Alliedassault - View Single Post

The ED! Foundation · 01-31-2003, 07:29 PM

[quote:0732e]Are you ignorant or were you born stupid? I will quote you, and you should take your own advice, "READ THE FUCKING REPLY" I have already said that slavery did contribute to the wealth of the nation, but it was not the only reason, as you seem to believe, Northern industry NOT SLAVERY BASED also kept the country going, a bit more so than slavery. And now you've gone from insults and thinking you know all, to putting words in peoples mouths I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT WWII GOT THIS COUNTRY UP AND RUNNING and that war is good for the economy, I'd like to assume that your just stupid, but its more likely that your just ignorant.[/quote:0732e]

Now youre just tossing vagueries out there so that you cant get caught in specifics...you want to talk about what wasn't a factor but cant give me any example - other than the "industrious" north, which was fueled by what, high paid comfortable immigrants? - of what allowed this nation to get where it was pre-slavery, and post-WWII.

You can sit there and spout out "God complex' all you want because someone has a dissenting opinion from yours, and think that yes, that is how you act in real life, or you can accept the fact that there just be a LITTLE More to things than you have ALLOWED yourself to know.

[quote:0732e]Here is my take Ed.

Slavery fueled an agricultural based economy in the south. The weath of America was based in the industrial North. That industry was built on the backs of irish and italian immigrants (among others) that were treated only slightly better than slaves.[/quote:0732e]

Unfortunately I used the term "slaves" which has become synonomous with "black". The simple fact is, there was NO protection afforded to non-white Americans back in the good ol days, and this base of cheap labor - much as it does now - allowed an already bustling economy bustle even faster. Without equality in the workplace or protection against explotation, American business was free to exploit and use entire races to further its own economic ends. Just because the North was the home of "industry" doesn't mean it was free of its own "slave-labor".

[quote:0732e]Yes, slaves fueled a southern economy, but that economy was small in comparision to the north. The end of slavery crushed teh economy of the south, yet the north continued as always. That tells me that slavery was not the force behind the rise of a nation. It was only barely economically viable before the cival war.[/quote:0732e]

I dont doubt this at all, HOWEVER it CAN NOT be argued that slavery allowed the quick rise of America that it did.

There is a website which goes into detail about this, but it isnt as "professional" as some of you might like so I will find another more respectable website that agrees with my opinion.

SLAVERY in a nutshell allowed for the easy growth of this nation, and the fact that the nation was still standing is only a testament to the structure that was in place, not the factors that contributed to its existence.

No, Ed. You are not the only person here to have ever read a book.[/quote]

	(#51)
The ED! Foundation is Offline Member Posts: 88 Join Date: Dec 2002	01-31-2003, 07:29 PM [quote:0732e]Are you ignorant or were you born stupid? I will quote you, and you should take your own advice, "READ THE FUCKING REPLY" I have already said that slavery did contribute to the wealth of the nation, but it was not the only reason, as you seem to believe, Northern industry NOT SLAVERY BASED also kept the country going, a bit more so than slavery. And now you've gone from insults and thinking you know all, to putting words in peoples mouths I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT WWII GOT THIS COUNTRY UP AND RUNNING and that war is good for the economy, I'd like to assume that your just stupid, but its more likely that your just ignorant.[/quote:0732e] Now youre just tossing vagueries out there so that you cant get caught in specifics...you want to talk about what wasn't a factor but cant give me any example - other than the "industrious" north, which was fueled by what, high paid comfortable immigrants? - of what allowed this nation to get where it was pre-slavery, and post-WWII. You can sit there and spout out "God complex' all you want because someone has a dissenting opinion from yours, and think that yes, that is how you act in real life, or you can accept the fact that there just be a LITTLE More to things than you have ALLOWED yourself to know. [quote:0732e]Here is my take Ed. Slavery fueled an agricultural based economy in the south. The weath of America was based in the industrial North. That industry was built on the backs of irish and italian immigrants (among others) that were treated only slightly better than slaves.[/quote:0732e] Unfortunately I used the term "slaves" which has become synonomous with "black". The simple fact is, there was NO protection afforded to non-white Americans back in the good ol days, and this base of cheap labor - much as it does now - allowed an already bustling economy bustle even faster. Without equality in the workplace or protection against explotation, American business was free to exploit and use entire races to further its own economic ends. Just because the North was the home of "industry" doesn't mean it was free of its own "slave-labor". [quote:0732e]Yes, slaves fueled a southern economy, but that economy was small in comparision to the north. The end of slavery crushed teh economy of the south, yet the north continued as always. That tells me that slavery was not the force behind the rise of a nation. It was only barely economically viable before the cival war.[/quote:0732e] I dont doubt this at all, HOWEVER it CAN NOT be argued that slavery allowed the quick rise of America that it did. There is a website which goes into detail about this, but it isnt as "professional" as some of you might like so I will find another more respectable website that agrees with my opinion. SLAVERY in a nutshell allowed for the easy growth of this nation, and the fact that the nation was still standing is only a testament to the structure that was in place, not the factors that contributed to its existence. No, Ed. You are not the only person here to have ever read a book.[/quote]