

    , @AnotherDad
    @Grahamsno(G64)


    Yes thanks and if the Slaves were liabilities rather than assets why did the South fight to death over the issue?
     
    Grahamsno, you need better parsing of the issue.

    Anon[277] has already done the thorough rebuttal, but whether slavery is in the interest of particular people--plantation owners--and whether as a system it is beneficial to the economic development of the nation are obviously two separate issues.


    There a ton of people today who benefit from illegal aliens working for them as fruit pickers, farm labor, meat packers, gardeners, housecleaners, janitors, dishwashers, construction labor framing houses or hanging drywall... for less than American wages A these people bunch of 'em squawk like disturbed ducks if you talk about deportation or even e-verify.

    But that does not remotely mean that importing these millions of illegal aliens is beneficial to America, "the American economy" or much less Americans. It merely means a bunch of people now have an economic interest in the illegal alien labor system. For America--our children's future, the nation's future--it's a disaster.


    Slavery was even worse in terms of "lock-in" because the plantation owners actually owned the slaves. They were an asset, so an end to slavery system was not just going to hammer their income and income producing potential of their property, but a bunch of their "wealth" would up and walk off.

    But that means nothing about whether slavery--the slave system--was good for America. In fact, with abolition ... a bunch of their owners wealth did up and walk off. Slavery was abolished and the American economy soared to being #1 in the world. Wow. Sure sounds critical.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @S

  50. @Anonymous
    Hey, that’s Judah Benjamin on that Confederate currency!

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/judah-p-benjamin-and-the-jewish-goal-of-whiteness-in-the-antebellum-south/

    Times of Israel Blog

    Judah P. Benjamin and the Jewish goal of whiteness [sic] in the antebellum South

    It happened supporting the slavery and then the Confederacy was ticket to that acceptance for Jews living in the South and they took advantage of everything their whiteness [sic] could offer them in America.

     

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @slumber_j

    It happened supporting the slavery and then the Confederacy was ticket to that acceptance for Jews living in the South

    They would not have wanted to be slave traders or slaveholders. But the racist US-system did not allow them to make the other choice.

  51. @Muggles
    What ever happened to the biblical injunction that said (to paraphrase) "the sins of the father does not lie on the sons?"

    Most people barely acknowledge or pay for their own mistakes, much less that of people who lived and died long before them? Since American blacks on average are many times more wealthy than African blacks still living there, are they going to make reparations to the descendants of the victims of their own tribal oppressions? Why limit reparations to Americans?

    Do any of the reparations mongers plan on compensating any of the crime victims of their own ancestors? (Not all have those, but no one mentions that.)

    We don't live in a world where all that we now have magically dropped from the sky into our bank accounts and homes, due to our ancestors. Yes, a few who have wealthy parents benefit from that, but even then, over time, few living today are fat and happy Rockefellers. So why all the grousing?

    It's just a naked scam as anyone can see. Places now with black governments are all poorer and have been, than the US. Per that evidence, as is painfully clear to everyone not scamming, there is no actual moral or economic argument to be made about slave reparations.

    As we all know, people who always blame their current troubles on others are doomed to a life of misery and psychological dysfunction. It's bad enough to blame one's parents. But to blame the long dead ancestors of people no one alive knew is absurd.

    But con artists and scammers often prefer the Big Lie, since the details and logic don't matter. I have yet to read of any Woke celebrity who has personally made "reparations" to individual Americans of African descent. Alex Baldwin? Bill & Hil? Bernie? AOC? Who?

    Replies: @216, @Dieter Kief, @S

    What ever happened to the biblical injunction that said (to paraphrase) “the sins of the father does not lie on the sons?”

    I

    Actually, this Biblical thought you refer to is central to Christianity and one of the results of the existence of the Old (rather unforgiving and tribal) and the New Testament. – so forgiveness instead of rage and vengeance has morphed into a structural (=founding) element of not only our juridical system but of our culture as a whole. –

    II

    But our capitalist/democratic system and our culture have – since roughly 1968 – been attacked as being one of the core reasons for – suppression as such. The postmodern/deconstructivist equation which is acknowledged by the media-mainstream and practically all of the academia now is: The (capitalist) system represents nothing but unjust power – ad must, therefore, be eradicated – including Christianity, which is an integral part of said system.

    III

    Which, as I stated in paragraph one above, is actually true: Christianity is indeed an integral part of our culture and our political system.

    IV

    So – the mainstream and the left have sided against the core of our system and our tradition. This is ironically no problem for lots of Silicon Valley and Wall Street protagonists, – because they – as the Masters of the Universe (Tom Wolfe) – act as if they’d be above religion, culture, and the constitution of the US for example. In their world-view, US religion, culture, and tradition altogether are just aspects of a regional (=backwards) “configuration”. Things they don’t need at all and oftentimes look at as nothing but outdated hindrances (or artifacts).

  52. @Cloudbuster
    @AnotherDad

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    So on what will we spend the $200k each of those blacks owes us for the benefit of being born in in a fantastically better, more prosperous country? ... I'm assuming you are saying each will pay the US $200k, right, to help balance the scales and put them back where they would be if they had been born in Africa?

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    So on what will we spend the $200k each of those blacks owes us for the benefit of being born in in a fantastically better, more prosperous country? … I’m assuming you are saying each will pay the US $200k, right, to help balance the scales and put them back where they would be if they had been born in Africa?

    Cloudbuster, think this through. Starting with jumping back to reality. Black Americans have rights just like any Americans. The current incentive for them to abandon American citizenship is zero, and unsurprisingly–because all this “oppression” stuff is nonsense–very few of them leave.

    What will it say about all the crap the minoritarians have rained down upon us for 60 years–“racism!” “legacy of slavery”, “oppression”, “systemic racism”, etc.–when we offer $200K to young blacks to renounce and move back to Africa … and almost none of them do? Or all the shrieks and howls at this reparations offer itself?

    Minoritarianism–minorities oppressed/virtuous, majorities (white gentiles) oppressive/evil; now the official establishment ideology, more important than trivial stuff like “equal justice under law” or even “rule of law” itself–is an end-to-end lie. A lie debunked by the actual behavior of … pretty much everyone in the world, immigrants, blacks, the whites who parrot it, even the Jews who have peddled it.

    Demonstrating the absolute fraudulence of the entire minoritarian project is the critical PR task of patriots.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @AnotherDad

    It was a joke. Lighten up, Francis.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    , @Ben tillman
    @AnotherDad

    And, of course, the logical and morally correct solution to the “plight” of minority groups is *autonomy* for them and for the majority in separate territories.

    Instead, we get minority rule to milk the majority. It is a master-slave relationship, and we are the slaves.

  53. Dave Pinsen has the right idea. Reparations must be tied to permanent physical separation. The idea is so simple and obvious that maybe it has some chance of making it into the public consciousness. It’s basically “Love it or leave it.”

    Just to address the details briefly, I don’t see why this should involve giving away any land in North America. There’s plenty of land that can be purchased outside of the U.S. & Europe & the Western world.

    • LOL: Corvinus
  54. RT [naturally] on academic wokistocracy in the UK and USA:

    [MORE]

    King’s College is not an outlier when it comes to its efforts to exhume the long-dead corpse of segregation and dress it up with the trappings of 21st-century wokeness. Last month, in chutzpah-laden screeds, faculty at both Princeton and the University of Southern California demanded their own variations on “separate but equal,” from requiring black faculty members have their work evaluated only by their “racial peers” to paying minority students to mentor underclass(wo)men of their own race.

    Gone, apparently, is the notion that university should be about exposure to new and different ideas, cultures, and people. Indeed, should a student accidentally stumble across an intellectually stimulating and unfamiliar concept in 2020, he or she is likely to cry out in mental anguish and demand a (racially appropriate) counseling session post haste.

    It’s a cliche at this point to mock college “snowflakes” – students who’ve lived their lives in a protective bubble crafted by their parents and whose temper tantrums hold entire classrooms (and social media networks, and workplaces) in thrall. However, the utter cowardice of college administrators and most faculty in the face of ‘social justice warrior’ mob bullying has created a positive reinforcement loop wherein non-snowflake students (and even faculty!) see the snowflakes getting what they want and, consciously or otherwise, begin to emulate them.

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/498073-kings-college-woke-segregation-muslims/

    • Replies: @Fluesterwitz
    @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder

    Maybe they should change university to diversity?

  55. @ziggurat
    @AnotherDad

    Here's my restatement of the idea, with some ebellishments, expressed in a more formal way:

    Whereas our government is presently printing trillions and trillions, and
    whereas there has recently been much talk of reparations, and
    whereas there is widespread belief in the incurability of systemic, anti-black racism, and
    whereas there is urgency to quickly address reparations and systemic racism,

    ... let us immediately enact the following proposal …

    … 200K to any black U.S. citizen, with these conditions:
    1) must give up U.S. citizenship and any U.S. residency/visa status
    2) move to a majority black country, with no option to ever return

    … and these national conditions:
    3) end affirmative action and all other existing, explicitly race-conscious governmental policies
    4) require that all immigrants have to be of Western European heritage

    You might say, “wait that’s too expensive!” But a trillion is a big number. With one trillion, you could pay 5 million people 200K. And Congress just created a 2 trillion dollar stimulus package, while seemingly every day, the Federal Reserve is announcing a new trillion dollar program. What’s a few more trillion on the heap?

    With 8 trillion, you could pay all 40 million blacks to leave.

    However, would they leave? Maybe not all at once, but after a few have left and got settled, then others would follow. But which countries would take them? We might need to incentivize those countries too.

    How many would need to leave to make it worth it? If 50% left, would that be better? Should it just apply to those in their "fertility prime"? Perhaps, if past the "fertility prime", the reparations is just 100K?

    In one way, it's a win just talking about it, as AnotherDad says:


    But the beauty of advancing “separation” is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. “Separation” simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you’re oppressed why don’t you want to split?
     

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder

    If you’re oppressed why don’t you want to split?

    Because the USA is increasingly run on old-testament (jewish) precepts rather than new-testament (christian). Hence revenge for all slights (real or imagined) is preferred to peaceful accommodation, or even peaceful separation.

    • Thanks: HammerJack
  56. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Grahamsno(G64)
    @Corvinus

    Yes thanks and if the Slaves were liabilities rather than assets why did the South fight to death over the issue?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AnotherDad

    Is this a serious question? Are iSteve readers even becoming less literate? Really? Is anyone arguing that slavery did not benefit plantation owners? Because there are plenty of systems with grossly inefficient growth mechanisms that survive for a long time because they benefit the elite of that society. That the Southern elite wanted slavery actually says nothing about how beneficial slavery was to the economic development of the South as a whole — and certainly not remotely America as a whole. It’s interesting that at the start of the American Civil War both the North and South primarily used a mixture of British and American firearms. At the end of 4 years the massive Union military was almost entirely armed with high quality Northern developed and locally manufactured weapons, the South relied on imported European weapons and captured Northern weapons. It’s almost as if slavery was actually greatly injurious to the economic and industrial development of the South, yet strangely, and simultaneously, responsible for the great wealth of the non-slave portion of the country that defeated it. I actually do think at some deep level BLM protestors are indeed correct to pull down statues of men like Grant, as one must not look to closely at mid 19 Century American history in general. Such a close look would reveal how little slaves actually contributed to America, at such a great human price.

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
    @Anonymous

    Excellent comment. Sentences four, five, and six really hit the nail on the head.

    , @Ron Mexico
    @Anonymous

    Anon 227, you are correct, sir! The Union could have fought the CW until no Confederates existed. Munitions, uniforms, transportation, telegraph communication, the ability to feed their army. Slavery retarded the growth of the Deep South.

  57. @Wilkey
    @onetwothree


    The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: “Canada”. That’s what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.
     
    Nope. You also need to include Australia and New Zealand in that, just to drive home the point that Canada isn’t merely a one off, or simply well-off due to its proximity to the United States. The colonies established by Anglo-Saxon settlers from Great Britain are all doing quite well, thank you, and our success has absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder

    Come January mention of any of those countries will get you hauled up on hate speech charges.

  58. I thought our debt was fully repaid in Obamaphones.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    @The Alarmist

    I agreed with the part where she said "Romney sucks"!

  59. @Anonymous
    Hey, that’s Judah Benjamin on that Confederate currency!

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/judah-p-benjamin-and-the-jewish-goal-of-whiteness-in-the-antebellum-south/

    Times of Israel Blog

    Judah P. Benjamin and the Jewish goal of whiteness [sic] in the antebellum South

    It happened supporting the slavery and then the Confederacy was ticket to that acceptance for Jews living in the South and they took advantage of everything their whiteness [sic] could offer them in America.

     

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @slumber_j

    It was all about the Benjamins!!

  60. @syonredux
    @Corvinus

    I would recommend that you read Gavin Wright's work, dear fellow:



    "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.
    "



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

    Replies: @Corvinus

    I am familiar with his argument, as you highlighted it before. Of course, there are competing theories, but in my estimation the sources I provided undercut Wright’s thesis.

    Nonetheless…

    https://journalofthecivilwarera.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Final-Rockman.pdf

    This brief survey has attempted to highlight the latest research on the American economy during the decades between the Revolution and the Civil War. It is worth noting the methodological eclecticism of this scholarship, a testament to new claims on the economic past by those who by no means identify as “economic historians.” To be sure, social, political, and cultural historians could afford to be in greater dialogue with scholars inclined toward quantification and armed with technical expertise on issues like specie flows and currency discounts; likewise, the highly specialized work of economic historians on essential topics like banking must be made accessible to lay readers. Ultimately, the economic past is open for reconsideration by historians using whatever tools they have at their disposal. One of the most promising opportunities for the study of slavery and capitalism is in the fruitful collaboration of scholars working across fields like visual and material culture, the history of management and accounting, and political economy (just to name a few possibilities). Particularly liberating is that this research need not pursue a causal relationship between capitalism and slavery as its ultimate goal. The question of whether slavery caused capitalism or capitalism caused slavery carries much less urgency than it once did; so too does the matter of whether slavery is in, of, or outside capitalism. What seems most important here is that slavery was indispensible to the American economy as it rose to global importance in the nineteenth century, and that no narrative can explain the nation’s spectacular pattern of development without placing slavery front and center.

    and…

    https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/History/Fall-2020-Slavery-and-Capitalism.pdf

    No scholar seriously doubts that there was a strong relationship between the development of capitalism and the emergence of New World slave plantations. Where they disagree is over the nature of that relationship. Was slavery itself a form of capitalism, or was the master-slave relationship fundamentally different from capitalist social relations? Did slavery give rise to capitalism, or did capitalism give rise to slavery? This course will address these questions, beginning with a survey of the way scholars have addressed them. Then, with a particular focus on the United States, we will address the theoretical and empirical question of whether the slave economy of the Old South was or was not capitalist. Finally, we will shift to the very different question of the relationship between southern slavery, especially the cotton economy, and the industrialization of the North.

    • Replies: @blake121666
    @Corvinus


    I am familiar with his argument, as you highlighted it before. Of course, there are competing theories, but in my estimation the sources I provided undercut Wright’s thesis.
     
    How did the sources you provided "undercut" his thesis?

    His thesis was that exports were only 7% of US GDP.

    And the sources you keep going on about are simply stating that the textile industry was very large. But one of your sources offhandedly stated that cotton wasn't even as big as wheat within the internal economy of the USA. How many slaves were involved in the wheat production of the time?

    An interesting tidbit in your quotes was the statement that 1/5 of all workers in Britain were involved in some way or other in the textile industry. How large was that a percentage of Britain's GDP at the time? And what was Britain's GDP in relation to the USA's at the time?

    And then they go on and on about exports blah blah blah, capitalism blah blah blah. Blah blah blah!

    The point of the OP was that exports were a small part of the USA (and other countries') GDP.

    Please refute this point for us from your quotes. Show how your quotes undercut the point.

    Can you explain your reasoning about "undercutting" his point? I am genuinely not getting your attitude.

    Slave industries were important for cash crops - for export. But exports were not all that important for the wealth of the USA is the point. Please refute this point.

    , @syonredux
    @Corvinus


    What seems most important here is that slavery was indispensible to the American economy as it rose to global importance in the nineteenth century, and that no narrative can explain the nation’s spectacular pattern of development without placing slavery front and center.
     
    That's utter bilge. Again, look at the data:

    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 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 attainment 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 Development and Education in the Limestone South” Chapter 14 in Slavery’s Capitalism
     
    http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2016/12/capitalism-and-slavery-debate-is-not.html
  61. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    So....you failed completely to address why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand prospered without slavery, and most of Latin America -- which had slavery in far vaster forms... didn't? Honestly, you seem very slow on the uptake -- based directly on your bolded portions -- on the idea that in the 19th Century ownership of people as a measurement of wealth actually mattered as a real factor in economic development. So, to break it down to your comprehension level: a non-slave region with lots of factories and railroads could be on paper poorer than a slave region with lots of slaves...the fact this is so should be a deep lesson in humility for economists and economic historians. Free those slaves with a stoke of a pen, and suddenly that wealth disappears...the region is not nearly so wealthy or productive per free citizen. (Factories and railroads can also be destroyed, it just takes more than laws, and the societies that produced them are more intrinsically productive.) I'm also curious about the fact the abolition of slavery did nothing to retard the growth of the British Empire in 1833 -- Brazil had 60 years of slavery advantage there -- nor was the British Empire more than slightly inconvenienced by the American Civil War. It seems risible, by the way, to any thinking man, that Yankee trading ships, roaming the oceans even before the United States was formed, would not have found other cheap sources of cotton for Northern factories. What I think cute, but ironic, and also not to a small extent pathetic, is anyone defending slavery reparations droning on about the importance of King Cotton with the earnestness of a Mississippi plantation owner circa 1857. My opinion is anyone asserting slavery is responsible for American growth is a provincial rube ignorant of global history, and should study said subject with much more diligence...but if you are merely a propagandist, I do apologise -- I understand you are just doing your job. We all have to make a living.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “So….you failed completely to address why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand prospered without slavery, and most of Latin America — which had slavery in far vaster forms… didn’t?”

