[Kaiserschmarrn]

Come on Kaiserschmarrn! The industrial revolution needed cheap cotton to start out. The cotton gin and slave labor enabled the cheap cotton the British and the rich white boys running the text-mills needed up in New England.

No. From a previous post:

Slave-produced raw materials generally formed a small share of the price of a finished good, in this case textiles. After 1790 the British exported their Industrial Revolution on the back of more efficient manufacturing techniques which allowed them to undercut foreign competition. The geographical location of the market, or indeed whether that market was supported by rising profits from intensive exploitation of slave labor (or indeed was expanding at all) was of no great significance.

Britain would have just paid more and they did when cotton from the US became unavailable. As I said, at most it might have caused a slowing down of economic development for some time.

They also employed women in those mills because they wouldn't have to pay them as much as a man. That translates over to higher profits for them and cheaper prices that everybody else wanted when they bought products made from those textile mills. The Brits weren't stupid. They wanted to buy their cotton as cheap as they could get it. They didn't care if the cotton was produced by the cotton gin and slave labor. They just wanted to get as much as they could for as cheap of a price they could. That meant black folks working for free and women getting paid less than men for the same work. Everybody knows, the rich has been screwing over the poor since the dawn of time. Always has been and always will be:

One of your problems is that you think history lessons from an introductory video by Khan Academy provide insight into this. Since the economic data had you so stumped, it's clear that this was new information for you and that you are quite unfamiliar with many aspects of the industrial revolution and how/why it happened. By continuing to just repeat previous assertions despite the evidence to the contrary I have presented, you are doubling down on what looks like historical and economic illiteracy.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

Britain would have just paid more and they did when cotton from the US became unavailable. As I said, at most it might have caused a slowing down of economic development for some time.

Yeah they did, which meant prices for consumer goods rise, which means less are sold, which means less profits from the rich folks in England. Believe me, it was no accident the pommies were buying most of their cotton from the American south before they were unable to. Black folks working for free and white women working for less than a man for the same work means lower prices for consumers, which means more product being sold, which in turn means higher profit margins for the rich white boys in New England and England. It's simple. It's 1 +2 = 3. As the black soldier in Platoon remarked, "You have to be rich to believe...." to believe what you have posted. As far as your economic data from what seems to be of the 1830s (and I would be careful about drawing any conclusions from it), currently I am not disputing it (I have been tied up with my classes and hadn't had a chance to really try to research and possible be able to find anything to dispute your data), but on the same token I don't think it proves any of my assertions wrong either. In addition i have posted WAAAY more sources than one simple video which you cannot dispute or refute. And that video itself cannot be disputed either and you know it. Have you read or reviewed any of them? Slavery was not insignificant to the Industrial Revolution, I can promise you that. We fought a war over here because of slavery that costed the lives of half a million Americans.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Yeah they did, which meant prices for consumer goods rise, which means less are sold, which means less profits from the rich folks in England.

Which means the IR still happens but perhaps with some delay. There, I completed that train of thought for you.

Believe me, it was no accident the pommies were buying most of their cotton from the American south before they were unable to. Black folks working for free and white women working for less than a man for the same work means lower prices for consumers, which means more product being sold, which in turn means higher profit margins for the rich white boys in New England and England. It's simple. It's 1 +2 = 3. As the black soldier in Platoon remarked, "You have to be rich to believe...." to believe what you have posted.

Please spare me the moralising. It is irrelevant to the question whether slave labour was indispensable for the industrial revolution and/or the extent of its contribution.

As far as your economic data, currently I am not disputing it (I have been tied up with my classes and hadn't had a chance to really try to research and possible be able to find anything to dispute your data), but on the same token I don't think it proves any of my assertions wrong either.

If you don't think so, it proves that you either haven't properly read what I wrote/quoted or you don't understand it.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

Ohh I am not "moralizing" with you. I am just telling you how real life works. You just don't want to accept real life for what it is. The Industrial Revolution isn't hard to understand. It was about money and free labor from blacks and paying white women less than a man was how the money was made and made some white men in both England and New England as well as the American south very rich. Yet, you try to deny that and downplay the true significance that slavery and cotton played in the Industrial Revolution. As if it, things like this never happened and those that say it did and rightly point that out and rightly point out it's significance, you just want to down play it. And I posted a TON of sources for you to review and by your own admission, you said you didn't want to review one of them (though I am beginning to wonder if you took the time to review any of them), yet I extended that courtesy to you. This isn't a one way street here. If you want me to continue to extend the courtesy of listening to what you have to say, then you in return have to extend that same courtesy. A one way street in debate is not acceptable and I am not going to debate somebody who operates on a one way street mentality.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The Industrial Revolution isn't hard to understand

That's your problem right there. You have a very simplistic view that seems to be mostly guided by moral considerations. This will stand in your way if your objective is to establish accurate historical information and understand a complex historical economic phenomenon.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

That's your problem right there. You have a very simplistic view that seems to be mostly guided by moral considerations. This will stand in your way if your objective is to establish accurate historical information and understand a complex historical economic phenomenon.

