OT -- Nelson Mandela died today at age 95

[TobyTyler]

Where did those bastions of commerce and industry get their cotton? You are telling me that the American South, which provided over 60% of the world's cotton by 1860, had no impact on the textile factories in the North? Yes, the North developed a transportation system that connected the commercial farmers in the Old Northwest, but it is wrong to state that slavery had no impact on American factories, merchants, and bankers (who financed the plantation system).

Cotton? Cotton? Are you kidding me? Cotton? That's what you came up with?

 

[jakea31]

Cotton? Cotton? Are you kidding me? Cotton? That's what you came up with?

Yes, are you stating that it played no role in the first industrial revolution? You made the statement that slavery played no role in the industrialization of the North. Why do you not think cotton played no role in the wealth that was created? It was America's greatest export of the time.

 

[jakea31]

BTW, I am not saying that the invention of the reaper and steel plow were not important. I am just correcting the statement you made that slavery played no role in the development of the Northern economy.

 

[TobyTyler]

BTW, I am not saying that the invention of the reaper and steel plow were not important. I am just correcting the statement you made that slavery played no role in the development of the Northern economy.

Sounds like you are saying that the economies in the north would not have developed as they did without slavery. As absurd as that sounds, this seems to be what you are trying to tell us.

 

[jakea31]

Sounds like you are saying that the economies in the north would not have developed as they did without slavery. As absurd as that sounds, this seems to be what you are trying to tell us.

LOL, I do not know where you got that. I corrected a statement you made. Again, how did cotton and slavery not impact the Northern economy? McCormick's reaper and John Deere steel plow changed the Old Northwest just as much as the invention of the cotton gin. All of those inventions transformed the economy, which provided raw materials for the the Northeast to use and/or ship abroad. Cotton was America's greatest export of the time, which brought capital used to invest in canals, and later railroads, which expanded the economy even more. The merchants that shipped the cotton, were northerners. The banks that provided capital, were northerners.

I do not know how you cannot see that cotton played a vital role in the overall American economy. It was America's cash crop that brought money back to the country. It was not the sole reason for the economy's expansion, but it was a large part until 1860.

 

[TobyTyler]

LOL, I do not know where you got that. I corrected a statement you made. Again, how did cotton and slavery not impact the Northern economy? McCormick's reaper and John Deere steel plow changed the Old Northwest just as much as the invention of the cotton gin. All of those inventions transformed the economy, which provided raw materials for the the Northeast to use and/or ship abroad. Cotton was America's greatest export of the time, which brought capital used to invest in canals, and later railroads, which expanded the economy even more. The merchants that shipped the cotton, were northerners. The banks that provided capital, were northerners.

I do not know how you cannot see that cotton played a vital role in the overall American economy. It was America's cash crop that brought money back to the country. It was not the sole reason for the economy's expansion, but it was a large part until 1860.

I know that it played a vital role in the defeat of the Confederacy since they stupidly depended on this agrarian economy instead of industrializing like the North did.

 

[jakea31]

I know that it played a vital role in the defeat of the Confederacy since they stupidly depended on this agrarian economy instead of industrializing like the North did.

You are correct. The disparity in industrial production during the war was tremendous. The southerners tried in the early stages of the industrial revolution, but by 1830 they realized they could not compete. Thus, they became even more entrenched in their plantation society and developed the pro-slavery argument where they stated the northern wage earner were the ones really enslaved (while their slaves were taken care of as "dependents"). Their arrogance was evident during the war with the King Cotton Diplomacy, which they believed they could threaten the British economy by withholding cotton exports so it would convince the British to stop the Union from "invading" the South. As one South Carolina Senator stated, "Nobody dares declare war upon it, cotton is king." They believed they were the center of the universe.

They still relied on an agrarian economy until the 1920s. It took them over 100 years to develop a factory system.