    –Red herring. The assertion I countered was “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people”.

    “Honestly, you seem very slow on the uptake — based directly on your bolded portions — on the idea that in the 19th Century ownership of people as a measurement of wealth actually mattered as a real factor in economic development”.

    –Based on the sources, indeed. So, what specific statements in the bolded portions do you disagree with? What is your reasoning?

    “So, to break it down to your comprehension level: a non-slave region with lots of factories and railroads could be on paper poorer than a slave region with lots of slaves…the fact this is so should be a deep lesson in humility for economists and economic historians.”

    –On what basis do you believe these authors neglected to take into account your objection?

    “Free those slaves with a stoke of a pen, and suddenly that wealth disappears…”

    –So how does this statement directly fit with the thesis offered?

    “It seems risible, by the way, to any thinking man, that Yankee trading ships, roaming the oceans even before the United States was formed, would not have found other cheap sources of cotton for Northern factories.”

    –During the colonial period, a symbiotic economic relationship developed between the regions, so northern merchants focused on obtaining southern cotton. Recall that cotton was considered a luxury good prior to the English Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, and that northern factories for textiles did not develop in earnest until the early 1800’s.

    “What I think cute, but ironic, and also not to a small extent pathetic, is anyone defending slavery reparations droning on about the importance of King Cotton with the earnestness of a Mississippi plantation owner circa 1857”

    –Strawman. I did not directly nor indirectly defend slavery reparations in my post.

    “My opinion is anyone asserting slavery is responsible for American growth is a provincial rube ignorant of global history, and should study said subject with much more diligence…but if you are merely a propagandist.”

    –You do realize that your ad hominems are not arguments, right? So, please offer your cogent rebuttal to the sources I provided. Otherwise, you have done nothing to refute the ideas presented by the authors I cited.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you. The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer's post -- besides it being funny -- is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America. You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it. Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to. In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development, to include of course the non-planter white population (By 1860 slaves were roughly 13 - 14 percent of the total American population, but perhaps 40 percent of the population across all the states that joined the Confederacy.)

    If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance. Implying -- which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States -- the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous. The fact is the world was a lot more unequal in the year 1900 than 1800, economically, and that precisely had to do with unequal distribution of technological advancement and industrialization across the world in various societies. I love farming, but the United States rose to world power based on its enormous industrial capability, not its ability to grow cash crops.

    Slave-based economies were actually a serious disadvantage in an industrializing world, and again, this has never been hidden from view -- it was literally recognized at the time. What Australia, and the United Kingdom, and Canada share with the United States -- besides being founded or inhabited by similar cultural groups during crucial development times -- to achieve similar levels of per capita development is not slavery. What they do share is a roughly similar timeline of industrialization.

    Replies: @S, @Corvinus

  62. @Cato
    @AnotherDad

    Were I Black, and could walk through the [safer] streets of Kinshasa without being recognized as a foreigner, I think it would be a cool place to live. Especially if I had $200K to start me off. I wouldn't try anywhere in East Africa, because I wouldn't look local -- especially not in Ethiopia. But Kinshasa! The few women I've met from there were extremely hot.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Dave Pinsen, @Giancarlo M. Kumquat

    Did you offer them a cool drink,seeing as they were hot?

  63. @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
    RT [naturally] on academic wokistocracy in the UK and USA:

    King’s College is not an outlier when it comes to its efforts to exhume the long-dead corpse of segregation and dress it up with the trappings of 21st-century wokeness. Last month, in chutzpah-laden screeds, faculty at both Princeton and the University of Southern California demanded their own variations on “separate but equal,” from requiring black faculty members have their work evaluated only by their “racial peers” to paying minority students to mentor underclass(wo)men of their own race.

    Gone, apparently, is the notion that university should be about exposure to new and different ideas, cultures, and people. Indeed, should a student accidentally stumble across an intellectually stimulating and unfamiliar concept in 2020, he or she is likely to cry out in mental anguish and demand a (racially appropriate) counseling session post haste.

    It’s a cliche at this point to mock college “snowflakes” – students who’ve lived their lives in a protective bubble crafted by their parents and whose temper tantrums hold entire classrooms (and social media networks, and workplaces) in thrall. However, the utter cowardice of college administrators and most faculty in the face of ‘social justice warrior’ mob bullying has created a positive reinforcement loop wherein non-snowflake students (and even faculty!) see the snowflakes getting what they want and, consciously or otherwise, begin to emulate them.

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/498073-kings-college-woke-segregation-muslims/


     

    Replies: @Fluesterwitz

    Maybe they should change university to diversity?

  64. @Dave Pinsen
    Reparations could be the key to solving America's race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.

    In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.

    Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.

    According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).

    Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon

    In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama.

    No. The yankees fought to free them then worked for desegregation. Move the blacks north. Massachusetts would be a perfect homeland for 40 million blacks. Don’t let any of the current residents move out either.

    • Agree: kikz
  65. @AnotherDad
    @Cloudbuster



    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
     
    So on what will we spend the $200k each of those blacks owes us for the benefit of being born in in a fantastically better, more prosperous country? … I’m assuming you are saying each will pay the US $200k, right, to help balance the scales and put them back where they would be if they had been born in Africa?
     
    Cloudbuster, think this through. Starting with jumping back to reality. Black Americans have rights just like any Americans. The current incentive for them to abandon American citizenship is zero, and unsurprisingly--because all this "oppression" stuff is nonsense--very few of them leave.

    What will it say about all the crap the minoritarians have rained down upon us for 60 years--"racism!" "legacy of slavery", "oppression", "systemic racism", etc.--when we offer $200K to young blacks to renounce and move back to Africa ... and almost none of them do? Or all the shrieks and howls at this reparations offer itself?

    Minoritarianism--minorities oppressed/virtuous, majorities (white gentiles) oppressive/evil; now the official establishment ideology, more important than trivial stuff like "equal justice under law" or even "rule of law" itself--is an end-to-end lie. A lie debunked by the actual behavior of ... pretty much everyone in the world, immigrants, blacks, the whites who parrot it, even the Jews who have peddled it.

    Demonstrating the absolute fraudulence of the entire minoritarian project is the critical PR task of patriots.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Ben tillman

    It was a joke. Lighten up, Francis.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Cloudbuster


    It was a joke. Lighten up, Francis.
     
    Yeah, i'm not too bright ... and pretty excited about my (or Dave's or anyone else's similar) reparations idea. I want to sell, sell, sell ... it's gonna be great. Great i tell ya!
  66. @Spud Boy
    Was a slave in the old South, who received housing, food, health care and clothing, etc. from his owner significantly worse off than an Irish immigrant working in the factories of the North for pay, but having to provide all those things for himself? They both seem like slaves to me.

    Replies: @Ben tillman

    You are right, but I’d like to talk about the slaves who are seldom brought into the conversation.

    The slaves who had it the worst were those who were drafted into the armed forces of the United States. Tally the number of dead and compare it to any ludicrously exaggerated death toll a Lefty ascribes to slavery in this country.

    Another recently fabricated narrative is that the GI Bill was an example of systemic racism in that blacks allegedly got shafted in regard to the program’s benefits, and that this is a big part of the current wealth difference. But what did they do to earn those benefits?

    Of more than 400,000 dead US servicemen, a grand total of 708 were black.

    • Thanks: Rob McX
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Ben tillman

    "Of more than 400,000 dead US servicemen, a grand total of 708 were black."

    And why is that? Could it be that they were segregated and generally prohibited from serving in the front lines?

    "But what did they do to earn those benefits?"

    Of course, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that more than 2.5 million African American men registered for the draft, and African American women volunteered in large numbers. When combined with black women enlisted into Women's Army Corps, more than one million African Americans served the military.


    During World War II, African-American soldiers served in all fields of service. In the midst of the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, General Eisenhower was severely short of replacement troops for existing all-white companies. Consequently, he made the decision to allow 2000 black servicemen volunteers to serve in segregated platoons under the command of white lieutenants to replenish these companies. These platoons would serve with distinction and, according to an Army survey in the summer of 1945, 84% were ranked "very well" and 16% were ranked "fairly well". No black platoon received a ranking of "poor" by those white officers or white soldiers that fought with them. These platoons were often subject to racist treatment by white military units in occupied Germany and were quickly sent back to their old segregated units after the end of hostilities in Germany. Despite their protests, these brave African-American soldiers ended the war in their old non-combat service units. Though largely forgotten after the war, the temporary experiment with black combat troops proved a success - a small, but important step toward permanent integration during the Korean War.
     
    Are you this obtuse in real life, or are you playing an online character?

    Replies: @res

  67. @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    "Of all the stupid ideas taught about American history today, “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people” has to be the dumbest and most easily debunked."

    LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?

    Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.

    The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660


    By the time shots were fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, cotton was the core ingredient of the world’s most important manufacturing industry. The manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth had grown into “the greatest industry that ever had or could by possibility have ever existed in any age or country,” according to the self-congratulatory but essentially accurate account of British cotton merchant John Benjamin Smith. By multiple measures—the sheer numbers employed, the value of output, profitability—the cotton empire had no parallel.

    One author boldly estimated that in 1862, fully 20 million people worldwide—one out of every 65 people alive—were involved in the cultivation of cotton or the production of cotton cloth. In England alone, which still counted two-thirds of the world’s mechanical spindles in its factories, the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of the population was based on the industry; one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth. Whole regions of Europe and the United States had come to depend on a predictable supply of cheap cotton. Except for wheat, no “raw product,” so the Journal of the Statistical Society of London declared, had “so complete a hold upon the wants of the race.”…

    Slavery stood at the center of the most dynamic and far-reaching production complex in human history. Too often, we prefer to erase the realities of slavery, expropriation, and colonialism from the history of capitalism, craving a nobler, cleaner capitalism. Nineteenth-century observers, in contrast, were cognizant of cotton’s role in reshaping the world. Herman Merivale, British colonial bureaucrat, noted that Manchester’s and Liverpool’s “opulence is as really owing to the toil and suffering of the negro, as if his hands had excavated their docks and fabricated their steam-engines.” Capital accumulation in peripheral commodity production, according to Merivale, was necessary for metropolitan economic expansion, and access to labor, if necessary by coercion, was a precondition for turning abundant lands into productive suppliers of raw materials.
     


    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776

    That cotton came almost exclusively from the slave plantations of the Americas—first from the West Indies and Brazil, then from the United States. When American cotton growers began to enter global markets in the 1790s after the revolution on Saint Domingue—once the world’s most important cotton-growing island—they quickly came to play an important, in fact dominant, role. Already in 1800, 25 percent of cotton landed in Liverpool (the world’s most important cotton port) originated from the American South. Twenty years later that number had increased to 59 percent, and in 1850 a full 72 percent of cotton imported to Britain was grown in the United States. U.S. cotton also accounted for 90 percent of total imports into France, 60 percent of those into the German lands and 92 percent of those shipped to Russia. American cotton captured world markets in a way that few raw material producers had before—or have since…

    When war broke out in April of 1861, this global economic relationship collapsed. At first, the Confederacy hoped to force recognition from European powers by restricting the export of cotton. Once the South understood that this policy was bound to fail because European recognition of the Confederacy was not forthcoming, the Union blockaded southern trade for nearly four years. The “cotton famine,” as it came to be known, was the equivalent of Middle Eastern oil being removed from global markets in the 1970s. It was industrial capitalism’s first global raw materials crisis.

    The effects were dramatic: In Europe, hundreds of thousands of workers lost employment, and social misery and social unrest spread through the textile cities of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Russia. In Alsace, posters went up proclaiming: Du pain ou la mort. Bread or death. Since very little cotton had entered world markets from non-enslaved producers in the first 80 years after the Industrial Revolution, many observers were all but certain that the crisis of slavery, and with it of war capitalism, would lead to a fundamental and long-lasting crisis of industrial capitalism as well. Indeed, when Union Gen. John C. Frémont emancipated the first slaves in Missouri in the fall of 1861, the British journal The Economist worried that such a “fearful measure” might spread to other slaveholding states, “inflict[ing] utter ruin and universal desolation on those fertile territories” and also on the merchants of Boston and New York, “whose prosperity … has always been derived” to a large extent from slave labor.
     
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3

    Contrary to popular belief, the small farmers of New England weren’t alone responsible for establishing America’s economic position as capitalism expanded. Rather, the 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.
     
    http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860

    By 1860, Great Britain, the world’s most powerful country, had become the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and a significant part of that nation’s industry was cotton textiles. Nearly 4,000,000 of Britain’s total population of 21,000,000 were dependent on cotton textile manufacturing. Nearly forty percent of Britain’s exports were cotton textiles. Seventy-five percent of the cotton that supplied Britain’s cotton mills came from the American South, and the labor that produced that cotton came from slaves.

    Because of British demand, cotton was vital to the American economy. The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Douglass C. North, stated that cotton “was the most important proximate cause of expansion” in the 19th century American economy. Cotton accounted for over half of all American exports during the first half of the 19th century. The cotton market supported America’s ability to borrow money from abroad. It also fostered an enormous domestic trade in agricultural products from the West and manufactured goods from the East. In short, cotton helped tie the country together.



    New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.
     
    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king

    Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

    Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.

    What did cotton production and slavery have to do with Great Britain? The figures are astonishing. As Dattel explains: “Britain, the most powerful nation in the world, relied on slave-produced American cotton for over 80 per cent of its essential industrial raw material. English textile mills accounted for 40 percent of Britain’s exports. One-fifth of Britain’s twenty-two million people were directly or indirectly involved with cotton textiles.”

    And, finally, New England? As Ronald Bailey shows, cotton fed the textile revolution in the United States. “In 1860, for example, New England had 52 percent of the manufacturing establishments and 75 percent of the 5.14 million spindles in operation,” he explains. The same goes for looms. In fact, Massachusetts “alone had 30 percent of all spindles, and Rhode Island another 18 percent.” Most impressively of all, “New England mills consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, or 67 percent of the 422.6 million pounds of cotton used by U.S. mills in 1860.” In other words, on the eve of the Civil War, New England’s economy, so fundamentally dependent upon the textile industry, was inextricably intertwined, as Bailey puts it, “to the labor of black people working as slaves in the U.S. South.”
     

    Replies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester

    Any analysis that doesn’t address opportunity cost is worthless.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Ben tillman

    "Any analysis that doesn’t address opportunity cost is worthless."

    How are you certain the sources I listed do not address this concept in their work other than stating it? See, you are going to have to do better. Offer up your own reasoned explanation to back up your assertion.

    I know what I am asking is mentally taxing for you, but you do have all day to figure out what you want to say.

  68. @Anonymous
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    Is this a serious question? Are iSteve readers even becoming less literate? Really? Is anyone arguing that slavery did not benefit plantation owners? Because there are plenty of systems with grossly inefficient growth mechanisms that survive for a long time because they benefit the elite of that society. That the Southern elite wanted slavery actually says nothing about how beneficial slavery was to the economic development of the South as a whole -- and certainly not remotely America as a whole. It's interesting that at the start of the American Civil War both the North and South primarily used a mixture of British and American firearms. At the end of 4 years the massive Union military was almost entirely armed with high quality Northern developed and locally manufactured weapons, the South relied on imported European weapons and captured Northern weapons. It's almost as if slavery was actually greatly injurious to the economic and industrial development of the South, yet strangely, and simultaneously, responsible for the great wealth of the non-slave portion of the country that defeated it. I actually do think at some deep level BLM protestors are indeed correct to pull down statues of men like Grant, as one must not look to closely at mid 19 Century American history in general. Such a close look would reveal how little slaves actually contributed to America, at such a great human price.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Ron Mexico

    Excellent comment. Sentences four, five, and six really hit the nail on the head.

  69. A man can generate about 1/10 HP. Water mills, wind mills, horses, oxen and even primitive steam engines can easily generate much more power.
    A society with even minor technological advances would easily out compete human driven labour since the power gain on exploiting human labour is so low while the power gain burning coal or oil is substantially higher.
    The only place where human ability exceeds machines is in intellectual creativity. The power used by a typical human brain is less than the power used to run the fan in a server cabinet.
    The country that succeeds in generating intellectual creativity at close to the same energy draw as the human brain will dominate the world.

  70. @SafeNow
    The reparations money would/will be used to decamp to White places. There will be plenty of decamping money left over after Nikes; how many pairs of Nikes do you need? Even if acceptance of reparations is expressly tied to separation, the promise to separate would/will be ignored. The Supreme Court would invalidate any “I will not decamp” promise as fast as you can say “Roberts.”

    “Sorry“ number two: The idea of speaking out. Today you would merely be fired, and, lose your family and friends, unless you happen to live in a dwindling number of places. After the ‘la Justice Department takes control in 2021, you will be jailed for a “hate crime.” The chilling effect will silence you. Heck, you might say something over the dinner table, and your own kids would repeat it to the teacher, and off you go. So you don’t say it in the first place.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    The reparations money would/will be used to decamp to White places.