I don't believe having a set of moral values is wrong at all or is a "problem." Nor does it mean I have a simplistic view of the world or that I don't have an accurate view of history. I'm not stupid. I have a pretty good idea and realistic view of some aspects of history. Just because I view what happened in past history through a moral lens doesn't mean I am wrong or I have an inaccurate view of what happened. For example, if I said, what the Nazis did the to the Jews was evil, I think most people would agree that I am not wrong in making that statement. I think most people, including many scholars of history, would agree with my assessment (and the reason why I know is I have a friend who is a scholar and graduate of this aspect of history). He would dispute your assertions. Why would you think viewing some aspect of history through a moral lens would mean I can't understand accurately how history unfolded? It's OK to understand what's right and what's wrong. On the same token, it's not always necessary to make history un-necessarily complicated to understand and sometimes, it's OK to put it in easy, simple to understand terms. That doesn't mean you are over-simplifying things or that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I don't believe having a set of moral values is wrong at all or is a "problem." Nor does it mean I have a simplistic view of the world or that I don't have an accurate view of history. I'm not stupid. I have a pretty good idea and realistic view of some aspects of history. Just because I view what happened in past history through a moral lens doesn't mean I am wrong. For example, if I said, what the Nazis did the to the Jews was evil, I think most people would agree that I am not wrong in making that statement. I think most people, including many scholars of history, would agree with my assessment (and the reason why I know is I have a friend who is a scholar and graduate of this aspect of history). He would dispute your assertions. Why would you think viewing some aspect of history through a moral lens would mean I can't understand accurately how history unfolded? It's OK to understand what's right and what's wrong.

Honestly, my impression is that this is about what you consider to be giving blacks their due for the exploitation and suffering they have experienced, which is obviously predominantly motivated by moral considerations. Somebody with that perspective might well consider exaggerating the importance of slavery's contribution to our current prosperity, even if the evidence doesn't really support it, a relatively small price to pay. You wouldn't be alone. The "new historians" of slavery have a similar perspective, and yes, there is certainly evidence that it clouds their judgement.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

Honestly, my impression is that this is about what you consider to be giving blacks their due for the exploitation and suffering they have experienced, which is obviously predominantly motivated by moral considerations. Somebody with that perspective might well consider exaggerating the importance of slavery's contribution to our current prosperity, even if the evidence doesn't really support it, a relatively small price to pay. You wouldn't be alone. The "new historians" of slavery have a similar perspective, and yes, there is certainly evidence that it clouds their judgement.

And my honest impression, is that because you have a conservative view point, you have an interest in downplaying the significance of slavery played in producing the very important raw material of cotton that was fuel for the Industrial Revolution and rewriting history from the way it really happened (and you also have to consider that women have not been paid the same as men for the same work and this is a problem even today that the US women's soccer team has brought up with their recent World Cup win) to our current economic prosperity. One little economic statistic that you quoted doesn't make your case. You have to have a wide variety of sources to make your case. I have provided a wide variety of sources to make my case and they are all respected sources. One little economic statistic that you throw out about the 1830s doesn't make a case (and I would be careful about drawing conclusions about one economic statistic). Slavery wasn't just a "small price to pay" but it was a high price to pay. The low cost of products produced during the Industrial Revolution came with a high price (you also have to consider child labor that helped produce those products).

And it wasn't just African Americans that suffered under slavery from the Industrial Revolution, it was those poor, mostly white workers, in particularly, women and children, who suffered in those factories. Children were exploited too insofar as child labor. And it was them, along with the those slaves working for free in the cotton fields, that made the Industrial Revolution possible. Wealthy white people who made their fortunes from child labor, exploiting the free labor of black people in the cotton fields along with not paying women equally in the factories or overworking men in the factories while trying to underpay them too (though women still got paid less than men); have a strong interest in denying or downplaying the facts of history. Because if they didn't downplay the facts of history, then that would mean, their excessive power and privilege comes under challenge and they don't like that! No ma'am they don't. Because it's about power and control for them.