 

[TobyTyler]

You are correct. The disparity in industrial production during the war was tremendous. The southerners tried in the early stages of the industrial revolution, but by 1830 they realized they could not compete. Thus, they became even more entrenched in their plantation society and developed the pro-slavery argument where they stated the northern wage earner were the ones really enslaved (while their slaves were taken care of as "dependents"). Their arrogance was evident during the war with the King Cotton Diplomacy, which they believed they could threaten the British economy by withholding cotton exports so it would convince the British to stop the Union from "invading" the South. As one South Carolina Senator stated, "Nobody dares declare war upon it, cotton is king." They believed they were the center of the universe.
They still relied on an agrarian economy until the 1920s. It took them over 100 years to develop a factory system.

And they, like you, were wrong.

 

[jakea31]

And they, like you, were wrong.

How was I wrong? Again, explain to me how the southern economy played no role in the development of the north? At no point did I state slavery created the American economy. I simple corrected a statement you made that they were not at all connected. Please, read about the development of the Market Revolution.

 

[TobyTyler]

How was I wrong? Again, explain to me how the southern economy played no role in the development of the north? At no point did I state slavery created the American economy. I simple corrected a statement you made that they were not at all connected. Please, read about the development of the Market Revolution.

You said cotton was critical to the development of the northern economy. As the rest of the world showed by shunning the South, no one needs cotton.

 

[jakea31]

You said cotton was critical to the development of the northern economy. As the rest of the world showed by shunning the South, no one needs cotton.

So, the New England factory used silk for textiles?

And, no, the British found other sources of cotton (Egypt and India). They still imported from the South after the war. Also, they needed cotton during the war, which they got through the blockade runners. The British were aiding the Confederacy, although they continued to remain neutral. They were the ones that provided weapons and ships to the Confederacy during the war. Charles Francis Adams came upon the British building war ships for the Confederacy.

 

[jakea31]

Also, answer my question. How did cotton not play a important role in the northern economy?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Now you are getting it. Their motivation was the advancement of their nation and its people and saving lives. Thus they are heroes. It doesn't get any more benevolent than that. I knew you'd come around eventually.

And Mandela's motivation was the advancement of his nation and its people and saving lives. The same is undoubtedly true of MLK.

Though again, in terms of inconsistencies, Churchill didn't do a damn thing with your betterment in mind, but you consider him a hero. The vast majority of US troops in WWII cared first and foremost about their own safety - and possibly the safety of immediate friends and family - than about "saving the world," but you consider them heroes. Your definition and the examples you have cited simply do not align. I've already discussed George Washington in some detail. His primary concern certainly was not all of what would come to be Americans.

 

[TobyTyler]

And Mandela's motivation was the advancement of his nation and its people and saving lives. The same is undoubtedly true of MLK. Though again, in terms of inconsistencies, Churchill didn't do a damn thing with your betterment in mind, but you consider him a hero. The vast majority of US troops in WWII cared first and foremost about their own safety - and possibly the safety of immediate friends and family - than about "saving the world," but you consider them heroes. Your definition and the examples you have cited simply do not align. I've already discussed George Washington in some detail. His primary concern certainly was not all of what would come to be Americans.

Mandela yes, King no. That is why Mandela is a hero to black africans. Churchill did his thing for the betterment of his nation and without his efforts a lot more Americans would have had to die. He certainly bettered American chances and made things better for America, thus bettering me.

With the clear explanations that I've provided you, I'm starting to doubt your ability to reason.

 

[TobyTyler]

Also, answer my question. How did cotton not play a important role in the northern economy?

They would have developed just the same without cotton.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Mandela yes, King no. That is why Mandela is a hero to black africans. Churchill did his thing for the betterment of his nation and without his efforts a lot more Americans would have had to die. He certainly bettered American chances and made things better for America, thus bettering me.

With the clear explanations that I've provided you, I'm starting to doubt your ability to reason.

I agree. And anything he did to help the US was entirely incidental to his primary motivation. MLK bettered this country, by channeling the hatred among many blacks into a peaceful movement that accomplished its goals with remarkably little violence - at least violence directed toward whites by blacks. In doing so, he spared American lives, and made things better for America, thus bettering you. But you'll discount that because his primary motivation was improving the lot of black Americans, even though he very actively campaigned for the oppressed people of all races. It's your reasoning - if you can call it that - that is inconsistent, not mine.