    Will it?

    Blacks in the West have an almost pathological need to be surrounded by urban squalor, and a pathological aversion to rural areas and nature.

  71. @Anon7
    We already know the score on reparations, straight from the Marxist mouths of Black Lives Matter - when black people break in and steal what they want, that's reparations.

    So you see, all inner-city armed robbery, every break-in, every riot with looting - it's all reparations. But what if you've looted everything within reach?

    Black activists have already identified the problem, and found the solution. Call it the Willie Sutton strategy - to get the money, go where the whites are. The expensive shopping districts, and ESPECIALLY the suburbs.

    In a related story, Michigan's Leftist governor won't let go of her pet program - some sort of direct public transportation that goes from inner city Detroit into wealthy Ann Arbor. Ballot initiatives have failed miserably - there's nothing Democrat strategists hate more than needing the approval of voters. There's got to be a way!

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    In a related story, Michigan’s Leftist governor won’t let go of her pet program – some sort of direct public transportation that goes from inner city Detroit into wealthy Ann Arbor.

    Of course. She’s a Michigan State alum, and any opportunity to stick it to U of M is the most important thing.

    Geography also works in her favor since East Lansing is much farther from Detroit.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @The Wild Geese Howard



    In a related story, Michigan’s Leftist governor won’t let go of her pet program – some sort of direct public transportation that goes from inner city Detroit into wealthy Ann Arbor.
     
    Of course. She’s a Michigan State alum, and any opportunity to stick it to U of M is the most important thing.
     
    Isteve readers should support this. Force your adversary to live up to their own “principles.”
    , @Ron Mexico
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    "Of course. She’s a Michigan State alum, and any opportunity to stick it to U of M is the most important thing."
    Hadn't thought of that influencing the recent allegations that she is preventing U of M from joining a proposed 6 team Big 10 football season, but it certainly could be a factor. I just figured that she is a giant c$!t and leave it at that.

    , @Anon7
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    No one either in or out of their right mind would invade East Lansing. Also, while the UM campus is concentrated and lush, MSU is a land-grant college that is spread out all over the landscape. The first thing most MSU students buy is a bicycle. It would be exhausting to march in it or invade it.

    Didn't think about the MSU alum vs. UM hate, but you nailed that one; it has divided residents and indeed families for a century, that I know of.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  72. @Ben tillman
    @Corvinus

    Any analysis that doesn’t address opportunity cost is worthless.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Any analysis that doesn’t address opportunity cost is worthless.”

    How are you certain the sources I listed do not address this concept in their work other than stating it? See, you are going to have to do better. Offer up your own reasoned explanation to back up your assertion.

    I know what I am asking is mentally taxing for you, but you do have all day to figure out what you want to say.

  73. @Ben tillman
    @Spud Boy

    You are right, but I’d like to talk about the slaves who are seldom brought into the conversation.

    The slaves who had it the worst were those who were drafted into the armed forces of the United States. Tally the number of dead and compare it to any ludicrously exaggerated death toll a Lefty ascribes to slavery in this country.

    Another recently fabricated narrative is that the GI Bill was an example of systemic racism in that blacks allegedly got shafted in regard to the program’s benefits, and that this is a big part of the current wealth difference. But what did they do to earn those benefits?

    Of more than 400,000 dead US servicemen, a grand total of 708 were black.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Of more than 400,000 dead US servicemen, a grand total of 708 were black.”

    And why is that? Could it be that they were segregated and generally prohibited from serving in the front lines?

    “But what did they do to earn those benefits?”

    Of course, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that more than 2.5 million African American men registered for the draft, and African American women volunteered in large numbers. When combined with black women enlisted into Women’s Army Corps, more than one million African Americans served the military.

    During World War II, African-American soldiers served in all fields of service. In the midst of the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, General Eisenhower was severely short of replacement troops for existing all-white companies. Consequently, he made the decision to allow 2000 black servicemen volunteers to serve in segregated platoons under the command of white lieutenants to replenish these companies. These platoons would serve with distinction and, according to an Army survey in the summer of 1945, 84% were ranked “very well” and 16% were ranked “fairly well”. No black platoon received a ranking of “poor” by those white officers or white soldiers that fought with them. These platoons were often subject to racist treatment by white military units in occupied Germany and were quickly sent back to their old segregated units after the end of hostilities in Germany. Despite their protests, these brave African-American soldiers ended the war in their old non-combat service units. Though largely forgotten after the war, the temporary experiment with black combat troops proved a success – a small, but important step toward permanent integration during the Korean War.

    Are you this obtuse in real life, or are you playing an online character?

    • Replies: @res
    @Corvinus


    Are you this obtuse in real life, or are you playing an online character?
     
    At least your projection is occasionally entertaining.
  74. @onetwothree
    The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: "Canada".

    That's what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @syonredux, @Wilkey, @Buffalo Joe, @Antonius

    Why on earth would anyone credit the modern savage and his antecedents with anything. I would sooner give Seabiscuit et al reparations and credit for helping build the nation. Ek is wragtag gatvol!

  75. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "So….you failed completely to address why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand prospered without slavery, and most of Latin America — which had slavery in far vaster forms… didn’t?"

    --Red herring. The assertion I countered was “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people”.

    "Honestly, you seem very slow on the uptake — based directly on your bolded portions — on the idea that in the 19th Century ownership of people as a measurement of wealth actually mattered as a real factor in economic development".

    --Based on the sources, indeed. So, what specific statements in the bolded portions do you disagree with? What is your reasoning?

    "So, to break it down to your comprehension level: a non-slave region with lots of factories and railroads could be on paper poorer than a slave region with lots of slaves…the fact this is so should be a deep lesson in humility for economists and economic historians."

    --On what basis do you believe these authors neglected to take into account your objection?

    "Free those slaves with a stoke of a pen, and suddenly that wealth disappears..."

    --So how does this statement directly fit with the thesis offered?

    "It seems risible, by the way, to any thinking man, that Yankee trading ships, roaming the oceans even before the United States was formed, would not have found other cheap sources of cotton for Northern factories."

    --During the colonial period, a symbiotic economic relationship developed between the regions, so northern merchants focused on obtaining southern cotton. Recall that cotton was considered a luxury good prior to the English Industrial Revolution in the 1700's, and that northern factories for textiles did not develop in earnest until the early 1800's.

    "What I think cute, but ironic, and also not to a small extent pathetic, is anyone defending slavery reparations droning on about the importance of King Cotton with the earnestness of a Mississippi plantation owner circa 1857"

    --Strawman. I did not directly nor indirectly defend slavery reparations in my post.

    "My opinion is anyone asserting slavery is responsible for American growth is a provincial rube ignorant of global history, and should study said subject with much more diligence…but if you are merely a propagandist."

    --You do realize that your ad hominems are not arguments, right? So, please offer your cogent rebuttal to the sources I provided. Otherwise, you have done nothing to refute the ideas presented by the authors I cited.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you. The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer’s post — besides it being funny — is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America. You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it. Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to. In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development, to include of course the non-planter white population (By 1860 slaves were roughly 13 – 14 percent of the total American population, but perhaps 40 percent of the population across all the states that joined the Confederacy.)

    If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance. Implying — which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States — the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous. The fact is the world was a lot more unequal in the year 1900 than 1800, economically, and that precisely had to do with unequal distribution of technological advancement and industrialization across the world in various societies. I love farming, but the United States rose to world power based on its enormous industrial capability, not its ability to grow cash crops.

    Slave-based economies were actually a serious disadvantage in an industrializing world, and again, this has never been hidden from view — it was literally recognized at the time. What Australia, and the United Kingdom, and Canada share with the United States — besides being founded or inhabited by similar cultural groups during crucial development times — to achieve similar levels of per capita development is not slavery. What they do share is a roughly similar timeline of industrialization.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @S
    @Anonymous


    Slave-based economies were actually a serious disadvantage in an industrializing world, and again, this has never been hidden from view — it was literally recognized at the time.

     

    The financial representative of the Lincoln administration in London during the critical war year of 1863, Robert Walker, made the following economic calculations below while in that city. Taking multiple variables into account, he compared wage slave (so called 'cheap labor') dependent Massachusetts, with chattel slave dependendent South Carolina, and concluded Mass's system was four to one more efficient, productive, and profitable, than South Carolina's.

    The Continental Monthly (March, 1864) – American Finances and Resources

    “The educated free labor of Massachusetts, we have seen, doubles the products of toil, per capita, as compared with Maryland, and quadruples them (as the Census shows) compared with South Carolina….”
     
    Eliza Andrews, whose family had been one of the self described ‘privileged 4000’ families who ruled over the South thru 1865, and as an adult had lived through the war in Georgia, says in words what Walker had said in numbers with his London economic calculations.

    ‘..a question of dollars and cents..’

    The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl 1864 – 1865 (1908) – Eliza Andrews

    ‘Our Southern States, being still in the agricultural stage, on account of our practical monopoly of the world’s chief textile staple, were the last of the great civilized nations to find chattel slavery less profitable than wage slavery, and hence the “great moral crusade” of the North against the perverse and unregenerate South.’

    ‘It was a pure case of economic determinism, which means that our great moral conflict reduces itself, in the last analysis, to a question of dollars and cents, though the real issue was so obscured by other considerations that we of the South honestly believe to this day that we were fighting for States Rights, while the North is equally honest in the conviction that it was engaged in a magnanimous struggle to free the slave.’
     
    I tend to agree with the US economist and Lincoln economic adviser, Henry Charles Carey, and his 1853 observation that the North's so called 'cheap labor'/'mass immigration' system was simply the 'slave trade of the last century, but on a grander scale'...ie that the commerce oriented North had simply monetized chattel slavery and it's trade, that is distilled it to it's financial essence, whilst maximizing profits, and that it's system too was based on the systematic theft of labor, the financial essence of slavery.

    The guns were turned upon the wrong people in that damnable war.

    https://www.unz.com/proberts/the-bankers-blood-money-secession-and-invasion/#comment-4068778

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you."

    What is it with the anony's here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?

    The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer’s post — besides it being funny — is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America.

    "You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it."

    Once again, you are offering a strawman. I never directly nor indirectly made this assertion.

    "Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to."

    The sources I provided state otherwise. Again, what specifically from the citations do you object to? Show your work.

    "In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development..."

    You mean like Hinton Helper?

    "If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance."

    According to Who/Whom?

    "Implying — which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States — the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous."

    That is another strawman on your part.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @res

  76. Anonymous[758] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    @Dave Pinsen


    Reparations could be the key to solving America’s race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.
     
    Spot on Dave. Spot on.

    The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.

    If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.

    But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?

    Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite

    The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.

    Did their ancestors suffer? African workers and their families received food, shelter, medical care, cradle-to-grave social security, a degree of education and technical training (some quite a lot, actually). They got to live under the protective umbrella of White governance, with the security, stability, and rule of law that comes with it, and that the rest of the world is still clamoring to get a piece of.

    How did the rest of humanity live at the time? How did standards of living, life spans, and fertility compare? What were the life prospects of the average African then?

  77. Anonymous[758] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Anon7


    In a related story, Michigan’s Leftist governor won’t let go of her pet program – some sort of direct public transportation that goes from inner city Detroit into wealthy Ann Arbor.
     
    Of course. She's a Michigan State alum, and any opportunity to stick it to U of M is the most important thing.

    Geography also works in her favor since East Lansing is much farther from Detroit.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Ron Mexico, @Anon7

    In a related story, Michigan’s Leftist governor won’t let go of her pet program – some sort of direct public transportation that goes from inner city Detroit into wealthy Ann Arbor.

    Of course. She’s a Michigan State alum, and any opportunity to stick it to U of M is the most important thing.

    Isteve readers should support this. Force your adversary to live up to their own “principles.”

  78. @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    "Of all the stupid ideas taught about American history today, “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people” has to be the dumbest and most easily debunked."

    LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?

    Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.

    The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660


    By the time shots were fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, cotton was the core ingredient of the world’s most important manufacturing industry. The manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth had grown into “the greatest industry that ever had or could by possibility have ever existed in any age or country,” according to the self-congratulatory but essentially accurate account of British cotton merchant John Benjamin Smith. By multiple measures—the sheer numbers employed, the value of output, profitability—the cotton empire had no parallel.

    One author boldly estimated that in 1862, fully 20 million people worldwide—one out of every 65 people alive—were involved in the cultivation of cotton or the production of cotton cloth. In England alone, which still counted two-thirds of the world’s mechanical spindles in its factories, the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of the population was based on the industry; one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth. Whole regions of Europe and the United States had come to depend on a predictable supply of cheap cotton. Except for wheat, no “raw product,” so the Journal of the Statistical Society of London declared, had “so complete a hold upon the wants of the race.”…

    Slavery stood at the center of the most dynamic and far-reaching production complex in human history. Too often, we prefer to erase the realities of slavery, expropriation, and colonialism from the history of capitalism, craving a nobler, cleaner capitalism. Nineteenth-century observers, in contrast, were cognizant of cotton’s role in reshaping the world. Herman Merivale, British colonial bureaucrat, noted that Manchester’s and Liverpool’s “opulence is as really owing to the toil and suffering of the negro, as if his hands had excavated their docks and fabricated their steam-engines.” Capital accumulation in peripheral commodity production, according to Merivale, was necessary for metropolitan economic expansion, and access to labor, if necessary by coercion, was a precondition for turning abundant lands into productive suppliers of raw materials.
     


    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776

    That cotton came almost exclusively from the slave plantations of the Americas—first from the West Indies and Brazil, then from the United States. When American cotton growers began to enter global markets in the 1790s after the revolution on Saint Domingue—once the world’s most important cotton-growing island—they quickly came to play an important, in fact dominant, role. Already in 1800, 25 percent of cotton landed in Liverpool (the world’s most important cotton port) originated from the American South. Twenty years later that number had increased to 59 percent, and in 1850 a full 72 percent of cotton imported to Britain was grown in the United States. U.S. cotton also accounted for 90 percent of total imports into France, 60 percent of those into the German lands and 92 percent of those shipped to Russia. American cotton captured world markets in a way that few raw material producers had before—or have since…

    When war broke out in April of 1861, this global economic relationship collapsed. At first, the Confederacy hoped to force recognition from European powers by restricting the export of cotton. Once the South understood that this policy was bound to fail because European recognition of the Confederacy was not forthcoming, the Union blockaded southern trade for nearly four years. The “cotton famine,” as it came to be known, was the equivalent of Middle Eastern oil being removed from global markets in the 1970s. It was industrial capitalism’s first global raw materials crisis.

    The effects were dramatic: In Europe, hundreds of thousands of workers lost employment, and social misery and social unrest spread through the textile cities of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Russia. In Alsace, posters went up proclaiming: Du pain ou la mort. Bread or death. Since very little cotton had entered world markets from non-enslaved producers in the first 80 years after the Industrial Revolution, many observers were all but certain that the crisis of slavery, and with it of war capitalism, would lead to a fundamental and long-lasting crisis of industrial capitalism as well. Indeed, when Union Gen. John C. Frémont emancipated the first slaves in Missouri in the fall of 1861, the British journal The Economist worried that such a “fearful measure” might spread to other slaveholding states, “inflict[ing] utter ruin and universal desolation on those fertile territories” and also on the merchants of Boston and New York, “whose prosperity … has always been derived” to a large extent from slave labor.
     
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3

    Contrary to popular belief, the small farmers of New England weren’t alone responsible for establishing America’s economic position as capitalism expanded. Rather, the 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.
     
    http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860

    By 1860, Great Britain, the world’s most powerful country, had become the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and a significant part of that nation’s industry was cotton textiles. Nearly 4,000,000 of Britain’s total population of 21,000,000 were dependent on cotton textile manufacturing. Nearly forty percent of Britain’s exports were cotton textiles. Seventy-five percent of the cotton that supplied Britain’s cotton mills came from the American South, and the labor that produced that cotton came from slaves.

    Because of British demand, cotton was vital to the American economy. The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Douglass C. North, stated that cotton “was the most important proximate cause of expansion” in the 19th century American economy. Cotton accounted for over half of all American exports during the first half of the 19th century. The cotton market supported America’s ability to borrow money from abroad. It also fostered an enormous domestic trade in agricultural products from the West and manufactured goods from the East. In short, cotton helped tie the country together.



    New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.
     
    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king

    Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

    Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.

    What did cotton production and slavery have to do with Great Britain? The figures are astonishing. As Dattel explains: “Britain, the most powerful nation in the world, relied on slave-produced American cotton for over 80 per cent of its essential industrial raw material. English textile mills accounted for 40 percent of Britain’s exports. One-fifth of Britain’s twenty-two million people were directly or indirectly involved with cotton textiles.”

    And, finally, New England? As Ronald Bailey shows, cotton fed the textile revolution in the United States. “In 1860, for example, New England had 52 percent of the manufacturing establishments and 75 percent of the 5.14 million spindles in operation,” he explains. The same goes for looms. In fact, Massachusetts “alone had 30 percent of all spindles, and Rhode Island another 18 percent.” Most impressively of all, “New England mills consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, or 67 percent of the 422.6 million pounds of cotton used by U.S. mills in 1860.” In other words, on the eve of the Civil War, New England’s economy, so fundamentally dependent upon the textile industry, was inextricably intertwined, as Bailey puts it, “to the labor of black people working as slaves in the U.S. South.”
     