[Drlee]

It is somewhat ironic that many slaveholders wrote about how uneconomical slaves had become. George Washington among them.

Was the US built on slavery? Bad question. Was the US built on cheap labor? Of course. It still is.

Is it fair to compare, say, slavery with the lot of illegal alien workers today? Not generally. But if you stick just to the economics? Yes.

[Politics_Observer]

@Drlee

It is somewhat ironic that many slaveholders wrote about how uneconomical slaves had become. George Washington among them.

That's true and that was before the cotton gin invention came into prevalent use. Once the cotton gin came into prevalent use, slavery was very profitable for the southern plantation owners who grew and sold cotton. The cotton gin prolonged slavery because slavery was more economical than hiring and paying people to work the cotton fields and run the cotton gins. It also made cotton from the southern United States very cheap to buy for the Brits for example and the New England textile mill owners.

Was the US built on slavery? Bad question.

I think it's a good question given that current modern day America when it was first being settled by European settlers in the 1600s relied heavily on slavery. Slavery existed in the territorial boundaries of modern America since the 1600s all the way to the 1860s. That's a good 240 to 260 years. I would also say that America was built not just by slavery, but also by immigration.

Was the US built on cheap labor? Of course. It still is.

I agree with you here. Prison labor is cheap plus even today in modern America, you have sweat shops even right here today in good ole America. A lot of companies try to hide that stuff so they can keep producing cheap goods and cheap materials to make a profit. Cheap labor from immigrants and undocumented workers who also happen to pay taxes by the way despite being undocumented also helped to build America.

[Drlee]

My point was not to deny slavery but rather to point out, purely from an economic standpoint, that it still exists.

Let me add that the federal minimum wage has fallen steadily for over 50 years.

There will be some pea brains who launch into an argument about whether or not we ought to have one at all. It is a pointless argument and it almost invariably relies on an assertion that is demonstrably untrue in the light of the past 50 odd years.

Immigrants, legal and particularly illegal, are being paid less than subsistence wages. A living wage for a single mom with one child in AZ where I live is computed to be $23.44, or more than double the minimum wage.
So let us assume she works as a barista for a coffee shop. In AZ she would make $11.50 an hour. Check it out. That number is 1.6X the minimum wage in Alabama; a state with similar cost of living. Is this because Arizona is so enlightened that it knows that the minimum wage is too low? Nope. Is it because Alabama is libertarian and does not believe in a minimum wage so they follow the federal one? Nope. Then why is Arizona so all-fired progressive? Because we have a referendum law and the people, not some sold out political party, has control. The people of Arizona, realizing that it is absurd to pay people less than a reasonable wage, have forced the law into the constitution. Note that some republican lawmakers sued to stop the new minimum wage from going into effect but they lost. I am sure their corporate masters told them to do it.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Kaiserschmarrn And my honest impression, is that because you have a conservative view point, you have an interest in downplaying the significance of slavery played in producing the very important raw material of cotton that was fuel for the Industrial Revolution and rewriting history from the way it really happened (and you also have to consider that women have not been paid the same as men for the same work and this is a problem even today that the US women's soccer team has brought up with their recent World Cup win) to our current economic prosperity. One little economic statistic that you quoted doesn't make your case. You have to have a wide variety of sources to make your case. I have provided a wide variety of sources to make my case and they are all respected sources. One little economic statistic that you throw out about the 1830s doesn't make a case (and I would be careful about drawing conclusions about one economic statistic).

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. My argument doesn't depend on "one little economic statistic", but I quoted several estimates and findings by economic historians related to GDP, income and exports as a share of GDP, the share of the cotton industry of industrial production, that profits from slavery were hardly invested in industrial activity, that the south didn't produce consumers who in turn created demand as the north did, etc. I could add that the consumer market in the south was generally subdued because plantations were largely self-sufficient, which goes some way in explaining why the south itself didn't industrialise, had few market towns and most economic activity ran east-west rather than north-south. Overall, slavery quite likely was a drag on development in the south, as the slave economy didn't create the same incentives as free labour did in the north. This is the first part of my argument: the role of cotton production in relation to all economic activity in the US which, combined, propelled the US towards its prosperous future.

