Yes. It doesn't take slaves to be rich. Or how else do you explain Norway, or Switzerland?
2006-12-09 12:04:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Tahini Classic 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Do you mean, "If we HADn't HAD slaves" (i.e., before a little thing called "The Civil War")?
Or are you so far lost in reality you think there still are literal slaves (as against 'wage slaves')?
Because the way you've worded it - you mean that the USA is a rich country now and does have slaves and you are unsure if it would be rich without the slaves!
So many 'bigots' on this and other sites can't even write properly, all I can say (and I'm white) is, "God help the world if they really are the 'Master Race' and are better than 'Blacks', Asians, Muslims, whatever!!"
2006-12-09 20:11:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The USA became a rich country precisely because we rid our nation of the evil of slavery.
Because plantations in the South that relied on slave labor were NOT economically competitive with well-run farms in the free states, they relied on expansion of their land area and the number of slaves owned to remain in the game. That is why the Missouri Compromise so rankled Southern slaveowners. The South was not industrialized before the Civil War; that is one of the major reasons why the CSA lost. The only major manufacturing facility in the CSA in 1861 was the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, Virginia; and it used almost no slave labor.
After 1865, the industrialization of the South started. Then, the manifold benefits of the Industrial Revolution were made available to all Americans.
2006-12-09 20:19:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by sandislandtim 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, the American Industrial Revolution was essentially built on the back of slaves. If there had never been slaves, people that ran plantations would have had to pay for the work that they received from the slaves. It was free labor and there's no better way to make a lot of money than to have people working for you with no wages.
2006-12-09 20:02:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Joy M 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you are only counting the slave brought here from Africa, they didn't make much of a bulge in the GDP. Most of the slave were brought here from the Dutch West Indies. Besides the lions share of the GDP at that time came from the industrialized northeast states, and the timber that came from the northeast and midwest.
2006-12-09 20:15:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by brycesmom2@verizon.net 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Dont know bout you but my ancestors worked side by side with the slaves,a slave cost about 1500 dollars and a work horse cost
about 10 dollars so most of the white folk did not own slaves.I think slavery was a bad thing but am oh so tired of hearing about how WE kept the Man down.I owe nobody nothing regarding the 1800's slave trade.
2006-12-09 20:22:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by harleyman 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
This country would not be as strong economically if the foundation had not been built with slavery. Of course, that does not make it right. It should not have happened anyways.
This is a perfect example of seeing what you want to see. The person asking this question has the Confederate Battle Flag with an offensive user-ID. But the question was actually thought provoking and not offensive. He was simply asking if we would have been as rich of a country without the very significant contributions of slavery. Those that slammed the question certainly did not read it; they saw the flag and saw red.
2006-12-09 20:05:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by jpbofohio 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
OK DAVE WE MAY NOT BE A RICH COUNTRY IF WE DID NOT HAVE SLAVES.. but does that mean it was right to bring them here.. take them away from their family and sell them like cattle.. are they not human like we are..do you think that make us better because were white,, i don't think so.. stop living in the past and move on the south will not rise again what we are now is what we are and the black people should move on as well what happen was 200 yrs ago we are not responsibly for that but we are responsible for what we do now so everyone just stop and get on with life
2006-12-09 20:24:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
We don't have slaves in the U.S. anymore.
Many of the slave owners 200 years ago took good care of those whose labor they received.
It is true that many treated their slaves very bad.
The governor of the colony of Virginia had slaves and when he died he left his entire estate to his slaves.
Some people believe that those who are only paid the minimum wage are slaves.
However, the only people who make minimum wage are those without a good education who can't do anything else.
We don't count on cotton field slaves for our economy in these days.
2006-12-09 20:11:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Theophilus 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The problem is that racism *IS* bad. And to answer your question, no, the United States would not be as rich as it is if it did not horribly kidnap, enslave and murder millions of innocent Blacks. As a matter of fact, the US still prospers from other forms of de jure slavery, try looking into the effects of globalization some time. Better yet, take a Black History course!
2006-12-09 20:06:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by stormagus 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Racism is bad, your just another jerk that is full of hate and prejudiceness which will get you no where,the slavery days are over,no blacks can be held against there will any longer legally.You need to grow up half if not more than half of the american population is black and hispanic, You go up to the wrong person and feed them or theory and you just might get a good *** whoopin.
2006-12-09 20:08:29
·
answer #11
·
answered by lil frogger 2
·
0⤊
0⤋