    Replies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester

    LOL — “King Cotton” Corny

    It’s funny to see all the little apparatchiks of the latest minoritarian fantasy–1619! America built on slavery!–now babbling like Mississippi plantation owners.

    But guess what Corny. The King Cotton boys proved wrong.

    Cotton had been about 5% of the US economy. Important, but hardly “the economy”. It was a larger share–10%ish–of investment capital. But most of the surplus generated went into more land and slaves–i.e. a faster increase of the US black population–and fancy plantation homes and consumption.

    Corny, do you even realize what a statement like:

    … shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks, seven times …”

    means? It means that the profits of slavery went into breeding more blacks. Not actual capital accumulation for the US at all. Slavery’s profits resulted in black bodies around today. Black–legacy black–Americans are the slavery’s big result, not real economic growth.

    The northern economy turned out not to be dependent on cotton. The North prevailed in the War without even being stretched economically.

    European cotton mills had an immediate crisis, kicking off a recession … while the British figured out where else they could grow cotton. “Oh, how about Egypt?” And more exported from India. And probably a bunch of other places i don’t know about.

    US slavery was so critical that shutting it down was a speed bump in the world economy, while the US took off in the next generation to become the leading economy in world, the leading industrial power and a world power.

    ~~

    Again, this nonsense doesn’t even rise to the level of “interesting”. This is one of histories counterfactuals where we actually have comparable factuals–Canada, Australia. The US was much, much, much better naturally endowed than those nations and … they don’t suck.

    We also have the “factual” that we killed slavery off … and the world didn’t end. In fact, the South with blacks picking cotton was a continual laggard–a backwater–while the north took off.

    The US would be a richer nation today if the South had developed via yeoman farmers–owning and cultivating their own land. Better, more even, organic growth. Not to say it would have been like the north, malaria would have found it’s way in even without blacks and before window and door screens and DDT and chloroquine and AC the South wasn’t going be as habitable for a white man as the North. But the South would have have been much better with more even, complete and stable development.

    No slavery was a massive screwup, false path, wrong turn. Slavery’s result wasn’t wildly improved growth, but rather a bunch of blacks around… who aren’t exactly engines of economic progress.

    When you blow something up … and the world rolls on, and actually gets better! … that’s kind of a hint.

    • Agree: syonredux
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @AnotherDad

    "It means that the profits of slavery went into breeding more blacks. Not actual capital accumulation for the US at all."

    To the contrary, the profits of slavery went into the pockets of the slaveholder, the cotton merchant, and the industrialist who made textiles. The capital accumulation for the U.S. was in terms of the wealth produced by the slaveholder, the productivity of slaves, and the profits of the cotton trade.

    Replies: @syonredux

  79. @AnotherDad
    @Dave Pinsen


    Reparations could be the key to solving America’s race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.
     
    Spot on Dave. Spot on.

    The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.

    If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.

    Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.

    But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?

    Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite

    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa

    It has to be all of them or this never ends. All or none. If all, it needs to be followed by complete and permanent separation.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
  80. @Sandy Berger's Socks
    Forty acres and a mule.

    In Liberia.

    Sure we will miss their contributions to math and science, but we've held them back long enough.

    Fair is Fair.

    Replies: @Yngvar

    Liberia is constitutionally racist. As Wiki lays bare:

    Article 27(b) of the [1986] Constitution retains the controversial nationality requirements of Article V, Section 13 of the 1847 Constitution, which limits citizenship to “persons who are Negroes or of Negro descent.”

    I can’t imagine any American black wanting to move to another deeply racist nation. They’ll stay.

  81. @AnotherDad
    @Cloudbuster



    I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
     
    So on what will we spend the $200k each of those blacks owes us for the benefit of being born in in a fantastically better, more prosperous country? … I’m assuming you are saying each will pay the US $200k, right, to help balance the scales and put them back where they would be if they had been born in Africa?
     
    Cloudbuster, think this through. Starting with jumping back to reality. Black Americans have rights just like any Americans. The current incentive for them to abandon American citizenship is zero, and unsurprisingly--because all this "oppression" stuff is nonsense--very few of them leave.

    What will it say about all the crap the minoritarians have rained down upon us for 60 years--"racism!" "legacy of slavery", "oppression", "systemic racism", etc.--when we offer $200K to young blacks to renounce and move back to Africa ... and almost none of them do? Or all the shrieks and howls at this reparations offer itself?

    Minoritarianism--minorities oppressed/virtuous, majorities (white gentiles) oppressive/evil; now the official establishment ideology, more important than trivial stuff like "equal justice under law" or even "rule of law" itself--is an end-to-end lie. A lie debunked by the actual behavior of ... pretty much everyone in the world, immigrants, blacks, the whites who parrot it, even the Jews who have peddled it.

    Demonstrating the absolute fraudulence of the entire minoritarian project is the critical PR task of patriots.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Ben tillman

    And, of course, the logical and morally correct solution to the “plight” of minority groups is *autonomy* for them and for the majority in separate territories.

    Instead, we get minority rule to milk the majority. It is a master-slave relationship, and we are the slaves.

  82. @The Alarmist
    I thought our debt was fully repaid in Obamaphones.

    https://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

    Replies: @William Badwhite

    I agreed with the part where she said “Romney sucks”!

    • Agree: The Alarmist
  83. @Corvinus
    @syonredux

    I am familiar with his argument, as you highlighted it before. Of course, there are competing theories, but in my estimation the sources I provided undercut Wright's thesis.

    Nonetheless...

    https://journalofthecivilwarera.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Final-Rockman.pdf


    This brief survey has attempted to highlight the latest research on the American economy during the decades between the Revolution and the Civil War. It is worth noting the methodological eclecticism of this scholarship, a testament to new claims on the economic past by those who by no means identify as “economic historians.” To be sure, social, political, and cultural historians could afford to be in greater dialogue with scholars inclined toward quantification and armed with technical expertise on issues like specie flows and currency discounts; likewise, the highly specialized work of economic historians on essential topics like banking must be made accessible to lay readers. Ultimately, the economic past is open for reconsideration by historians using whatever tools they have at their disposal. One of the most promising opportunities for the study of slavery and capitalism is in the fruitful collaboration of scholars working across fields like visual and material culture, the history of management and accounting, and political economy (just to name a few possibilities). Particularly liberating is that this research need not pursue a causal relationship between capitalism and slavery as its ultimate goal. The question of whether slavery caused capitalism or capitalism caused slavery carries much less urgency than it once did; so too does the matter of whether slavery is in, of, or outside capitalism. What seems most important here is that slavery was indispensible to the American economy as it rose to global importance in the nineteenth century, and that no narrative can explain the nation’s spectacular pattern of development without placing slavery front and center.
     
    and...

    https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/History/Fall-2020-Slavery-and-Capitalism.pdf

    No scholar seriously doubts that there was a strong relationship between the development of capitalism and the emergence of New World slave plantations. Where they disagree is over the nature of that relationship. Was slavery itself a form of capitalism, or was the master-slave relationship fundamentally different from capitalist social relations? Did slavery give rise to capitalism, or did capitalism give rise to slavery? This course will address these questions, beginning with a survey of the way scholars have addressed them. Then, with a particular focus on the United States, we will address the theoretical and empirical question of whether the slave economy of the Old South was or was not capitalist. Finally, we will shift to the very different question of the relationship between southern slavery, especially the cotton economy, and the industrialization of the North.
     

    Replies: @blake121666, @syonredux

    I am familiar with his argument, as you highlighted it before. Of course, there are competing theories, but in my estimation the sources I provided undercut Wright’s thesis.

    How did the sources you provided “undercut” his thesis?

    His thesis was that exports were only 7% of US GDP.

    And the sources you keep going on about are simply stating that the textile industry was very large. But one of your sources offhandedly stated that cotton wasn’t even as big as wheat within the internal economy of the USA. How many slaves were involved in the wheat production of the time?

    An interesting tidbit in your quotes was the statement that 1/5 of all workers in Britain were involved in some way or other in the textile industry. How large was that a percentage of Britain’s GDP at the time? And what was Britain’s GDP in relation to the USA’s at the time?

    And then they go on and on about exports blah blah blah, capitalism blah blah blah. Blah blah blah!

    The point of the OP was that exports were a small part of the USA (and other countries’) GDP.

    Please refute this point for us from your quotes. Show how your quotes undercut the point.

    Can you explain your reasoning about “undercutting” his point? I am genuinely not getting your attitude.

    Slave industries were important for cash crops – for export. But exports were not all that important for the wealth of the USA is the point. Please refute this point.

  84. @Cloudbuster
    @AnotherDad

    It was a joke. Lighten up, Francis.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    It was a joke. Lighten up, Francis.

    Yeah, i’m not too bright … and pretty excited about my (or Dave’s or anyone else’s similar) reparations idea. I want to sell, sell, sell … it’s gonna be great. Great i tell ya!

  85. @MBlanc46
    @Dave Pinsen

    That’s a reasonable enough proposal, Dave, but you know that, not only will it never be implemented, it could never seriously be proposed.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    That’s a reasonable enough proposal, Dave, but you know that, not only will it never be implemented, it could never seriously be proposed.

    This is where i disagree–with a number of folks here.

    The point of this sort of “reparations with separation” or any of the other “separation” ideas is that merely proposing them and stoking the outrage precisely gives away the minoritarian game.

    The plain fact is the minoritarians are parasitic upon whites. (Which to be clear does not mean there aren’t talented minorities doing real work and contributing.) Minorities keep demanding to come toward whites–immigration, integration of your school, country club, neighborhood, nations … while endlessly whining.

    Saying “We can solve your ‘oppression’ problem, we’ll just separate” unmasks the game. It is absolutely critical that conservatives, patriots, do precisely this. Until we blow up their sleazy narrative the minoritarians will keep burying us in bucket after bucket of their sad sack “oppression” shit.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    @AnotherDad

    You are perhaps more confident that such a proposal would ever be listened to.

  86. @Corvinus
    @syonredux

    I am familiar with his argument, as you highlighted it before. Of course, there are competing theories, but in my estimation the sources I provided undercut Wright's thesis.

    Nonetheless...

    https://journalofthecivilwarera.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Final-Rockman.pdf


    This brief survey has attempted to highlight the latest research on the American economy during the decades between the Revolution and the Civil War. It is worth noting the methodological eclecticism of this scholarship, a testament to new claims on the economic past by those who by no means identify as “economic historians.” To be sure, social, political, and cultural historians could afford to be in greater dialogue with scholars inclined toward quantification and armed with technical expertise on issues like specie flows and currency discounts; likewise, the highly specialized work of economic historians on essential topics like banking must be made accessible to lay readers. Ultimately, the economic past is open for reconsideration by historians using whatever tools they have at their disposal. One of the most promising opportunities for the study of slavery and capitalism is in the fruitful collaboration of scholars working across fields like visual and material culture, the history of management and accounting, and political economy (just to name a few possibilities). Particularly liberating is that this research need not pursue a causal relationship between capitalism and slavery as its ultimate goal. The question of whether slavery caused capitalism or capitalism caused slavery carries much less urgency than it once did; so too does the matter of whether slavery is in, of, or outside capitalism. What seems most important here is that slavery was indispensible to the American economy as it rose to global importance in the nineteenth century, and that no narrative can explain the nation’s spectacular pattern of development without placing slavery front and center.
     
    and...

    https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/History/Fall-2020-Slavery-and-Capitalism.pdf

    No scholar seriously doubts that there was a strong relationship between the development of capitalism and the emergence of New World slave plantations. Where they disagree is over the nature of that relationship. Was slavery itself a form of capitalism, or was the master-slave relationship fundamentally different from capitalist social relations? Did slavery give rise to capitalism, or did capitalism give rise to slavery? This course will address these questions, beginning with a survey of the way scholars have addressed them. Then, with a particular focus on the United States, we will address the theoretical and empirical question of whether the slave economy of the Old South was or was not capitalist. Finally, we will shift to the very different question of the relationship between southern slavery, especially the cotton economy, and the industrialization of the North.
     

    Replies: @blake121666, @syonredux

    What seems most important here is that slavery was indispensible to the American economy as it rose to global importance in the nineteenth century, and that no narrative can explain the nation’s spectacular pattern of development without placing slavery front and center.

    That’s utter bilge. Again, look at the data:

    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 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 attainment 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 Development and Education in the Limestone South” Chapter 14 in Slavery’s Capitalism

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

  87. @Grahamsno(G64)
    @Corvinus

    Yes thanks and if the Slaves were liabilities rather than assets why did the South fight to death over the issue?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AnotherDad

    Yes thanks and if the Slaves were liabilities rather than assets why did the South fight to death over the issue?

    Grahamsno, you need better parsing of the issue.

    Anon[277] has already done the thorough rebuttal, but whether slavery is in the interest of particular people–plantation owners–and whether as a system it is beneficial to the economic development of the nation are obviously two separate issues.

    There a ton of people today who benefit from illegal aliens working for them as fruit pickers, farm labor, meat packers, gardeners, housecleaners, janitors, dishwashers, construction labor framing houses or hanging drywall… for less than American wages A these people bunch of ’em squawk like disturbed ducks if you talk about deportation or even e-verify.

    But that does not remotely mean that importing these millions of illegal aliens is beneficial to America, “the American economy” or much less Americans. It merely means a bunch of people now have an economic interest in the illegal alien labor system. For America–our children’s future, the nation’s future–it’s a disaster.

    Slavery was even worse in terms of “lock-in” because the plantation owners actually owned the slaves. They were an asset, so an end to slavery system was not just going to hammer their income and income producing potential of their property, but a bunch of their “wealth” would up and walk off.

    But that means nothing about whether slavery–the slave system–was good for America. In fact, with abolition … a bunch of their owners wealth did up and walk off. Slavery was abolished and the American economy soared to being #1 in the world. Wow. Sure sounds critical.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @AnotherDad


    Slavery was even worse in terms of “lock-in” because the plantation owners actually owned the slaves. They were an asset, so an end to slavery system was not just going to hammer their income and income producing potential of their property, but a bunch of their “wealth” would up and walk off.
     
    Not really. The farm owners could just pay for wage labor and save on the costs of medical care and cradle-to-grave social security. They could also fire poor performers at will.

    The Africans didn’t for the most part “up and walk off” after the civil war. Many stayed and continued working on the farms with the Whites.
    , @S
    @AnotherDad


    There a ton of people today who benefit from illegal aliens working for them as fruit pickers, farm labor, meat packers, gardeners, housecleaners, janitors, dishwashers, construction labor framing houses or hanging drywall… for less than American wages.
     
    Not coincidentally, the very same sorts who profited from chattel slavery and it's trade, and for the very same reason...anything, but anything, than pay the prevailing real time local costs of labor, more often than not, to their very own people.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  88. anon[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @Enemy of Earth
    The question that should be answered by anyone demanding reparations is "Would you rather have been born in Africa or the United States?" If they answer "Africa" give them their reparations but deduct the cost of a ticket back to their beloved Wakanda. The remainder of their reparations will be paid upon their successful repatriation to their Motherland. If they answer "United States" then they forfeit any claims for reparation in recognition of their good fortune of being born here.

    Replies: @anon

    Or, would you rather not have been born at all? It’s not like there is a set number of black souls waiting in the wings for their cue to enter stage right whether the play is being staged in Africa or America.

    For every single American descendant of a slave there would be no play at all. No gleam of light between two eternities of darkness for them. Only darkness. They would never have existed.

    Reparations for blacks is essentially reparations for the unfortunate natural fact that they are black.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
  89. @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    "Of all the stupid ideas taught about American history today, “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people” has to be the dumbest and most easily debunked."

    LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?

    Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.

    The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660


    By the time shots were fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, cotton was the core ingredient of the world’s most important manufacturing industry. The manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth had grown into “the greatest industry that ever had or could by possibility have ever existed in any age or country,” according to the self-congratulatory but essentially accurate account of British cotton merchant John Benjamin Smith. By multiple measures—the sheer numbers employed, the value of output, profitability—the cotton empire had no parallel.

    One author boldly estimated that in 1862, fully 20 million people worldwide—one out of every 65 people alive—were involved in the cultivation of cotton or the production of cotton cloth. In England alone, which still counted two-thirds of the world’s mechanical spindles in its factories, the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of the population was based on the industry; one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth. Whole regions of Europe and the United States had come to depend on a predictable supply of cheap cotton. Except for wheat, no “raw product,” so the Journal of the Statistical Society of London declared, had “so complete a hold upon the wants of the race.”…

    Slavery stood at the center of the most dynamic and far-reaching production complex in human history. Too often, we prefer to erase the realities of slavery, expropriation, and colonialism from the history of capitalism, craving a nobler, cleaner capitalism. Nineteenth-century observers, in contrast, were cognizant of cotton’s role in reshaping the world. Herman Merivale, British colonial bureaucrat, noted that Manchester’s and Liverpool’s “opulence is as really owing to the toil and suffering of the negro, as if his hands had excavated their docks and fabricated their steam-engines.” Capital accumulation in peripheral commodity production, according to Merivale, was necessary for metropolitan economic expansion, and access to labor, if necessary by coercion, was a precondition for turning abundant lands into productive suppliers of raw materials.
     