The second part of my argument deals with the cotton and textile industries themselves. I've asked you more than once for a reasoned argument why we should consider one factor (slave labour) among many as the crucial or most important one when the industries quite obviously wouldn't have functioned without all the other factors. Take away transportation and the cotton just sits there and doesn't get to a location where it can be turned into something useful. Take away the workers in the textile industry and, again, cotton doesn't get processed into the products people wanted. Take away the workers turned consumers in Britain who wanted consumer goods, and there's no demand that can fuel the cotton industry in the US. If that wasn't enough, you also, oddly, jumped on the cotton gin, which was invented by a white man, and declared that without it the IR doesn't happen, so you inadvertently put forward the argument that one white guy was as important to the IR as all slaves combined! While you are wrong that the absence of one invention would have stopped the industrial revolution in its tracks, you made my argument for me without noticing.

Slavery wasn't just a "small price to pay" but it was a high price to pay. The low cost of products produced during the Industrial Revolution came with a high price (you also have to consider child labor that helped produce those products). And it wasn't just African Americans that suffered under slavery from the Industrial Revolution, it was those poor, mostly white workers, in particularly, women and children, who suffered in those factories. Children were exploited too insofar as child labor. And it was them, along with the those slaves working for free in the cotton fields, that made the Industrial Revolution possible. Wealthy white people who made their fortunes from child labor, exploiting the free labor of black people in the cotton fields along with not paying women equally in the factories or overworking men in the factories while trying to underpay them too (though women still got paid less than men); have a strong interest in denying or downplaying the facts of history. Because if they didn't downplay the facts of history, then that would mean, their excessive power and privilege comes under challenge and they don't like that! No ma'am they don't. Because it's about power and control for them.

Here you again demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension. I didn't say that slave labour was a small price to pay. Please go back and re-read my post if that's what you took away from it.

And let's be clear. Slavery is ancient. It has been practiced throughout history on all continents. The same goes for child labour. Most people, men and women, did often back-breaking work in agriculture before the industrial revolution. So I agree that we should get our historical facts straight, not only for the sake of accuracy itself, but also because it gives us the necessary perspective. However, none of this helps us understand the extent of the contribution of slavery to the industrial revolution. To me, it looks like you would now like to muse about inconsequential matters that have nothing to do with your original claims that started our discussion. Nobody contests that injustices and inequalities have existed at the time of the IR just like at any other time prior to it. I'm going to ignore these diversions from now on.

Finally, I note that somewhat ironically you are advancing the narrative of the slave owners at the time. So confident were they that the slave system was indispensable and so optimistic with respect to secession that slave prices shot up before the civil war to the point where they were worth $4bn (as you've told us). Yet, the slave owners' threats and predictions of doom turned out to be unfounded.

-------------------------------------------------------

@Politics_Observer, I'm still waiting for the evidence that there is an explosion of white supremacy in the US by the way.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

No amount of evidence is going to be good enough for you despite presenting tons of it to you in the first place. You yourself admitted you didn't read all my sources so what's the point? All you have to do is pay attention to the news. That's it! It's all the over the news! If you can't even pay attention to what's going on around you and watch just little bit of news from respectable journalistic sources and see the reality that's in front of you, then that's not my problem. Racism and white supremacy has ALWAYS been apart of America.

America was founded on white supremacy. It just didn't always show it's face until recently when Obama got elected twice and it really began to show it's face when Trump ran his campaign and then got elected by appealing to the fears, racism and prejudices of white Americans. The vast majority of people who voted for Trump did so out of a perception of status threat to wealthy white people here in America. Most Americans who voted Trump were reasonably well off and white and perceived a status threat from the election of Obama and that was motivated in large part to racism too.

A lot of white women voted for Trump despite the controversies surrounding the Access Hollywood video tape and various allegations from women against Trump. The reason why white women voted Trump despite all this is because they perceive that white supremacy suits their best interests. But voting for white supremacy is making a deal with the devil. Many Germans made that deal with the devil when they voted for Hitler many decades ago. And white supremacy is not just a problem in the United States, it's a problem in other countries too, like Australia for example. Anyway, their is no changing each other's mind so there is no sense in continuing the discussion.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@KaiserschmarrnNo amount of evidence is going to be good enough for you despite presenting tons of it to you in the first place.

You provided one interview with a self-identified white supremacist.

You yourself admitted you didn't read all my sources so what's the point?

I didn't watch your intro video from Khan Academy, but I did have a look at the transcript. I also did read everything else you quoted. I don't know where you get the idea that I didn't read them since I referred to and addressed the points they make.

