12 years a slave... Critics are already comparing it to Schindler's List

Stumper said:
http://www.shmoop.com/civil-war/economy.html

Economically, the Civil War was not a contest between equals. The South had no factories to produce guns or ammunition, and its railroads were small and not interconnected, meaning that it was hard for the South to move food, weapons and men quickly and over long distances. In addition, though agriculture thrived in the South, planters focused on cash crops like tobacco and cotton and did not produce enough food to feed the southern population. The North, on the other hand, had enough food and enough factories to make weapons for all of its soldiers. It also had an extensive rail network that could transport men and weapons rapidly and cheaply. At first, this superiority of the North didn't seem to make much of a difference; like many wars in history, those involved thought it would be over quickly. But northern advantages would prove crucial as the war dragged on.

The differences in manpower and industrial capacity were so profound that the fact that the South almost won the war was a shock to observers all over the world. On paper, there was no way that the South could possibly have stood up to the North, which had all of the material and financial advantages, and which did an excellent job of closing off the only advantage the South did have: cotton. Since most of the South's money came from exporting cotton the North aimed to shut this trade down. One of the very first things the Union government did was to blockade southern ports. The blockade took some time to become operational, but after the capture of New Orleans the amount of southern cotton exported to England plummeted. With it went the South's only consistent form of income, something it desperately needed to defeat the North.

I guess all historians, textbooks, scholars of the field are wrong, and TDK, who said that the South was "economic powerhouse" is right....damn, I got a good laugh out of that.

Ignent, who talks out of his ass, links no sources, and yet states everything as fact.

Why is China such a powerful economy? Because it finally understood that communist economic policies set the peasant farmer as an equal to everyone else...they adapted to western/capitalistic policies to capitalize from the massive source of labor they had...

Intelligence and education....quite an amazing thing.
Click to expand...

So since the north won the south wasn't an economic powerhouse? Does that make sense to you?
 
chesbaygrl7 said:
I did agree that no one actually verbalized the particular words you used. Hence, why I used the phrase "underlying current." What I expressed is my opinion, not fact. If you disagree, fine. That's your opinion.
Click to expand...

well, usually when a debate comes down to "that's my opinion and i'm stickin to it", I bail.

But I'd sure like to see some of the examples of what ur talkin about. Even if you just describe from memory. After all, that's a popular opinion out in america, so here's a chance to test it

Otherwise just remember not all opinions are created equal. If that opinion is baseless, it's certainly uncharitable..
 
Stumper said:
Guy, what fucking wealth are you talking about?! America had potential before WWII, but except in the case of a few Captains of Industry/Robber Barons, the country was average. AT FUCKING BEST.
Click to expand...

with those 600,000 kids that managed to stagger off the ships (not to mention their children) america produced copious valuable crops for export to markets overseas

Free labor from that many people created the wealth of a nation. Don't try to diminish how it aided the u.s. economy over the 3 centuries it was in effect.

They were importing slaves pretty much right up til the end, because it paid
 
medullaslashin said:
with those 600,000 kids that managed to stagger off the ships (not to mention their children) america produced copious valuable crops for export to markets overseas

Free labor from that many people created the wealth of a nation. Don't try to diminish how it aided the u.s. economy over the 3 centuries it was in effect.

They were importing slaves pretty much right up til the end, because it paid
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for a reasonable rebuttal on the China point. Cheap labor equals a strong return for those in charge. Its great bargaining power. Look at Brazil India and China
 
The Dark King said:
I'm still waiting for a reasonable rebuttal on the China point. Cheap labor equals a strong return for those in charge. Its great bargaining power. Look at Brazil India and China
Click to expand...

Of course it does, but it doesn't make a country powerful. The policies of the country, the way the banks are structured etc. China was downtrodden for such a long time, until the government took policies to industrialize. They have a communist gov't that instills discipline, and utter obedience to the government, but a western, capitalistic economy. It makes for an effective combination.

But back to the initial point, slavery didn't make the United States wealthy, and did make us the most powerful country in the world. Industrialization, and policies that directed urban labor to the war effort by FDR contributed to it.
 
Stumper said:
Of course it does, but it doesn't make a country powerful. The policies of the country, the way the banks are structured etc. China was downtrodden for such a long time, until the government took policies to industrialize. They have a communist gov't that instills discipline, and utter obedience to the government, but a western, capitalistic economy. It makes for an effective combination.

But back to the initial point, slavery didn't make the United States wealthy, and did make us the most powerful country in the world. Industrialization, and policies that directed urban labor to the war effort by FDR contributed to it.
Click to expand...

One who said it made America the most powerful country? I said it made it an economic powerhouse.
Two are you saying the US wasn't a capitalist country prior to WWII?
Fine Stumper slavery had nothing to do with economic wealth in this country. All those centuries of tax revenue incurred due to low cost trading in the indigo cotton tobacco and rice industry meant nothing. Got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom