poor southerners lived in areas that couldent be farmed for the most part

nigga i aint arguin with you

just like its probably not to everyone's benefit for the corn industry to get the subsidies they do as it is killing small farms and large, monolithic corporate corn farms are horrendous on the environment.

so chill

@everyone Ice88#3397 is someone trying to get you to join this "server" https://discord/(.)me/antifa666, do not click it.. its a trap.. tell other servers you are in, or not.. just a heads up

why would i want to join an antifa discord?

If you wanted to troll them or something like that.

that would require them having intelligence

though i supose it could be that super wealthy southern plantation owners would have had slaves for so many tasks that the only expences they would really spend would be for foreign goods most of the time. basicly it might be the rich never bought locally

which ok maybe an arguement could be made that slavery wasent good for the south, but for the entire nation, it had an overall positive effect on the development of the nation

@Arch-Fiend You retard you just can't admit your wrong can you. It takes a big man to admit when their wrong but it takes a civic nationalist to be belineded by ideology and double down on their retared ideas.

the hell are you talking about? i just admited that there may be an arguement slavery wasent good for the south

because someone presented an arguement that was good

@Deleted User if someone is coming around to admitting that maybe your argument has some merit to it, calling them names is generally not a smart move.

it tends to undo all the work you just did

just for future reference

True.

i kinda am arguing with 2 different people

im conceeding to one and only one a single point

I know how that feels.

however in my conceet to that point i reiterate another argument that was being made and for how agreeing to one argument does not change another

its an important distinction to be made with a multilayered debate

True which why I think you are wrong because I have shown you proof that it wasn't good for America but you ignore it because you don't have an agruement to refute my claim.

i also offered proof that it was

it was the major economy for our country for 200 years atleast

it drove the development of several technolgys as well as the infastructal development of the north

Ok can you give me some paper to prove that. I've given you papers which show slavery only slowed the progress of America economy.

i contest that it was not positive for the nation as a whole. The north needed cotton, and the south provided it. I do not think the north suddenly started to make stuff with cotton just because the south produced it. Therefore the north was most likely the driving force of the south's cotton industry. However, the south could have produced that cotton more efficiently, which might have allowed them to progress farther themselves as a whole, perhaps lead to their own factories or industries. That would have benefited the nation as a whole better.

we went from barely being able to defeate the british to having one of the largest militarys and well funded militarys in the world in 100 years

and we wernt even an empire

we didint even have aztec gold

The fact is that the south using slavery prevented industrialisation and innovation.

we didint have thousands of years of build up development to exploit

aint no roman ruins over here

thousand year old roads to repave

one again, it is historical fact that the nation as a whole did **profit** of the back of slave labor, and it was the driving force of the south's economy. and people did benefit from it. But on a national level, i contest that it was an overall a potential detriment.

it actually benefited the north more than the south

the south it benefited small popualtions of very wealthy people but it created the industrial revolution in the north

and the uk actually

textiles is the product which started the industrial revolution

The south used slavery before the American war of independence.