> If, however, the point is that the rapid economic takeoff of capitalist > economies in the 19th century was "dependent" on its prior profitable > relationship with a slave economy, I just don't see it.
> We can only speculate about counter-factuals, but the notion > that a "necessary" condition to the growth in the North in the > last quarter of the 19th Century was slavery in the South for > the prior 200 years does not ring true to me. Two quite different propositions, aren't they? On the one hand, a factual: 'depended on' -- this is where the money did in fact come from. On the other, a hypothetical: 'necessary condition' -- which we can translate from the hypostatical nominative as 'wouldn't have happened without'. Of course we will never know what would have happened without, so it's a best a parlor game to speculate. -- -- Michael J. Smith [email protected] http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com http://cars-suck.org 'I understand that you left your University rather suddenly. Now -- why was that?' 'I was sent down, sir, for indecent behaviour.' 'Indeed, indeed? Well, I shall not ask for details. I have been in the scholastic profession long enough to know that nobody enters it unless he has some very good reason which he is anxious to conceal.' _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