    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776

    That cotton came almost exclusively from the slave plantations of the Americas—first from the West Indies and Brazil, then from the United States. When American cotton growers began to enter global markets in the 1790s after the revolution on Saint Domingue—once the world’s most important cotton-growing island—they quickly came to play an important, in fact dominant, role. Already in 1800, 25 percent of cotton landed in Liverpool (the world’s most important cotton port) originated from the American South. Twenty years later that number had increased to 59 percent, and in 1850 a full 72 percent of cotton imported to Britain was grown in the United States. U.S. cotton also accounted for 90 percent of total imports into France, 60 percent of those into the German lands and 92 percent of those shipped to Russia. American cotton captured world markets in a way that few raw material producers had before—or have since…

    When war broke out in April of 1861, this global economic relationship collapsed. At first, the Confederacy hoped to force recognition from European powers by restricting the export of cotton. Once the South understood that this policy was bound to fail because European recognition of the Confederacy was not forthcoming, the Union blockaded southern trade for nearly four years. The “cotton famine,” as it came to be known, was the equivalent of Middle Eastern oil being removed from global markets in the 1970s. It was industrial capitalism’s first global raw materials crisis.

    The effects were dramatic: In Europe, hundreds of thousands of workers lost employment, and social misery and social unrest spread through the textile cities of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Russia. In Alsace, posters went up proclaiming: Du pain ou la mort. Bread or death. Since very little cotton had entered world markets from non-enslaved producers in the first 80 years after the Industrial Revolution, many observers were all but certain that the crisis of slavery, and with it of war capitalism, would lead to a fundamental and long-lasting crisis of industrial capitalism as well. Indeed, when Union Gen. John C. Frémont emancipated the first slaves in Missouri in the fall of 1861, the British journal The Economist worried that such a “fearful measure” might spread to other slaveholding states, “inflict[ing] utter ruin and universal desolation on those fertile territories” and also on the merchants of Boston and New York, “whose prosperity … has always been derived” to a large extent from slave labor.
     
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3

    Contrary to popular belief, the small farmers of New England weren’t alone responsible for establishing America’s economic position as capitalism expanded. Rather, the 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.
     
    http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860

    By 1860, Great Britain, the world’s most powerful country, had become the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and a significant part of that nation’s industry was cotton textiles. Nearly 4,000,000 of Britain’s total population of 21,000,000 were dependent on cotton textile manufacturing. Nearly forty percent of Britain’s exports were cotton textiles. Seventy-five percent of the cotton that supplied Britain’s cotton mills came from the American South, and the labor that produced that cotton came from slaves.

    Because of British demand, cotton was vital to the American economy. The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Douglass C. North, stated that cotton “was the most important proximate cause of expansion” in the 19th century American economy. Cotton accounted for over half of all American exports during the first half of the 19th century. The cotton market supported America’s ability to borrow money from abroad. It also fostered an enormous domestic trade in agricultural products from the West and manufactured goods from the East. In short, cotton helped tie the country together.



    New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.
     
    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king

    Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

    Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.

    What did cotton production and slavery have to do with Great Britain? The figures are astonishing. As Dattel explains: “Britain, the most powerful nation in the world, relied on slave-produced American cotton for over 80 per cent of its essential industrial raw material. English textile mills accounted for 40 percent of Britain’s exports. One-fifth of Britain’s twenty-two million people were directly or indirectly involved with cotton textiles.”

    And, finally, New England? As Ronald Bailey shows, cotton fed the textile revolution in the United States. “In 1860, for example, New England had 52 percent of the manufacturing establishments and 75 percent of the 5.14 million spindles in operation,” he explains. The same goes for looms. In fact, Massachusetts “alone had 30 percent of all spindles, and Rhode Island another 18 percent.” Most impressively of all, “New England mills consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, or 67 percent of the 422.6 million pounds of cotton used by U.S. mills in 1860.” In other words, on the eve of the Civil War, New England’s economy, so fundamentally dependent upon the textile industry, was inextricably intertwined, as Bailey puts it, “to the labor of black people working as slaves in the U.S. South.”
     

    Replies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester

    The question is whether you’re a paid smart ideologue or you’re a middling, innumerate simpleton who’s appealing to whatever “authority” du jour is most fashionable. An unsure, uninformed person might fall for that, and many most certainly do, but the fact that you keep pitching more and more indefensible positions speaks volumes to what you really are.

    For anyone needing to refresh their knowledge and shield themselves from Corvinus’ drivel, here’s a concise economic assessment of slavery with meaningful numbers.

    http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2018/06/was-slavery-central-to-american.html

    The topic has been exhaustively researched, way more than it actually should, and you need some serious mental gymnastics to come to a different conclusion.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Jester... or jester


    The question is whether you’re a paid smart ideologue or you’re a middling, innumerate

     

    I can never decide whether Corvinus is a parody account or monumentally stupid. For example, take this choice sample of Corvinus' oeuvre:

    Correlation does not equal causation. At least from this statistic, more white people by the numbers are impoverished.

    African American Poverty Rate: 20.8% (8.9 million people)–Percentage of African Americans who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    Hispanic Poverty Rate: 17.6% (10.5 million people)–Percentage of Hispanics who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    White Poverty Rate: 8.1% (15.7 million people)–Percentage of non-Hispanic Whites who fell below the poverty line in 2018
     
    Corvinus does not understand how percentages work......

    Replies: @res

    , @Corvinus
    @Jester... or jester

    "The question is whether you’re a paid smart ideologue or you’re a middling, innumerate simpleton who’s appealing to whatever “authority” du jour is most fashionable."

    The way that you are touting Professor Hansen?

  90. S says:
    @Muggles
    What ever happened to the biblical injunction that said (to paraphrase) "the sins of the father does not lie on the sons?"

    Most people barely acknowledge or pay for their own mistakes, much less that of people who lived and died long before them? Since American blacks on average are many times more wealthy than African blacks still living there, are they going to make reparations to the descendants of the victims of their own tribal oppressions? Why limit reparations to Americans?

    Do any of the reparations mongers plan on compensating any of the crime victims of their own ancestors? (Not all have those, but no one mentions that.)

    We don't live in a world where all that we now have magically dropped from the sky into our bank accounts and homes, due to our ancestors. Yes, a few who have wealthy parents benefit from that, but even then, over time, few living today are fat and happy Rockefellers. So why all the grousing?

    It's just a naked scam as anyone can see. Places now with black governments are all poorer and have been, than the US. Per that evidence, as is painfully clear to everyone not scamming, there is no actual moral or economic argument to be made about slave reparations.

    As we all know, people who always blame their current troubles on others are doomed to a life of misery and psychological dysfunction. It's bad enough to blame one's parents. But to blame the long dead ancestors of people no one alive knew is absurd.

    But con artists and scammers often prefer the Big Lie, since the details and logic don't matter. I have yet to read of any Woke celebrity who has personally made "reparations" to individual Americans of African descent. Alex Baldwin? Bill & Hil? Bernie? AOC? Who?

    Replies: @216, @Dieter Kief, @S

    Since American blacks on average are many times more wealthy than African blacks still living there, are they going to make reparations to the descendants of the victims of their own tribal oppressions?

    Speaking of reparations..

    Since 1945 the citizens of Okinawa, Japan have been opressed by Black rapists amongst the US occupation troops based there.

    In the summer of 1945 three Black US marines whom had made it a habit of coming to a particular Okiniwa village to rape its women with impunity were ambushed and killed. The formerly powerless villagers had recruited two unsurrendered and armed Japanese soldiers from the surrounding jungle to do the deed.

    The Black marines lifeless corpses were secretly dumped by the villagers in a cave known since by the locals in memorium as ‘the cave of the dark skinned boys’.

    Fifty years later, and in the same tradition as the earlier 1945 incident, three Black serviceman raped a twelve year old Okiniwa girl. Tried and convicted, each was given approximately seven years in a no nonsense Japanese prison.

    The Black serviceman’s families accusations of ‘discrimination’ by the Japanese were given short shrift, and ultimately withdrawn. Instead, these Black rapists families were ordered by the Japanese to pay reparations to the Japanese family of the little girl.

    As a postscript, one of the three rapists after their release in 2003 complained the Japanese prison labor he performed was like slavery.

    Another one, who claimed he only ‘pretended’ to take part in the rape, in 2006 raped a young 22 year old college woman he’d had a past passing acquainship with, then strangled her, before committing suicide.

    The young woman, Lauren Cooper, is pictured below.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Katsuyama_killing_incident

  91. @theMann
    You would have to be the biggest idiot in the history of stupid not to realize how much gigantically better off the USA would be if it had never seen a Negro.


    No one, and I mean NO ONE, actually believes this crap. Just a scam, and a scam about to go seriously a cropper, as the Economy continues to deteriorate.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Just a scam, and a scam about to go seriously a cropper, as the Economy continues to deteriorate

    .

    The economy is improving.

    • Replies: @theMann
    @Anonymous

    Gold is up $440 an ounce in the last year.

    The Bond market is a catastrophe.

    Every single last State Government in the entire USA is facing a budget shortfall for next year, averaging 29%.

    Current official unemployment rat is 14.7%, real rate near 30%.

    1 million person exodus from NYC, hundreds of thousands from San Fransisco....etc

    Hundreds of thousands of businesses destroyed, and the downstream effect of their failure will cause hundreds of thousands more to fail.

    Spot food shortages already occurring, more serious to follow.

    Tourism destroyed, Higher Education about to follow in a major way.


    But "the Economy is improving".


    Congratulations, you just won Grand Prize in the Galactic Fucktard Contest.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  92. Anonymous[758] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    @Grahamsno(G64)


    Yes thanks and if the Slaves were liabilities rather than assets why did the South fight to death over the issue?
     
    Grahamsno, you need better parsing of the issue.

    Anon[277] has already done the thorough rebuttal, but whether slavery is in the interest of particular people--plantation owners--and whether as a system it is beneficial to the economic development of the nation are obviously two separate issues.


    There a ton of people today who benefit from illegal aliens working for them as fruit pickers, farm labor, meat packers, gardeners, housecleaners, janitors, dishwashers, construction labor framing houses or hanging drywall... for less than American wages A these people bunch of 'em squawk like disturbed ducks if you talk about deportation or even e-verify.

    But that does not remotely mean that importing these millions of illegal aliens is beneficial to America, "the American economy" or much less Americans. It merely means a bunch of people now have an economic interest in the illegal alien labor system. For America--our children's future, the nation's future--it's a disaster.


    Slavery was even worse in terms of "lock-in" because the plantation owners actually owned the slaves. They were an asset, so an end to slavery system was not just going to hammer their income and income producing potential of their property, but a bunch of their "wealth" would up and walk off.

    But that means nothing about whether slavery--the slave system--was good for America. In fact, with abolition ... a bunch of their owners wealth did up and walk off. Slavery was abolished and the American economy soared to being #1 in the world. Wow. Sure sounds critical.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @S

    Slavery was even worse in terms of “lock-in” because the plantation owners actually owned the slaves. They were an asset, so an end to slavery system was not just going to hammer their income and income producing potential of their property, but a bunch of their “wealth” would up and walk off.

    Not really. The farm owners could just pay for wage labor and save on the costs of medical care and cradle-to-grave social security. They could also fire poor performers at will.

    The Africans didn’t for the most part “up and walk off” after the civil war. Many stayed and continued working on the farms with the Whites.

  93. @Jester... or jester
    @Corvinus

    The question is whether you're a paid smart ideologue or you're a middling, innumerate simpleton who's appealing to whatever "authority" du jour is most fashionable. An unsure, uninformed person might fall for that, and many most certainly do, but the fact that you keep pitching more and more indefensible positions speaks volumes to what you really are.

    For anyone needing to refresh their knowledge and shield themselves from Corvinus' drivel, here's a concise economic assessment of slavery with meaningful numbers.

    http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2018/06/was-slavery-central-to-american.html

    The topic has been exhaustively researched, way more than it actually should, and you need some serious mental gymnastics to come to a different conclusion.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Corvinus

    The question is whether you’re a paid smart ideologue or you’re a middling, innumerate

    I can never decide whether Corvinus is a parody account or monumentally stupid. For example, take this choice sample of Corvinus’ oeuvre:

    Correlation does not equal causation. At least from this statistic, more white people by the numbers are impoverished.

    African American Poverty Rate: 20.8% (8.9 million people)–Percentage of African Americans who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    Hispanic Poverty Rate: 17.6% (10.5 million people)–Percentage of Hispanics who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    White Poverty Rate: 8.1% (15.7 million people)–Percentage of non-Hispanic Whites who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    Corvinus does not understand how percentages work……

    • Replies: @res
    @syonredux


    I can never decide whether Corvinus is a parody account or monumentally stupid.
     
    Perhaps embrace the power of and?

    I lean towards the paid provocateur explanation myself. Corvinus currently has 11,729 Comments with 1,775,300 Words. That is an immense amount of work to devote to a parody.
  94. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you. The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer's post -- besides it being funny -- is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America. You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it. Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to. In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development, to include of course the non-planter white population (By 1860 slaves were roughly 13 - 14 percent of the total American population, but perhaps 40 percent of the population across all the states that joined the Confederacy.)

    If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance. Implying -- which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States -- the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous. The fact is the world was a lot more unequal in the year 1900 than 1800, economically, and that precisely had to do with unequal distribution of technological advancement and industrialization across the world in various societies. I love farming, but the United States rose to world power based on its enormous industrial capability, not its ability to grow cash crops.

    Slave-based economies were actually a serious disadvantage in an industrializing world, and again, this has never been hidden from view -- it was literally recognized at the time. What Australia, and the United Kingdom, and Canada share with the United States -- besides being founded or inhabited by similar cultural groups during crucial development times -- to achieve similar levels of per capita development is not slavery. What they do share is a roughly similar timeline of industrialization.

    Replies: @S, @Corvinus

    Slave-based economies were actually a serious disadvantage in an industrializing world, and again, this has never been hidden from view — it was literally recognized at the time.

    The financial representative of the Lincoln administration in London during the critical war year of 1863, Robert Walker, made the following economic calculations below while in that city. Taking multiple variables into account, he compared wage slave (so called ‘cheap labor’) dependent Massachusetts, with chattel slave dependendent South Carolina, and concluded Mass’s system was four to one more efficient, productive, and profitable, than South Carolina’s.

    The Continental Monthly (March, 1864) – American Finances and Resources

    “The educated free labor of Massachusetts, we have seen, doubles the products of toil, per capita, as compared with Maryland, and quadruples them (as the Census shows) compared with South Carolina….”

    Eliza Andrews, whose family had been one of the self described ‘privileged 4000’ families who ruled over the South thru 1865, and as an adult had lived through the war in Georgia, says in words what Walker had said in numbers with his London economic calculations.

    ‘..a question of dollars and cents..’

    The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl 1864 – 1865 (1908) – Eliza Andrews

    ‘Our Southern States, being still in the agricultural stage, on account of our practical monopoly of the world’s chief textile staple, were the last of the great civilized nations to find chattel slavery less profitable than wage slavery, and hence the “great moral crusade” of the North against the perverse and unregenerate South.’

    ‘It was a pure case of economic determinism, which means that our great moral conflict reduces itself, in the last analysis, to a question of dollars and cents, though the real issue was so obscured by other considerations that we of the South honestly believe to this day that we were fighting for States Rights, while the North is equally honest in the conviction that it was engaged in a magnanimous struggle to free the slave.’

    I tend to agree with the US economist and Lincoln economic adviser, Henry Charles Carey, and his 1853 observation that the North’s so called ‘cheap labor’/’mass immigration’ system was simply the ‘slave trade of the last century, but on a grander scale’…ie that the commerce oriented North had simply monetized chattel slavery and it’s trade, that is distilled it to it’s financial essence, whilst maximizing profits, and that it’s system too was based on the systematic theft of labor, the financial essence of slavery.

    The guns were turned upon the wrong people in that damnable war.

    https://www.unz.com/proberts/the-bankers-blood-money-secession-and-invasion/#comment-4068778

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @S


    Taking multiple variables into account, he compared wage slave (so called ‘cheap labor’) dependent Massachusetts, with chattel slave dependendent South Carolina, and concluded Mass’s system was four to one more efficient, productive, and profitable, than South Carolina’s
     
    Was race one of the variables that was taken into account?

    Replies: @S

  95. @AnotherDad
    @Grahamsno(G64)


    Yes thanks and if the Slaves were liabilities rather than assets why did the South fight to death over the issue?
     
    Grahamsno, you need better parsing of the issue.

    Anon[277] has already done the thorough rebuttal, but whether slavery is in the interest of particular people--plantation owners--and whether as a system it is beneficial to the economic development of the nation are obviously two separate issues.


    There a ton of people today who benefit from illegal aliens working for them as fruit pickers, farm labor, meat packers, gardeners, housecleaners, janitors, dishwashers, construction labor framing houses or hanging drywall... for less than American wages A these people bunch of 'em squawk like disturbed ducks if you talk about deportation or even e-verify.

    But that does not remotely mean that importing these millions of illegal aliens is beneficial to America, "the American economy" or much less Americans. It merely means a bunch of people now have an economic interest in the illegal alien labor system. For America--our children's future, the nation's future--it's a disaster.


    Slavery was even worse in terms of "lock-in" because the plantation owners actually owned the slaves. They were an asset, so an end to slavery system was not just going to hammer their income and income producing potential of their property, but a bunch of their "wealth" would up and walk off.

