@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.

the industrial revolution did not start in the US, and i'm pretty sure it started with the printing press, not cotton

with the invention of the textile mill

and the industrial revolution lead to an increase need for cotton, which then drove the cotton industry. it doesn't work in reverse

eh

the south using slaves didn't make the north want cotton more.

i dont really see why it would have increased need for textiles

the north could make things faster, which mean they needed cotton faster, so the south needed to produce it faster

if you produce more than is consumed, you start to not be profitable, even with slaves

the south using slaves made it cheeper to get cotton, that means to own land it was less expensive, meaning you could own more land to develop into cotton feilds, which means that the north could creat more mills due to higher production in the south

the need for textiles was already there, but the speed of product was at a fixed pace.

really cotton just supplanted older forms of textiles

but yeah america as a nation profited HEAVLY on cotton, north and south. it was the major industry of the north, and the major produce of the south

i don't think it would matter if the cotton was picked using slaves or not, it was always gonna be cheaper not needing to be shipped across the ocean