Serious question: If the American Colonies had rejected slavery, where would America be now, ecomically and socially?
- Larry CLv 71 month ago
Perhaps you failed to read Jefferson's first draft of the declaration, rejected by SC, and GA
- 1 month ago
Fittest Survive rule ... would have been applied !
- Anonymous2 months ago
So you think they treated us like tools. Except for the fact we were human. And as humans we tried to escape, talk, kill, understand THE BRUTALITIES OF SLAVERY. THE CHATTEL KIND.
Visit any Afrocentric museum in America to prove yourself wrong.
It's well documented there.
- nonpartisanLv 62 months ago
We would probably not be any more advanced than we are because we were still limited in the available technology.
There wouldn't have been a Civil War. The slaves would have not been pivotal in this issue as it is so commonly believed. The Civil War wasn't fought over the slaves, it was fought for states' rights.
The South had limited manufacturing that was so much available in the North. Thus, theirs was an agricultural lifestyle, which depended on labor. Whether this labor came from slaves or hired help, it wouldn't have changed the economic disadvantages experienced by the South.
With the South still having to pay taxes to the federal government, comparatively, based on the unbalanced economic scale, they were paying more than what they could afford and still survive. The North was taking advantage of what could almost be considered as "free money".
This was the reason slavery was used in the first place. Just hiring people wouldn't have been economical - slavery offered cheaper labor.
But the "mistreatments" claims are mostly hogwash. Slaves were the "tools" of the plantation owners. And anyone who works in agriculture knows that he has to take care of his tools, lest he loses everything.
Compared to where the slaves came from in Africa, working on the plantations was a paradise. In Africa, they were involved in tribal wars and those who were not killed in the course of the conflicts were either sold as slaves to other tribes, sold as slaves to the white man, or killed off if they had no other usefulness.
Those who were lucky enough to come to America were provided food, shelter, and in some cases, payment for their services.
Cruel slaveholders did exist, but they were few and far between. The widely promoted claims of cruelty are based on a single picture of a slave called "Peter" and sometimes "Gordon".
There are many other pictures that appear to show slaves doing fairly well for themselves. Yet, the one picture is promoted over all others because it invokes sympathy - and to sell the slavery issue to the world, you need sympathy.
Without slavery, perhaps economic growth would have been more evenly distributed since there would have been no reason for it not to.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- MarliLv 72 months ago
On a higher moral ground, which is where it should have been in 1776. That would have boosted the United States socially A nation that not only proclaims the self evident truth that all men were created equal, it's determined to act upon that premise. Wow! What a wonder! The US would have been the focus of the world's attention. If the US had abolished slavery in all its states and survived, the slaves in all the Caribbean and Central America would have fought for their own freedom. Britain, France and Spain would have been embarrassed to say the least. Even Russia may have been forced to free its serfs
Economically. It would have been hard for the southern states to retool quickly. They were so ideologically dependent upon slavery and had such labor intensive agricultural industry. But it could have been done. The northern states emancipated their slaves within how long? Thirty years? And the North was booming with its manufacturers by 1840, though it too was mainly agricultural. People who get wages usually work harder to earn more.
There would not have been a civil war. The South would have shouted "States' rights" and received more support from the North. All the states wanted the federal government to butt out of their affairs. The 'states' right' the South insisted on unconditionally was that of owning slaves. If there had been no slaves since 1800, the South would have had the North's backing about their rights.
Without the civil war slaughtering the young men and churning up farmland and towns, the US would have been more industrious, with more inventions, more western settlement sooner, more clout in international markets.
There would still be race prejudice, but if all races had the same legal rights then, there would be less violence now. The US could tend to other pressing matters. Integration would have happened sooner. With no barriers of race blocking them, more intelligent Americans would be holding Ph.Ds, discovering, inventing, and entrepreneuring, giving the US a greater economic edge.
Women may have claimed and got rights sooner. The US in 1783 was a settler nation, and women power was all important to achieving a successful settlement. I won't argue there was the problem of intrenched mindsets. The men claimed sovereignty and superiority. The women were too poor and exhausted from centuries of work, childbearing, separate spheres and legal male-dominence to challenge the indoctrination both sexes had grown up believing.
But if slavery had ended at the Revolution and the Blacks and Natives had their human rights guaranteed in American law, they would have fought against the British. The British, French and Spanish had been their oppressors.
And if the non-white men had their rights and freedoms, the women would have ensured they also got their rights and freedoms. It might have happened on the first wagons west. "You want your supper cooked? Then you mind the kids or you cook it."
- oil field trashLv 72 months ago
The American Colonies were under the control of Britain and they had little to say about who could or could not own slaves. It was only after the Revolutionary War when the colonies formed a united country that anything legal could be done about slavery. The tobacco and cotton plantations in the South had to have slavery to be economically feasible. Had slavery been outlawed at the time the United Sates were formed the South would have collapsed economically and the whole country may not have survived.
- larry1Lv 62 months ago
Well. it was so long ago that by now (year 2020) America would be just about where it is now with the only difference it's population mix and attitude.
The Civil War would not have happened and so the South would not have been economically depressed for 100 years, but by now (2020) they're not economically depressed anyway.
One change...there would be way less black people in the US population so the US population in 2020 would be much more like Australia or Canada and there never would have been (be) black ghettos or slums. America never would've had a 'race problem' or racial division so American attitudes about race/ division would be like those of Australia/ Canada today. America would be more homogeneous and united than now.
- staisilLv 72 months ago
If the slaves had just been manumitted and not freed and given rights through constitutional amendments they and their descendants would most likely still be extremely behind both socially and economically.
As for the United States itself, it would have survived but would have needed to accelerate industrialization and improvements in agriculture. Great Britain survived after ending slavery. The United States also would have survived. Given the entrepreneurs and inventors the United States has had it would still rank high economically today.
- 2 months ago
Not much different. The slaves in America were almost exclusively on the big plantations in the South and those (mostly cotton) plantations certainly did not determine our future. Also keep in mind that only about 12% of the slaves were sent to America, with most of the rest going to South America. Many were worked to death there.