    But that means nothing about whether slavery--the slave system--was good for America. In fact, with abolition ... a bunch of their owners wealth did up and walk off. Slavery was abolished and the American economy soared to being #1 in the world. Wow. Sure sounds critical.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @S

    There a ton of people today who benefit from illegal aliens working for them as fruit pickers, farm labor, meat packers, gardeners, housecleaners, janitors, dishwashers, construction labor framing houses or hanging drywall… for less than American wages.

    Not coincidentally, the very same sorts who profited from chattel slavery and it’s trade, and for the very same reason…anything, but anything, than pay the prevailing real time local costs of labor, more often than not, to their very own people.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @S


    Not coincidentally, the very same sorts who profited from chattel slavery and it’s trade, and for the very same reason…anything, but anything, than pay the prevailing real time local costs of labor, more often than not, to their very own people.
     
    African labor was very costly. The workers were in fact compensated at above what the could have received from the market.

    Replies: @S

  96. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you. The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer's post -- besides it being funny -- is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America. You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it. Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to. In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development, to include of course the non-planter white population (By 1860 slaves were roughly 13 - 14 percent of the total American population, but perhaps 40 percent of the population across all the states that joined the Confederacy.)

    If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance. Implying -- which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States -- the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous. The fact is the world was a lot more unequal in the year 1900 than 1800, economically, and that precisely had to do with unequal distribution of technological advancement and industrialization across the world in various societies. I love farming, but the United States rose to world power based on its enormous industrial capability, not its ability to grow cash crops.

    Slave-based economies were actually a serious disadvantage in an industrializing world, and again, this has never been hidden from view -- it was literally recognized at the time. What Australia, and the United Kingdom, and Canada share with the United States -- besides being founded or inhabited by similar cultural groups during crucial development times -- to achieve similar levels of per capita development is not slavery. What they do share is a roughly similar timeline of industrialization.

    Replies: @S, @Corvinus

    “Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you.”

    What is it with the anony’s here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?

    The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer’s post — besides it being funny — is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America.

    “You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it.”

    Once again, you are offering a strawman. I never directly nor indirectly made this assertion.

    “Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to.”

    The sources I provided state otherwise. Again, what specifically from the citations do you object to? Show your work.

    “In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development…”

    You mean like Hinton Helper?

    “If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance.”

    According to Who/Whom?

    “Implying — which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States — the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous.”

    That is another strawman on your part.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Do the work, Mr. (or Mrs.) Corvinus.

    Do the work.

    I don't need to cite common knowledge in American history. Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof.

    Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States. My claim is very direct: industrialization is the overwhelming cause of the wealth of the United States, and slavery contributed very little to that process, but actually hindered it.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @res
    @Corvinus


    “Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you.”

    What is it with the anony’s here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?
     
    I'm not an anon and have come to the same conclusion. It is perhaps telling that you do not explicitly deny the charge.

    Replies: @anon, @res

  97. @Jester... or jester
    @Corvinus

    The question is whether you're a paid smart ideologue or you're a middling, innumerate simpleton who's appealing to whatever "authority" du jour is most fashionable. An unsure, uninformed person might fall for that, and many most certainly do, but the fact that you keep pitching more and more indefensible positions speaks volumes to what you really are.

    For anyone needing to refresh their knowledge and shield themselves from Corvinus' drivel, here's a concise economic assessment of slavery with meaningful numbers.

    http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2018/06/was-slavery-central-to-american.html

    The topic has been exhaustively researched, way more than it actually should, and you need some serious mental gymnastics to come to a different conclusion.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Corvinus

    “The question is whether you’re a paid smart ideologue or you’re a middling, innumerate simpleton who’s appealing to whatever “authority” du jour is most fashionable.”

    The way that you are touting Professor Hansen?

  98. @AnotherDad
    @Corvinus

    LOL -- "King Cotton" Corny

    It's funny to see all the little apparatchiks of the latest minoritarian fantasy--1619! America built on slavery!--now babbling like Mississippi plantation owners.

    But guess what Corny. The King Cotton boys proved wrong.

    Cotton had been about 5% of the US economy. Important, but hardly "the economy". It was a larger share--10%ish--of investment capital. But most of the surplus generated went into more land and slaves--i.e. a faster increase of the US black population--and fancy plantation homes and consumption.

    Corny, do you even realize what a statement like:


    ... shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks, seven times ...”
     
    means? It means that the profits of slavery went into breeding more blacks. Not actual capital accumulation for the US at all. Slavery's profits resulted in black bodies around today. Black--legacy black--Americans are the slavery's big result, not real economic growth.

    The northern economy turned out not to be dependent on cotton. The North prevailed in the War without even being stretched economically.

    European cotton mills had an immediate crisis, kicking off a recession ... while the British figured out where else they could grow cotton. "Oh, how about Egypt?" And more exported from India. And probably a bunch of other places i don't know about.

    US slavery was so critical that shutting it down was a speed bump in the world economy, while the US took off in the next generation to become the leading economy in world, the leading industrial power and a world power.

    ~~

    Again, this nonsense doesn't even rise to the level of "interesting". This is one of histories counterfactuals where we actually have comparable factuals--Canada, Australia. The US was much, much, much better naturally endowed than those nations and ... they don't suck.

    We also have the "factual" that we killed slavery off ... and the world didn't end. In fact, the South with blacks picking cotton was a continual laggard--a backwater--while the north took off.

    The US would be a richer nation today if the South had developed via yeoman farmers--owning and cultivating their own land. Better, more even, organic growth. Not to say it would have been like the north, malaria would have found it's way in even without blacks and before window and door screens and DDT and chloroquine and AC the South wasn't going be as habitable for a white man as the North. But the South would have have been much better with more even, complete and stable development.

    No slavery was a massive screwup, false path, wrong turn. Slavery's result wasn't wildly improved growth, but rather a bunch of blacks around... who aren't exactly engines of economic progress.

    When you blow something up ... and the world rolls on, and actually gets better! ... that's kind of a hint.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “It means that the profits of slavery went into breeding more blacks. Not actual capital accumulation for the US at all.”

    To the contrary, the profits of slavery went into the pockets of the slaveholder, the cotton merchant, and the industrialist who made textiles. The capital accumulation for the U.S. was in terms of the wealth produced by the slaveholder, the productivity of slaves, and the profits of the cotton trade.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Corvinus

    Again, no:


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

    Replies: @Corvinus

  99. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you."

    What is it with the anony's here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?

    The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer’s post — besides it being funny — is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America.

    "You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it."

    Once again, you are offering a strawman. I never directly nor indirectly made this assertion.

    "Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to."

    The sources I provided state otherwise. Again, what specifically from the citations do you object to? Show your work.

    "In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development..."

    You mean like Hinton Helper?

    "If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance."

    According to Who/Whom?

    "Implying — which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States — the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous."

    That is another strawman on your part.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @res

    Do the work, Mr. (or Mrs.) Corvinus.

    Do the work.

    I don’t need to cite common knowledge in American history. Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof.

    Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States. My claim is very direct: industrialization is the overwhelming cause of the wealth of the United States, and slavery contributed very little to that process, but actually hindered it.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Do the work".

    I did not realize that submitting links that support the thesis** neglects to constitute work in your reality.

    "Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States."

    Actually, the claim made by historians in the economic realm, and one I agree with, is what I explicitly stated --> **The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.

    "Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof."

    Actually, in case you missed it, there is a university course that ALL of the materials found in this thread and that addresses the claim, which indeed is extraordinary because of its divisiveness among experts in the field.

    https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/History/Fall-2020-Slavery-and-Capitalism.pdf


    No scholar seriously doubts that there was a strong relationship between the development of capitalism and the emergence of New World slave plantations. Where they disagree is over the nature of that relationship. Was slavery itself a form of capitalism, or was the master-slave relationship fundamentally different from capitalist social relations? Did slavery give rise to capitalism, or did capitalism give rise to slavery? This course will address these questions, beginning with a survey of the way scholars have addressed them. Then, with a particular focus on the United States, we will address the theoretical and empirical question of whether the slave economy of the Old South was or was not capitalist. Finally, we will shift to the very different question of the relationship between southern slavery, especially the cotton economy, and the industrialization of the North.
     

    Replies: @Anonymous

  100. @Dave Pinsen
    Reparations could be the key to solving America's race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.

    In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.

    Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.

    According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).

    Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon

    The US could purchase a large plot of land in west Africa that could be used as a game park

  101. @Corvinus
    @AnotherDad

    "It means that the profits of slavery went into breeding more blacks. Not actual capital accumulation for the US at all."

    To the contrary, the profits of slavery went into the pockets of the slaveholder, the cotton merchant, and the industrialist who made textiles. The capital accumulation for the U.S. was in terms of the wealth produced by the slaveholder, the productivity of slaves, and the profits of the cotton trade.

    Replies: @syonredux

    Again, no:

    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.

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

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @syonredux

    The piece you linked to was written by John Clegg, who is notorious for his opposition to the thesis. As a commodity, cotton had the advantage of being easily stored and transported. The demand for it already existed in the industrial textile mills in Great Britain in the mid-1700's. Eventually, the steady stream of southern slave-produced cotton would also supply northern textile mills. Southern cotton helped fuel the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution in both the United States and Great Britain. The wealth generated plantation owners cycled through to the shipbuilders, producers of textile machinery, banks which provided loans to manufacturers and transporters, and to the citizens themselves in the form of steady employment.

    Clegg is part of an ongoing, spirited debate.

    https://earlyamericanists.com/2015/11/04/guest-post-correcting-an-incorrect-corrective/

    Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux

  102. Repatriation is only a pipe dream. Perhaps a major social or political upheaval could change that. But, as AnotherDad says, merely proposing it as a solution to oppression is of great rhetorical value in the debate on race: “If we’re so awful, why don’t you just leave us? We’ll even pay for your resettlement”. There’s no answer to that.

    The main obstacle to repatriation is not economic nor humanitarian. Resettling blacks elsewhere would still be less expensive than keeping them in America. The problem is that there are huge forces determined to ensure whites never have their own countries. And, of course, the legacy non-white population is not enough for them. The borders must be open for more.

  103. @Anonymous
    @theMann


    Just a scam, and a scam about to go seriously a cropper, as the Economy continues to deteriorate
     
    .

    The economy is improving.

    Replies: @theMann

    Gold is up $440 an ounce in the last year.

    The Bond market is a catastrophe.

    Every single last State Government in the entire USA is facing a budget shortfall for next year, averaging 29%.

    Current official unemployment rat is 14.7%, real rate near 30%.

    1 million person exodus from NYC, hundreds of thousands from San Fransisco….etc

    Hundreds of thousands of businesses destroyed, and the downstream effect of their failure will cause hundreds of thousands more to fail.

    Spot food shortages already occurring, more serious to follow.

    Tourism destroyed, Higher Education about to follow in a major way.

    But “the Economy is improving”.

    Congratulations, you just won Grand Prize in the Galactic Fucktard Contest.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @theMann


    1 million person exodus from NYC, hundreds of thousands from San Fransisco….etc
     
    Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
  104. @Dave Pinsen
    @Cato

    Kigali looks nice. https://youtu.be/FFGtGfLUP4o

    Replies: @Cato

    Tropical mountains — always nice weather!! Maybe I’ll see you there?

  105. @AnotherDad
    @MBlanc46


    That’s a reasonable enough proposal, Dave, but you know that, not only will it never be implemented, it could never seriously be proposed.
     
    This is where i disagree--with a number of folks here.

    The point of this sort of "reparations with separation" or any of the other "separation" ideas is that merely proposing them and stoking the outrage precisely gives away the minoritarian game.

    The plain fact is the minoritarians are parasitic upon whites. (Which to be clear does not mean there aren't talented minorities doing real work and contributing.) Minorities keep demanding to come toward whites--immigration, integration of your school, country club, neighborhood, nations ... while endlessly whining.

    Saying "We can solve your 'oppression' problem, we'll just separate" unmasks the game. It is absolutely critical that conservatives, patriots, do precisely this. Until we blow up their sleazy narrative the minoritarians will keep burying us in bucket after bucket of their sad sack "oppression" shit.

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    You are perhaps more confident that such a proposal would ever be listened to.

  106. Anonymous[758] • Disclaimer says:
    @S
    @Anonymous


    Slave-based economies were actually a serious disadvantage in an industrializing world, and again, this has never been hidden from view — it was literally recognized at the time.

     

    The financial representative of the Lincoln administration in London during the critical war year of 1863, Robert Walker, made the following economic calculations below while in that city. Taking multiple variables into account, he compared wage slave (so called 'cheap labor') dependent Massachusetts, with chattel slave dependendent South Carolina, and concluded Mass's system was four to one more efficient, productive, and profitable, than South Carolina's.

    The Continental Monthly (March, 1864) – American Finances and Resources

    “The educated free labor of Massachusetts, we have seen, doubles the products of toil, per capita, as compared with Maryland, and quadruples them (as the Census shows) compared with South Carolina….”
     
    Eliza Andrews, whose family had been one of the self described ‘privileged 4000’ families who ruled over the South thru 1865, and as an adult had lived through the war in Georgia, says in words what Walker had said in numbers with his London economic calculations.

    ‘..a question of dollars and cents..’

    The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl 1864 – 1865 (1908) – Eliza Andrews

    ‘Our Southern States, being still in the agricultural stage, on account of our practical monopoly of the world’s chief textile staple, were the last of the great civilized nations to find chattel slavery less profitable than wage slavery, and hence the “great moral crusade” of the North against the perverse and unregenerate South.’

    ‘It was a pure case of economic determinism, which means that our great moral conflict reduces itself, in the last analysis, to a question of dollars and cents, though the real issue was so obscured by other considerations that we of the South honestly believe to this day that we were fighting for States Rights, while the North is equally honest in the conviction that it was engaged in a magnanimous struggle to free the slave.’
     
    I tend to agree with the US economist and Lincoln economic adviser, Henry Charles Carey, and his 1853 observation that the North's so called 'cheap labor'/'mass immigration' system was simply the 'slave trade of the last century, but on a grander scale'...ie that the commerce oriented North had simply monetized chattel slavery and it's trade, that is distilled it to it's financial essence, whilst maximizing profits, and that it's system too was based on the systematic theft of labor, the financial essence of slavery.

    The guns were turned upon the wrong people in that damnable war.

    https://www.unz.com/proberts/the-bankers-blood-money-secession-and-invasion/#comment-4068778

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Taking multiple variables into account, he compared wage slave (so called ‘cheap labor’) dependent Massachusetts, with chattel slave dependendent South Carolina, and concluded Mass’s system was four to one more efficient, productive, and profitable, than South Carolina’s

    Was race one of the variables that was taken into account?

    • Replies: @S
    @Anonymous

    No, race wasn't. A lot of other things were though.

    Bear in mind, large and powerful segments of the US establishment and hangers on were already anti-race in 1861, so Walker's article reflected that.

    They just wanted labor, irregardless of race or ethnicity, they could import in that would costs significantly less than what the prevailing local rates were (ie what they would typically have to pay their own people). This is (unfortunately) what they had become accustomed to in British North America (North and South) with the two hundred plus years of chattel slavery.

    Already in 1860 they were importing tens of thousands of Chinese wage slaves (cheap labor) into the US state of California. [In 1876 the California state legislature determined these Chinese were often being paid only about a third of whatever the prevailing local rates for the labor they were performing was.]

    With the North's wage slavery (ie so called 'cheap labor') they still got this 'hit' of stolen labor from broken and defeated peoples imported in by diktat, but with all the former costs and hassles of chattel slavery now 'outsourced' to the general public to bear, ie old age care of the slaves, sheltering them, etc.

    Walker's 1863 letter from London can be found at one of the two 'Making of America' websites in the March, 1864 edition of the Continental Monthly journal. The article was entitled 'American Finances and Resources'.

    In the wake of 'Bleeding Kansas', a microcosm of the coming US Civil War, where guerilla armies privately financed by Northern industrialists and Southern plantation owners, fought for physical and political control of the territory, Henry Seward gave a historic speech in March, 1858, to the US Senate entitled 'Freedom in Kansas'. [See link below.]

    In the speech, Seward outlined the evolution of the North's wage slave (ie cheap labor) 'immigrant' based system and the South's chattel slave system, from the time of the 1776 Revolution to 1858. He describes these two systems as incompatible and clashing, and that a multi-generational decades long 'dynastical struggle' had been taking place between them in the United States, but that all the compromises had broken down, and things had come to a head in Kansas.

    [Seward used the civil war era euphemism for cheap labor in his speech, 'free labor'. In the years immediately prior to and during the war itself, the term 'cheap labor' literally disappeared from all US corporate media and was replaced with 'free labor'. As soon as the war concluded in 1865 the term 'cheap labor' reappeared in regular usage, except in regards to the US Civil War where 'free labor' is used to this day, and not 'cheap labor'.]

    https://archive.org/details/freedominkansa00sewa

  107. Anonymous[758] • Disclaimer says:
    @S
    @AnotherDad


    There a ton of people today who benefit from illegal aliens working for them as fruit pickers, farm labor, meat packers, gardeners, housecleaners, janitors, dishwashers, construction labor framing houses or hanging drywall… for less than American wages.
     
    Not coincidentally, the very same sorts who profited from chattel slavery and it's trade, and for the very same reason...anything, but anything, than pay the prevailing real time local costs of labor, more often than not, to their very own people.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Not coincidentally, the very same sorts who profited from chattel slavery and it’s trade, and for the very same reason…anything, but anything, than pay the prevailing real time local costs of labor, more often than not, to their very own people.

    African labor was very costly. The workers were in fact compensated at above what the could have received from the market.

