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

it was cheeper with slaves

to think it wasent would just be imagining people had slaves for no reason

which is what allowed for great profit margins, but its not like there was much risk from foreign markets

when the cotton gin was invented they just had slaves use the cotton gin

they had slaves because it allowed the rich to edge out local competition

but it also lead to higher production

short term, yes. but the major advantage was market dominance

the only time that it wouldent lead to higher production is if the south ever ran out of land to farm, which they hadent yet

since local labor could not compete

they just didn't have the money

we get it, down with the jews

No I'm just pointing out their double standard. Jews can have a ethno state but whites can't.

there are gays in Israel even if it is on the books as illegal just like places in the US @Deleted User

What do they define as Jew? The ethicity or the religion?

I'm pretty sure it's part of their faith that their spouses must convert.

If it's the religion, then that title is disingenuous.