Agreed, but does not that contradict the assertion that NYC's (or more generally, the North's) pre-Civil War prosperity was dependent on the Southern slave economy? After the Civil War, the South was a (relative) economic backwater for several generations, but the North did not miss a beat. So if the North thrived without slavery (and without significant economic contribution from the South) after the Civil War, why should we conclude that the North's wealth was dependent on slavery (and the Southern economy) before the Civil War? Or to put it more accurately, why should we conclude that if the South did not have a slave economy before the Civil War, the post-Civil War rapid economic expansion and industrialization in the North would not have occurred?
David Shemano -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Louis Proyect Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 11:02 AM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Capitalism and slavery On 4/1/13 1:47 PM, David Shemano wrote: > The quote within a quote within a quote ends: 'What would New York be > without slavery?'" > > Well, slavery ended in 1865. According to Wikipedia, NYC's population > went from 813k in 1860 to 1.2m in 1880 to 3.4m in 1900. > Any dispute that NYC did pretty well in the Gilded Age? What am I to > make of the fact that NYC really took and thrived after the end of > slavery? > > David Shemano I imagine that with the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the descent of African-Americans in the Deep South into a status that was free in name only, the Great American profit-making machine benefited the privileged everywhere, including NY. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
