Which, oh look, is a factor that explains their growth beyond just “muh slavery”.
#AOE 3 WARCHIEFS REMOVING APPLICATIONS PATCH#
Ultimately this British system left these areas more self sufficient instead of a ravaged patch of land with no infrastructure and sucked dry of natural resources (see a lot of Spanish colonies) when they gained their independence. But you, being the expert in history, were already well aware of that of course. Was it out of the goodness of their hearts for those areas? No obviously they just thought that was the best way to produce for the homeland. While each tended to suck the wealth out for the motherland, Britain tended to, at least some degree, build up its colonies instead of purely mine, chop, and suck it dry. It’s fascinating seeing the difference between the British colonies and the French/Spanish colonies. You’re absolutely right though that those parts of the world were devastated, I’m glad you brought it up. Other than completely missing my point so you could jump to yours. Yes I specifically mentioned Central and South American nations not being anywhere near the economic growth of the US because I wanted to talk about France. The slaves came with the first settlers, they have been here since the beginning, and literally built the south and parts of the north" is an oversimplification and intellectually dishonest.
In short: saying "Your a bit wrong their bud. Likewise indentured servitude became more expensive due to waning migration from England and white exploitation becoming less acceptable due to the fading perceptions of classicism and the growing unity among whites. Over the decades African slavery became more common as plantations became bigger and more numerous, and disease being less of an issue due to newer plantations being built further away from swamps (due to conquests of Amerindians) among other factors. Indentured servitude was far more common in the 17th century due to African slaves being considered too costly for what was assumed to be a short life span. Unlike the Spanish, where there where enough Indians around to make up for short-life spans. True but you clearly overblew the relevance of slavery in the first years of Virginia.Īlso, while attempts were made, the colonists were never too successful at capturing Alonguians for use as slaves. While the idea of the wealthy plantation owner is there for a reason, it existed but it wasn't the norm. The British Isles was richer despite being so small (the island not the empire, although the empire was very wealthy).
The South was rich compared to even some major European countries but was absolutely dwarfed by the North. Louis Hacker who was an economic historian wrote a lot about it as well. While it is true that there were slaves in the North still, the amount was dwarfed compared to that of the South and the Southern economy was dwarfed by the North. In the North farmland had twice the output per acre. The North produced 17 times more cotton and wool than the South (The National Parks service doesn't make this clear but I do believe this to be refined product and not raw). After some google searching The National Parks service has some statistics.ĩ0% of the countries' industry was in the North. Not particular sources I'd have to find the books one of which was a history book from university. One could even argue given how poor the South was in the 1860s it held them back. Not to say the US didn't exploit people, the Natives would have a word or two about that but Slavery was not important in the slightest in the wealth of the US.
Notably one called "The British Empire" you might have heard of it, founded the 13 colonies. All the colonial European countries used slaves and it doesn't show up at all. And US wasn't a very wealthy nation until after slavery was already over specifically in the 20th century when their industry exploded.Īs for the likely hood slavery will show up. Where as most countries just outlawed it, the US had to fight a war with itself to end it.Įvidence for the unimportance of slavery is that areas that it was very active in also happened to be poorer than the areas without. Slavery was not important to the wealth of the US and in fact the only reason it is so prevalent in the core of US is because of how it ended. Enormous navigable rivers, large natural ports and of course raw materials. USA is wealthy because of natural geography. This is a pretty controversial topic and don't particularly want to stoke a fire but it wasn't.
0 kommentar(er)