    • Replies: @S
    @Anonymous


    African labor was very costly. The workers were in fact compensated at above what the could have received from the market.
     
    True, which explains why the Lawrence family of Massachusetts textile factory magnates, whom had financed the construction of Lawrence, 'Immigrant City' Mass, in the 1840's, also financed the construction of its infamous sister city, the 'abolitionist' center Lawrence, Kansas, during the mid 1850's.

    The Lawrence's didn't like paying for the extremely expensive chattel slave labor which picked the cotton which fed their Mass textile mills.
  108. @AnotherDad
    @onetwothree


    The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: “Canada”.
     
    Or "Australia".

    Plain fact is the US has a much, much better overall geographical situation--farmland, resources, river transport, access to markets--as either Canada or Australia, plus the scale of a much larger internal market that comes with those advantages. Yet those places do not suck.

    The key, shared ingredient was a reasonable intelligent, capable, hard-working Anglo-Saxon settler population gaining access to undeveloped (to Euro ag/tech) lands. They created prosperity and the rule-of-law.

    I.e. the key ingredient was deplorable white people. No blacks were required. No immigrants post-1776 were required. (Could have skipped taking in my ancestors and this joint would still be awesome just from the founding population.) The plain fact is blacks were a "get rich quick" scheme for some landholders that the rest of us have been paying for--in civil war, in taxes, in depreciated real-estate, in lower quality of life, in extra social and political contention and of course in crime, ever since.

    Not trying to piss all over anyone or rub it in anyone's face. But that's just the reality. And if people are spewing these objectively ridiculous minoritarian fables to attack whitey then this reality needs to be spoken out loud and repeatedly.

    Replies: @we

    So Lee, Bragg, and Hood aren’t the great heroes that Southerners belive them to be. Where do you stand on the renaming controversy?

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @we


    So Lee, Bragg, and Hood aren’t the great heroes that Southerners belive them to be. Where do you stand on the renaming controversy?
     
    Can’t speak for him, but speaking for myself - someone of mixed Yankee/Confederate ancestry who thinks the war was an awful waste on behalf of an awful cause - I say just leave them be. The war ended over 150 years ago. The monuments are what they are. Let people honor their dead and let’s move on. Because the reality is that, as we have recently seen, removing statues and the other among buildings has nothing to do with removing Confederates and everything to do with removing white people. After every offensive statue is gone these people will look at our white skin and tell us “Your white skin reminds us of the evils of slavery,” and the. they will remove us.
    , @Lagertha
    @we

    where does renaming stop? - oh, forgot, should never respond or participate when a moron speaks. I hate you and your kind for every breath you take - I am done with you. Your kind never built this country or sacrificed for this country...so, STFU. Leave us alone - go live in your glorious blue states - stay out of ours! You and your family is not welcome, ever, if you vote blue. Done with these American commies!

    , @Anonymous
    @we


    So Lee, Bragg, and Hood aren’t the great heroes that Southerners belive them to be.
     
    That isn’t what he wrote. Prove your case.
  109. @Corvinus
    @Ben tillman

    "Of more than 400,000 dead US servicemen, a grand total of 708 were black."

    And why is that? Could it be that they were segregated and generally prohibited from serving in the front lines?

    "But what did they do to earn those benefits?"

    Of course, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that more than 2.5 million African American men registered for the draft, and African American women volunteered in large numbers. When combined with black women enlisted into Women's Army Corps, more than one million African Americans served the military.


    During World War II, African-American soldiers served in all fields of service. In the midst of the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, General Eisenhower was severely short of replacement troops for existing all-white companies. Consequently, he made the decision to allow 2000 black servicemen volunteers to serve in segregated platoons under the command of white lieutenants to replenish these companies. These platoons would serve with distinction and, according to an Army survey in the summer of 1945, 84% were ranked "very well" and 16% were ranked "fairly well". No black platoon received a ranking of "poor" by those white officers or white soldiers that fought with them. These platoons were often subject to racist treatment by white military units in occupied Germany and were quickly sent back to their old segregated units after the end of hostilities in Germany. Despite their protests, these brave African-American soldiers ended the war in their old non-combat service units. Though largely forgotten after the war, the temporary experiment with black combat troops proved a success - a small, but important step toward permanent integration during the Korean War.
     
    Are you this obtuse in real life, or are you playing an online character?

    Replies: @res

    Are you this obtuse in real life, or are you playing an online character?

    At least your projection is occasionally entertaining.

  110. @syonredux
    @Jester... or jester


    The question is whether you’re a paid smart ideologue or you’re a middling, innumerate

     

    I can never decide whether Corvinus is a parody account or monumentally stupid. For example, take this choice sample of Corvinus' oeuvre:

    Correlation does not equal causation. At least from this statistic, more white people by the numbers are impoverished.

    African American Poverty Rate: 20.8% (8.9 million people)–Percentage of African Americans who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    Hispanic Poverty Rate: 17.6% (10.5 million people)–Percentage of Hispanics who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    White Poverty Rate: 8.1% (15.7 million people)–Percentage of non-Hispanic Whites who fell below the poverty line in 2018
     
    Corvinus does not understand how percentages work......

    Replies: @res

    I can never decide whether Corvinus is a parody account or monumentally stupid.

    Perhaps embrace the power of and?

    I lean towards the paid provocateur explanation myself. Corvinus currently has 11,729 Comments with 1,775,300 Words. That is an immense amount of work to devote to a parody.

    • LOL: Corvinus
  111. @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you."

    What is it with the anony's here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?

    The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer’s post — besides it being funny — is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America.

    "You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it."

    Once again, you are offering a strawman. I never directly nor indirectly made this assertion.

    "Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to."

    The sources I provided state otherwise. Again, what specifically from the citations do you object to? Show your work.

    "In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development..."

    You mean like Hinton Helper?

    "If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance."

    According to Who/Whom?

    "Implying — which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States — the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous."

    That is another strawman on your part.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @res

    “Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you.”

    What is it with the anony’s here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?

    I’m not an anon and have come to the same conclusion. It is perhaps telling that you do not explicitly deny the charge.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @anon
    @res

    It is perhaps telling that you do not explicitly deny the charge.

    If he did...what, after all, difference would it make?

    Replies: @res

    , @res
    @res

    Another Corvinus seal of approval! It had been three weeks since my last. Thanks Corvy! I appreciate you validating my points by disagreeing with my comments.

  112. @res
    @Corvinus


    “Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you.”

    What is it with the anony’s here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?
     
    I'm not an anon and have come to the same conclusion. It is perhaps telling that you do not explicitly deny the charge.

    Replies: @anon, @res

    It is perhaps telling that you do not explicitly deny the charge.

    If he did…what, after all, difference would it make?

    • Replies: @res
    @anon

    Two things.

    1. If true, denying it would make him a liar. Corvy seems shy about outright lying. He is more about FUD and squid ink.

    2. It removes any later possibility of plausible deniability. For example: "Well, I never SAID I wasn't paid. Why should that matter?"

    Any others, anyone?

    P.S. Note that volunteer provocateur is also a possibility. I'm pretty sure there are SJWs who would do that for free.

  113. @we
    @AnotherDad

    So Lee, Bragg, and Hood aren't the great heroes that Southerners belive them to be. Where do you stand on the renaming controversy?

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Lagertha, @Anonymous

    So Lee, Bragg, and Hood aren’t the great heroes that Southerners belive them to be. Where do you stand on the renaming controversy?

    Can’t speak for him, but speaking for myself – someone of mixed Yankee/Confederate ancestry who thinks the war was an awful waste on behalf of an awful cause – I say just leave them be. The war ended over 150 years ago. The monuments are what they are. Let people honor their dead and let’s move on. Because the reality is that, as we have recently seen, removing statues and the other among buildings has nothing to do with removing Confederates and everything to do with removing white people. After every offensive statue is gone these people will look at our white skin and tell us “Your white skin reminds us of the evils of slavery,” and the. they will remove us.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  114. @we
    @AnotherDad

    So Lee, Bragg, and Hood aren't the great heroes that Southerners belive them to be. Where do you stand on the renaming controversy?

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Lagertha, @Anonymous

    where does renaming stop? – oh, forgot, should never respond or participate when a moron speaks. I hate you and your kind for every breath you take – I am done with you. Your kind never built this country or sacrificed for this country…so, STFU. Leave us alone – go live in your glorious blue states – stay out of ours! You and your family is not welcome, ever, if you vote blue. Done with these American commies!

  115. S says:
    @Anonymous
    @S


    Taking multiple variables into account, he compared wage slave (so called ‘cheap labor’) dependent Massachusetts, with chattel slave dependendent South Carolina, and concluded Mass’s system was four to one more efficient, productive, and profitable, than South Carolina’s
     
    Was race one of the variables that was taken into account?

    Replies: @S

    No, race wasn’t. A lot of other things were though.

    Bear in mind, large and powerful segments of the US establishment and hangers on were already anti-race in 1861, so Walker’s article reflected that.

    They just wanted labor, irregardless of race or ethnicity, they could import in that would costs significantly less than what the prevailing local rates were (ie what they would typically have to pay their own people). This is (unfortunately) what they had become accustomed to in British North America (North and South) with the two hundred plus years of chattel slavery.

    Already in 1860 they were importing tens of thousands of Chinese wage slaves (cheap labor) into the US state of California. [In 1876 the California state legislature determined these Chinese were often being paid only about a third of whatever the prevailing local rates for the labor they were performing was.]

    With the North’s wage slavery (ie so called ‘cheap labor’) they still got this ‘hit’ of stolen labor from broken and defeated peoples imported in by diktat, but with all the former costs and hassles of chattel slavery now ‘outsourced’ to the general public to bear, ie old age care of the slaves, sheltering them, etc.

    Walker’s 1863 letter from London can be found at one of the two ‘Making of America’ websites in the March, 1864 edition of the Continental Monthly journal. The article was entitled ‘American Finances and Resources’.

    In the wake of ‘Bleeding Kansas’, a microcosm of the coming US Civil War, where guerilla armies privately financed by Northern industrialists and Southern plantation owners, fought for physical and political control of the territory, Henry Seward gave a historic speech in March, 1858, to the US Senate entitled ‘Freedom in Kansas’. [See link below.]

    In the speech, Seward outlined the evolution of the North’s wage slave (ie cheap labor) ‘immigrant’ based system and the South’s chattel slave system, from the time of the 1776 Revolution to 1858. He describes these two systems as incompatible and clashing, and that a multi-generational decades long ‘dynastical struggle’ had been taking place between them in the United States, but that all the compromises had broken down, and things had come to a head in Kansas.

    [Seward used the civil war era euphemism for cheap labor in his speech, ‘free labor’. In the years immediately prior to and during the war itself, the term ‘cheap labor’ literally disappeared from all US corporate media and was replaced with ‘free labor’. As soon as the war concluded in 1865 the term ‘cheap labor’ reappeared in regular usage, except in regards to the US Civil War where ‘free labor’ is used to this day, and not ‘cheap labor’.]

    https://archive.org/details/freedominkansa00sewa

  116. S says:
    @Anonymous
    @S


    Not coincidentally, the very same sorts who profited from chattel slavery and it’s trade, and for the very same reason…anything, but anything, than pay the prevailing real time local costs of labor, more often than not, to their very own people.
     
    African labor was very costly. The workers were in fact compensated at above what the could have received from the market.

    Replies: @S

    African labor was very costly. The workers were in fact compensated at above what the could have received from the market.

    True, which explains why the Lawrence family of Massachusetts textile factory magnates, whom had financed the construction of Lawrence, ‘Immigrant City’ Mass, in the 1840’s, also financed the construction of its infamous sister city, the ‘abolitionist’ center Lawrence, Kansas, during the mid 1850’s.

    The Lawrence’s didn’t like paying for the extremely expensive chattel slave labor which picked the cotton which fed their Mass textile mills.

  117. @Anonymous
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    Is this a serious question? Are iSteve readers even becoming less literate? Really? Is anyone arguing that slavery did not benefit plantation owners? Because there are plenty of systems with grossly inefficient growth mechanisms that survive for a long time because they benefit the elite of that society. That the Southern elite wanted slavery actually says nothing about how beneficial slavery was to the economic development of the South as a whole -- and certainly not remotely America as a whole. It's interesting that at the start of the American Civil War both the North and South primarily used a mixture of British and American firearms. At the end of 4 years the massive Union military was almost entirely armed with high quality Northern developed and locally manufactured weapons, the South relied on imported European weapons and captured Northern weapons. It's almost as if slavery was actually greatly injurious to the economic and industrial development of the South, yet strangely, and simultaneously, responsible for the great wealth of the non-slave portion of the country that defeated it. I actually do think at some deep level BLM protestors are indeed correct to pull down statues of men like Grant, as one must not look to closely at mid 19 Century American history in general. Such a close look would reveal how little slaves actually contributed to America, at such a great human price.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Ron Mexico

    Anon 227, you are correct, sir! The Union could have fought the CW until no Confederates existed. Munitions, uniforms, transportation, telegraph communication, the ability to feed their army. Slavery retarded the growth of the Deep South.

  118. @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Anon7


    In a related story, Michigan’s Leftist governor won’t let go of her pet program – some sort of direct public transportation that goes from inner city Detroit into wealthy Ann Arbor.
     
    Of course. She's a Michigan State alum, and any opportunity to stick it to U of M is the most important thing.

    Geography also works in her favor since East Lansing is much farther from Detroit.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Ron Mexico, @Anon7

    “Of course. She’s a Michigan State alum, and any opportunity to stick it to U of M is the most important thing.”
    Hadn’t thought of that influencing the recent allegations that she is preventing U of M from joining a proposed 6 team Big 10 football season, but it certainly could be a factor. I just figured that she is a giant c$!t and leave it at that.

  119. @theMann
    @Anonymous

    Gold is up $440 an ounce in the last year.

    The Bond market is a catastrophe.

    Every single last State Government in the entire USA is facing a budget shortfall for next year, averaging 29%.

    Current official unemployment rat is 14.7%, real rate near 30%.

    1 million person exodus from NYC, hundreds of thousands from San Fransisco....etc

    Hundreds of thousands of businesses destroyed, and the downstream effect of their failure will cause hundreds of thousands more to fail.

    Spot food shortages already occurring, more serious to follow.

    Tourism destroyed, Higher Education about to follow in a major way.


    But "the Economy is improving".


    Congratulations, you just won Grand Prize in the Galactic Fucktard Contest.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    1 million person exodus from NYC, hundreds of thousands from San Fransisco….etc

    Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

  120. @we
    @AnotherDad

    So Lee, Bragg, and Hood aren't the great heroes that Southerners belive them to be. Where do you stand on the renaming controversy?

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Lagertha, @Anonymous

    So Lee, Bragg, and Hood aren’t the great heroes that Southerners belive them to be.

    That isn’t what he wrote. Prove your case.

  121. S says:

    Since American blacks on average are many times more wealthy than African blacks still living there, are they going to make reparations to the descendants of the victims of their own tribal oppressions?

    Speaking of reparations..

    Since 1945 the citizens of Okinawa, Japan have been opressed by Black rapists amongst the US occupation troops based there.

    In the summer of 1945 three Black US marines whom had made it a habit of coming to a particular Okiniwa village to rape its women with impunity were ambushed and killed. The formerly powerless villagers had recruited two unsurrendered and armed Japanese soldiers from the surrounding jungle to do the deed.

    The Black marines lifeless corpses were secretly dumped by the villagers in a cave known since by the locals in memorium as ‘the cave of the dark skinned boys’.

    Fifty years later, and in the same tradition as the earlier 1945 incident, three Black serviceman raped a twelve year old Okiniwa girl. Tried and convicted, each was given approximately seven years in a no nonsense Japanese prison.

    The Black serviceman’s families accusations of ‘discrimination’ by the Japanese were given short shrift, and ultimately withdrawn. Instead, these Black rapists families were ordered by the Japanese to pay reparations to the Japanese family of the little girl.

    As a postscript, one of the three rapists after their release in 2003 complained the Japanese prison labor he performed was like slavery.

    Another one, who claimed he only ‘pretended’ to take part in the rape, in 2006 raped a young 22 year old college woman he’d had a past passing acquainship with, then strangled her, before committing suicide.

    The young woman, Lauren Cooper, is pictured below.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Katsuyama_killing_incident

  122. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Do the work, Mr. (or Mrs.) Corvinus.

    Do the work.

    I don't need to cite common knowledge in American history. Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof.

    Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States. My claim is very direct: industrialization is the overwhelming cause of the wealth of the United States, and slavery contributed very little to that process, but actually hindered it.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Do the work”.

    I did not realize that submitting links that support the thesis** neglects to constitute work in your reality.

    “Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States.”

    Actually, the claim made by historians in the economic realm, and one I agree with, is what I explicitly stated –> **The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.

    “Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof.”

