Liberal Forum

Skans » 14 Feb 2023, 2:59 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:59 pm

No, slavery did not set the stage for future growth.  Slaverey set the stage for the complete destruction of not only the South, but much of the North as well.  The North lost many men to the war, and much of the nation's wealth was devoted toward the North winning that war and destroying the South.

 

You are looking at this in a tangible perspective. Yes, there was complete destruction. But that doesn't mean there was a destruction in the mindset of the South of how they want to use blacks. They were more pissed off. They exploited themin a different way. First slavery, then through cheap pay. 

Whether it was or wasn't, has nothing to do with the real, tangible losses of wealth, property, land and skilled men that the South, and to a lesser extent the North suffered. 

Again, the mindset continued. The South didn't just forget overnight. They still viewed blacks as less human. The exploitation resumed, only differently. 

Blacks lacked any skill or education whatsoever.  So, all they were capable of doing were the lowest forms of unskilled jobs.  Still, they were paid for their work.  They were free.  They could live where they wanted to live and they were not tied to a master or owner in any way.  As such, whatever work they did they were paid for - this is not attributable to slavery. 

This is the same for the whites back then. Only 25% of whites were literate, barely. They were dirt poor. They were just as unskilled. 

They were not paid "below whites" for doing the same jobs, because most ****** couldn't do the same jobs as whites.  They simply lacked the skills.

Yes, they were paid less. That's why there were so many riots. The blacks were a threat to the whites because they were paid less. They were fighting for work, but the whites had a hard time competing with slave wages. 

The factories were all in the north.  There were no factories in the South.  The South remained dirt poor and destitute for many decades after the war.  In fact, it wasn't until after WWII that the South started to make any gains economically. 

This just isn't true. The South wasn't a complete wasteland with nothing. If so, nobody would have survived, even the whites. 

Many blacks left the south and moved north to work in the factories.  How do you think the North got so many Africans living there?  Whether the blacks who worked back then should have been paid more for their work - that's a different issue.  But, then we're talking about something other than slavery.  And, we certainly are no longer talking about how America got "rich" on the backs of slaves.

There was work in the North...for slave wages, which led to numerous riots. Again, the exploitation was just manifested in a different way.