All you have to do is pay attention to the news. That's it! It's all the over the news! If you can't even pay attention to what's going on around you and watch just little bit of news from respectable journalistic sources and see the reality that's in front of you, then that's not my problem. Racism and white supremacy has ALWAYS been apart of America.

America was founded on white supremacy. It just didn't always show it's face until recently when Obama got elected twice and it really began to show it's face when Trump ran his campaign and then got elected by appealing to the fears, racism and prejudices of white Americans. The vast majority of people who voted for Trump did so out of a perception of status threat to wealthy white people here in America. Most Americans who voted Trump were reasonably well off and white and perceived a status threat from the election of Obama and that was motivated in large part to racism too.

This seems to contradict your original claim that there had been a recent "explosion".

A lot of white women voted for Trump despite the controversies surrounding the Access Hollywood video tape and various allegations from women against Trump. The reason why white women voted Trump despite all this is because they perceive that white supremacy suits their best interests. But voting for white supremacy is making a deal with the devil. Many Germans made that deal with the devil when they voted for Hitler many decades ago. And white supremacy is not just a problem in the United States, it's a problem in other countries too, like Australia for example.

A nazi comparison, how original.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

The "explosion" as you seem to like to quote it, was just another term of saying that it showed it's face but was always there.

I also did read everything else you quoted. I don't know where you get the idea that I didn't read them since I referred to and addressed the points they make.

Well if you read it, then you just ignored it and didn't even pay attention to it despite it all being true. What do you want me to do?

A nazi comparison, how original.

It doesn't matter whether it's original or not. All that matters is that is a lesson and warning from history that should not be ignored or forgotten.

Edit:

@Kaiserschmarrn

Besides, I think it's important to be a good sport and say good debate, even if at the end nobody's minds were changed. At the end of the day, there are bigger and more important things than politics and debate and that is good sportsmanship and being gracious and learning to get along and be good to each other.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The "explosion" as you seem to like to quote it, was just another term of saying that it showed it's face but was always there.

I don't think it's common to use the term explosion in that situation, but at least you seem to admit now that not much has changed in terms of attitudes and perceptions. We can now move on to the other claim you made in the same breath:

Much of the explosion of white supremacy here in the US comes with this fear of whites of "we will be replaced."

Could you show us evidence that there is widespread fear among white Americans of being replaced?

Well if you read it, then you just ignored it and didn't even pay attention to it despite it all being true. What do you want me to do?

Claims, such as cotton being the majority of exports, are true, but they aren't very meaningful without the context, such as that exports were a small part of GDP at the time. That's what I have tried to get across to you. In isolation the information you have presented can look impressive, but without knowing what the wider economy looked like and other contexts such as where profits were invested, it's impossible to tell how important the information is to the industrial revolution. Apart from that, you have also refused to address my questions to you about the many different contributory factors within the cotton and textile industries, and none of your sources have addressed these questions either.

It doesn't matter whether it's original or not. All that matters is that is a lesson and warning from history that should not be ignored or forgotten.

I'm almost tempted to give you a history lesson about national socialism and how it arose in Germany, but that might be too much after our discussion.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

Did you see my edit? No sense in beating a dead horse. Here is what I said in my edit:

Besides, I think it's important to be a good sport and say good debate, even if at the end nobody's minds were changed. At the end of the day, there are bigger and more important things than politics and debate and that is good sportsmanship and being gracious and learning to get along and be good to each other.

Are you a trained historian? University educated? If so, what field?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Did you see my edit? No sense in beating a dead horse. Here is what I said in my edit:

No, I didn't see it. No, worries or hard feelings.

Are you a trained historian? University educated? If so, what field?

I'm just interested in history and had been reading a bit about the IR when our debate started.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

No big deal! Pleased to debate you! It was fun! I had to go back and forth between doing school and here. I managed to get my school work done for the week so I am enjoying the weekend for a change. Not used to having a free weekend. Not sure what I'll do. How are things in the down under (my understanding is you are from Australia)? I have a few friends from Australia whom I met in Afghanistan while I was serving there many years ago as a soldier in the US Army. Australia had soldiers serving there as our allies. One of my good friends whom I correspond with is Australian veteran of the war in Afghanistan. I'm not a historian myself though I have a friend who is. I am a computer guru.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Politics_Observer, I'm in NZ and should really be doing some garden work. Make the most of your free weekend!