    Actually, in case you missed it, there is a university course that ALL of the materials found in this thread and that addresses the claim, which indeed is extraordinary because of its divisiveness among experts in the field.

    https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/History/Fall-2020-Slavery-and-Capitalism.pdf

    No scholar seriously doubts that there was a strong relationship between the development of capitalism and the emergence of New World slave plantations. Where they disagree is over the nature of that relationship. Was slavery itself a form of capitalism, or was the master-slave relationship fundamentally different from capitalist social relations? Did slavery give rise to capitalism, or did capitalism give rise to slavery? This course will address these questions, beginning with a survey of the way scholars have addressed them. Then, with a particular focus on the United States, we will address the theoretical and empirical question of whether the slave economy of the Old South was or was not capitalist. Finally, we will shift to the very different question of the relationship between southern slavery, especially the cotton economy, and the industrialization of the North.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    That isn't doing the work. Citing the opinion of a single professor on his own course syllabus as proof of... what again, exactly? 'Slavery as capitalism helper' is a different argument entirely, and also quite irrelevant, as capitalism and industrialization are different, and labeling an economic sector as capitalist doesn't mean that sector was ever efficient, or beneficial to society. In fact, in your cited comment, the type of relationship of southern cotton to northern industry is posed as a question -- strange that is so, when in the very same cited comment it is mentioned no serious scholar doubts the strong relationship between the development of capitalism and New World slave plantations. As mentioned by numerous commenters in this very thread, no one disputes textile factories in the northern US and England used southern cotton, but rather the dependence was weak because other sources could be, and were indeed, in historical reality, found when supply issues (war) became a problem. And in the 19th Century, it was far more trivial to shift the production of cash crops than build an industrial infrastructure. Which is my point, again: what generated most of the wealth of the United States was industrialization. Which existed in nascent form in those Northern -- and slave free -- factories, and not in the South -- plantation owners being rather hostile to factories, and the feared social changes and political power displacement.

    Now, as for your assertion: slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for active participants at home ..

    Tisk, tisk, Mr. (or Mrs.) Corvinus...are you going back to mealy mouthed quotes?

    The first part of your assertion is certainly not proven, the second correct but so vague (I suggest purposely) as to easily allow misinterpretation.
    No one on this thread denies slavery generated wealth for plantation owners and business partners themselves, slavery didn't help the rest of the population much, but rather hurt, but 'active participants' sounds pretty vague actually, as it's left up to the reader to determine the scope of 'active'.... could it not be the entire country?

    It, of course, is remotely not.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  123. @syonredux
    @Corvinus

    Again, no:


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

    Replies: @Corvinus

    The piece you linked to was written by John Clegg, who is notorious for his opposition to the thesis. As a commodity, cotton had the advantage of being easily stored and transported. The demand for it already existed in the industrial textile mills in Great Britain in the mid-1700’s. Eventually, the steady stream of southern slave-produced cotton would also supply northern textile mills. Southern cotton helped fuel the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution in both the United States and Great Britain. The wealth generated plantation owners cycled through to the shipbuilders, producers of textile machinery, banks which provided loans to manufacturers and transporters, and to the citizens themselves in the form of steady employment.

    Clegg is part of an ongoing, spirited debate.

    https://earlyamericanists.com/2015/11/04/guest-post-correcting-an-incorrect-corrective/

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Corvinus


    As a commodity, cotton had the advantage of being easily stored and transported.
     
    Correct. One of the reasons why the source of cotton (Egypt, the American South, etc) did not really matter. To quote Gavin Wright again:

    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).”
     

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @syonredux
    @Corvinus

    Incidentally, dear boy, try to avoid Baptist's fallacy:


    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
  124. @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Anon7


    In a related story, Michigan’s Leftist governor won’t let go of her pet program – some sort of direct public transportation that goes from inner city Detroit into wealthy Ann Arbor.
     
    Of course. She's a Michigan State alum, and any opportunity to stick it to U of M is the most important thing.

    Geography also works in her favor since East Lansing is much farther from Detroit.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Ron Mexico, @Anon7

    No one either in or out of their right mind would invade East Lansing. Also, while the UM campus is concentrated and lush, MSU is a land-grant college that is spread out all over the landscape. The first thing most MSU students buy is a bicycle. It would be exhausting to march in it or invade it.

    Didn’t think about the MSU alum vs. UM hate, but you nailed that one; it has divided residents and indeed families for a century, that I know of.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anon7


    MSU is a land-grant college that is spread out all over the landscape. The first thing most MSU students buy is a bicycle.
     
    Isn’t it too cold to bicycle?
  125. @res
    @Corvinus


    “Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you.”

    What is it with the anony’s here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?
     
    I'm not an anon and have come to the same conclusion. It is perhaps telling that you do not explicitly deny the charge.

    Replies: @anon, @res

    Another Corvinus seal of approval! It had been three weeks since my last. Thanks Corvy! I appreciate you validating my points by disagreeing with my comments.

  126. @anon
    @res

    It is perhaps telling that you do not explicitly deny the charge.

    If he did...what, after all, difference would it make?

    Replies: @res

    Two things.

    1. If true, denying it would make him a liar. Corvy seems shy about outright lying. He is more about FUD and squid ink.

    2. It removes any later possibility of plausible deniability. For example: “Well, I never SAID I wasn’t paid. Why should that matter?”

    Any others, anyone?

    P.S. Note that volunteer provocateur is also a possibility. I’m pretty sure there are SJWs who would do that for free.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  127. @Anon7
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    No one either in or out of their right mind would invade East Lansing. Also, while the UM campus is concentrated and lush, MSU is a land-grant college that is spread out all over the landscape. The first thing most MSU students buy is a bicycle. It would be exhausting to march in it or invade it.

    Didn't think about the MSU alum vs. UM hate, but you nailed that one; it has divided residents and indeed families for a century, that I know of.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    MSU is a land-grant college that is spread out all over the landscape. The first thing most MSU students buy is a bicycle.

    Isn’t it too cold to bicycle?

  128. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Do the work".

    I did not realize that submitting links that support the thesis** neglects to constitute work in your reality.

    "Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States."

    Actually, the claim made by historians in the economic realm, and one I agree with, is what I explicitly stated --> **The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.

    "Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof."

    Actually, in case you missed it, there is a university course that ALL of the materials found in this thread and that addresses the claim, which indeed is extraordinary because of its divisiveness among experts in the field.

    https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/History/Fall-2020-Slavery-and-Capitalism.pdf


    No scholar seriously doubts that there was a strong relationship between the development of capitalism and the emergence of New World slave plantations. Where they disagree is over the nature of that relationship. Was slavery itself a form of capitalism, or was the master-slave relationship fundamentally different from capitalist social relations? Did slavery give rise to capitalism, or did capitalism give rise to slavery? This course will address these questions, beginning with a survey of the way scholars have addressed them. Then, with a particular focus on the United States, we will address the theoretical and empirical question of whether the slave economy of the Old South was or was not capitalist. Finally, we will shift to the very different question of the relationship between southern slavery, especially the cotton economy, and the industrialization of the North.
     

    Replies: @Anonymous

    That isn’t doing the work. Citing the opinion of a single professor on his own course syllabus as proof of… what again, exactly? ‘Slavery as capitalism helper’ is a different argument entirely, and also quite irrelevant, as capitalism and industrialization are different, and labeling an economic sector as capitalist doesn’t mean that sector was ever efficient, or beneficial to society. In fact, in your cited comment, the type of relationship of southern cotton to northern industry is posed as a question — strange that is so, when in the very same cited comment it is mentioned no serious scholar doubts the strong relationship between the development of capitalism and New World slave plantations. As mentioned by numerous commenters in this very thread, no one disputes textile factories in the northern US and England used southern cotton, but rather the dependence was weak because other sources could be, and were indeed, in historical reality, found when supply issues (war) became a problem. And in the 19th Century, it was far more trivial to shift the production of cash crops than build an industrial infrastructure. Which is my point, again: what generated most of the wealth of the United States was industrialization. Which existed in nascent form in those Northern — and slave free — factories, and not in the South — plantation owners being rather hostile to factories, and the feared social changes and political power displacement.

    Now, as for your assertion: slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for active participants at home ..

    Tisk, tisk, Mr. (or Mrs.) Corvinus…are you going back to mealy mouthed quotes?

    The first part of your assertion is certainly not proven, the second correct but so vague (I suggest purposely) as to easily allow misinterpretation.
    No one on this thread denies slavery generated wealth for plantation owners and business partners themselves, slavery didn’t help the rest of the population much, but rather hurt, but ‘active participants’ sounds pretty vague actually, as it’s left up to the reader to determine the scope of ‘active’…. could it not be the entire country?

    It, of course, is remotely not.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "That isn’t doing the work. Citing the opinion of a single professor on his own course syllabus as proof of… what again, exactly?"

    Actually, I cited several sources. Pay closer attention. Furthermore, the course syllabus is evidence that this topic will be addressed from multiple perspectives, including the sources I provided. There is an implication that the authors of those works are other than legitimate.

    "‘Slavery as capitalism helper’ is a different argument entirely"

    In what regard to the sources I cited? Please be specific.

    "and also quite irrelevant, as capitalism and industrialization are different, and labeling an economic sector as capitalist doesn’t mean that sector was ever efficient, or beneficial to society."

    How is it irrelevant in light of the arguments offered? Please be specific.

    "And in the 19th Century, it was far more trivial to shift the production of cash crops than build an industrial infrastructure. Which is my point, again: what generated most of the wealth of the United States was industrialization. Which existed in nascent form in those Northern — and slave free — factories, and not in the South — plantation owners being rather hostile to factories, and the feared social changes and political power displacement.

    "The first part of your assertion is certainly not proven, the second correct but so vague (I suggest purposely) as to easily allow misinterpretation."

    If you are going to make that charge, please substantiate it with evidence. What specifically from the sources do you disagree with? Why?

  129. People like this, if not being paid, are usually former Nazis trying to prove they’ve ditched their bad old beliefs.

  130. @Corvinus
    @syonredux

    The piece you linked to was written by John Clegg, who is notorious for his opposition to the thesis. As a commodity, cotton had the advantage of being easily stored and transported. The demand for it already existed in the industrial textile mills in Great Britain in the mid-1700's. Eventually, the steady stream of southern slave-produced cotton would also supply northern textile mills. Southern cotton helped fuel the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution in both the United States and Great Britain. The wealth generated plantation owners cycled through to the shipbuilders, producers of textile machinery, banks which provided loans to manufacturers and transporters, and to the citizens themselves in the form of steady employment.

    Clegg is part of an ongoing, spirited debate.

    https://earlyamericanists.com/2015/11/04/guest-post-correcting-an-incorrect-corrective/

    Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux

    As a commodity, cotton had the advantage of being easily stored and transported.

    Correct. One of the reasons why the source of cotton (Egypt, the American South, etc) did not really matter. To quote Gavin Wright again:

    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).”

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @syonredux

    The source of cotton did matter, as southern cotton in its rawest form in the U.S. was shipped down the Mississippi to New Orleans.

    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/the-economics-of-cotton/


    Investors poured huge sums into steamships. In 1817, only seventeen plied the waters of western rivers, but by 1837, there were over seven hundred steamships in operation. Major new ports developed at St. Louis, Missouri; Memphis, Tennessee; and other locations. By 1860, some thirty-five hundred vessels were steaming in and out of New Orleans, carrying an annual cargo made up primarily of cotton that amounted to $220 million worth of goods (approximately $6.5 billion in 2014 dollars).

    New Orleans had been part of the French empire before the United States purchased it, along with the rest of the Louisiana Territory, in 1803. In the first half of the nineteenth century, it rose in prominence and importance largely because of the cotton boom, steam-powered river traffic, and its strategic position near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Steamboats moved down the river transporting cotton grown on plantations along the river and throughout the South to the port at New Orleans. From there, the bulk of American cotton went to Liverpool, England, where it was sold to British manufacturers who ran the cotton mills in Manchester and elsewhere. This lucrative international trade brought new wealth and new residents to the city. By 1840, New Orleans alone had 12 percent of the nation’s total banking capital, and visitors often commented on the great cultural diversity of the city. In 1835, Joseph Holt Ingraham wrote: “Truly does New-Orleans represent every other city and nation upon earth. I know of none where is congregated so great a variety of the human species.” Slaves, cotton, and the steamship transformed the city from a relatively isolated corner of North America in the eighteenth century to a thriving metropolis that rivaled New York in importance.
     
    Industry, finance, invention, organization...all experienced fundamental change under the effects of cotton demand.
  131. @Corvinus
    @syonredux

    The piece you linked to was written by John Clegg, who is notorious for his opposition to the thesis. As a commodity, cotton had the advantage of being easily stored and transported. The demand for it already existed in the industrial textile mills in Great Britain in the mid-1700's. Eventually, the steady stream of southern slave-produced cotton would also supply northern textile mills. Southern cotton helped fuel the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution in both the United States and Great Britain. The wealth generated plantation owners cycled through to the shipbuilders, producers of textile machinery, banks which provided loans to manufacturers and transporters, and to the citizens themselves in the form of steady employment.

    Clegg is part of an ongoing, spirited debate.

    https://earlyamericanists.com/2015/11/04/guest-post-correcting-an-incorrect-corrective/

    Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux

    Incidentally, dear boy, try to avoid Baptist’s fallacy:

    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

  132. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    That isn't doing the work. Citing the opinion of a single professor on his own course syllabus as proof of... what again, exactly? 'Slavery as capitalism helper' is a different argument entirely, and also quite irrelevant, as capitalism and industrialization are different, and labeling an economic sector as capitalist doesn't mean that sector was ever efficient, or beneficial to society. In fact, in your cited comment, the type of relationship of southern cotton to northern industry is posed as a question -- strange that is so, when in the very same cited comment it is mentioned no serious scholar doubts the strong relationship between the development of capitalism and New World slave plantations. As mentioned by numerous commenters in this very thread, no one disputes textile factories in the northern US and England used southern cotton, but rather the dependence was weak because other sources could be, and were indeed, in historical reality, found when supply issues (war) became a problem. And in the 19th Century, it was far more trivial to shift the production of cash crops than build an industrial infrastructure. Which is my point, again: what generated most of the wealth of the United States was industrialization. Which existed in nascent form in those Northern -- and slave free -- factories, and not in the South -- plantation owners being rather hostile to factories, and the feared social changes and political power displacement.

    Now, as for your assertion: slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for active participants at home ..

    Tisk, tisk, Mr. (or Mrs.) Corvinus...are you going back to mealy mouthed quotes?

    The first part of your assertion is certainly not proven, the second correct but so vague (I suggest purposely) as to easily allow misinterpretation.
    No one on this thread denies slavery generated wealth for plantation owners and business partners themselves, slavery didn't help the rest of the population much, but rather hurt, but 'active participants' sounds pretty vague actually, as it's left up to the reader to determine the scope of 'active'.... could it not be the entire country?

    It, of course, is remotely not.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “That isn’t doing the work. Citing the opinion of a single professor on his own course syllabus as proof of… what again, exactly?”

    Actually, I cited several sources. Pay closer attention. Furthermore, the course syllabus is evidence that this topic will be addressed from multiple perspectives, including the sources I provided. There is an implication that the authors of those works are other than legitimate.

    “‘Slavery as capitalism helper’ is a different argument entirely”

    In what regard to the sources I cited? Please be specific.

    “and also quite irrelevant, as capitalism and industrialization are different, and labeling an economic sector as capitalist doesn’t mean that sector was ever efficient, or beneficial to society.”

    How is it irrelevant in light of the arguments offered? Please be specific.

    “And in the 19th Century, it was far more trivial to shift the production of cash crops than build an industrial infrastructure. Which is my point, again: what generated most of the wealth of the United States was industrialization. Which existed in nascent form in those Northern — and slave free — factories, and not in the South — plantation owners being rather hostile to factories, and the feared social changes and political power displacement.

    “The first part of your assertion is certainly not proven, the second correct but so vague (I suggest purposely) as to easily allow misinterpretation.”

    If you are going to make that charge, please substantiate it with evidence. What specifically from the sources do you disagree with? Why?

  133. @syonredux
    @Corvinus


    As a commodity, cotton had the advantage of being easily stored and transported.
     
    Correct. One of the reasons why the source of cotton (Egypt, the American South, etc) did not really matter. To quote Gavin Wright again:

    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).”
     

    Replies: @Corvinus

    The source of cotton did matter, as southern cotton in its rawest form in the U.S. was shipped down the Mississippi to New Orleans.

    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/the-economics-of-cotton/

    Investors poured huge sums into steamships. In 1817, only seventeen plied the waters of western rivers, but by 1837, there were over seven hundred steamships in operation. Major new ports developed at St. Louis, Missouri; Memphis, Tennessee; and other locations. By 1860, some thirty-five hundred vessels were steaming in and out of New Orleans, carrying an annual cargo made up primarily of cotton that amounted to $220 million worth of goods (approximately $6.5 billion in 2014 dollars).

    New Orleans had been part of the French empire before the United States purchased it, along with the rest of the Louisiana Territory, in 1803. In the first half of the nineteenth century, it rose in prominence and importance largely because of the cotton boom, steam-powered river traffic, and its strategic position near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Steamboats moved down the river transporting cotton grown on plantations along the river and throughout the South to the port at New Orleans. From there, the bulk of American cotton went to Liverpool, England, where it was sold to British manufacturers who ran the cotton mills in Manchester and elsewhere. This lucrative international trade brought new wealth and new residents to the city. By 1840, New Orleans alone had 12 percent of the nation’s total banking capital, and visitors often commented on the great cultural diversity of the city. In 1835, Joseph Holt Ingraham wrote: “Truly does New-Orleans represent every other city and nation upon earth. I know of none where is congregated so great a variety of the human species.” Slaves, cotton, and the steamship transformed the city from a relatively isolated corner of North America in the eighteenth century to a thriving metropolis that rivaled New York in importance.

    Industry, finance, invention, organization…all experienced fundamental change under the effects of cotton demand.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS