Metro_Offset 
"[@Background Pony #8403":](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=4905350#post_4905350
)
"nor am I arguing the amount of wealth generated."
Yes you literally are. You are arguing with me that this country was built by slaves. Unless you agree with me that they created very little wealth for the United States and that wealth was quickly destroyed. It provably was never needed to run, to say it was needed to run, you would argue it was_*necessary_*, hence it was never a backbone. Your only argument is that lots of them worked in agriculture, but the wealth created was only for the few and it was destroyed, because the majority of that wealth wasn't because they built anything, it was because they were capital in themselves. That was the key reason why abolishing slavery was seen as a bad idea at the time and why the South was a poor shithole.
Its why now we can look back and say that slavery and slaves didn't build the US. They slowed it down, the wealth they did create was destroyed and the economic activity they did was minimal in the grand scheme of things.
So let's say I agree. Do you agree with what I'm saying? That slaves did not build this country? That the wealth they did build was locked in the system and destroyed? That it did not make America rich?
[bq]
> "Slavery and the reliance on it slowed the country down. That's different from saying the poorly paid/unpaid maltreated laborers slowed the country down."[/bq]
The key difference is that you said slavery and I said slaves, that was what you seemed to have a problem with. To me, it doesn't matter. Slavery slowed the country down and hence slaves did. Not knowingly obviously, but just with their existence as slaves in that system.
"nor am I arguing the amount of wealth generated."
Yes you literally are. You are arguing with me that this country was built by slaves. Unless you agree with me that they created very little wealth for the United States and that wealth was quickly destroyed. It provably was never needed to run, to say it was needed to run, you would argue it was
Its why now we can look back and say that slavery and slaves didn't build the US. They slowed it down, the wealth they did create was destroyed and the economic activity they did was minimal in the grand scheme of things.
So let's say I agree. Do you agree with what I'm saying? That slaves did not build this country? That the wealth they did build was locked in the system and destroyed? That it did not make America rich?
[bq]
> "Slavery and the reliance on it slowed the country down. That's different from saying the poorly paid/unpaid maltreated laborers slowed the country down."
The key difference is that you said slavery and I said slaves, that was what you seemed to have a problem with. To me, it doesn't matter. Slavery slowed the country down and hence slaves did. Not knowingly obviously, but just with their existence as slaves in that system.