Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/23/06 10:24 PM, red_skunk wrote: Slavery was profitable for both those immediately profiting and the country. I didn't "try" anything. You need to work on reading comprehension.

Profit is an extremely poor indicator of economic strength. Mercantilism is all about profit, and as history shows, it is a terrible economic system.

At any rate, the root of this argument is not in whether or not slavery was profitable, but rather in this nugget that I am quoting for the third time:

At 3/23/06 08:52 PM, red_skunk wrote: That's what I was objecting to, people trying to say that slavery either didn't help or actively held the country back.

This is the real argument. So tell me, how do you justify this statement if all you were saying was that slavery was profitable?

---

Slavery originated because of a lack of a huge labor force. Without it, production in the South would have been stunted. We would not have produced as much. The country would have suffered. I don't see what is so difficult about this concept.

---

At 3/23/06 10:59 PM, red_skunk wrote: Slavery originated because of a lack of a huge labor force. Without it, production in the South would have been stunted. We would not have produced as much. The country would have suffered. I don't see what is so difficult about this concept.

Weak. Labor takes care of itself with the price determined by supply and demand. If there were just not enough people, then immigrants seeking work would come. If one had a huge plot of land and not large enough of a labor force to work it, one would sell it and someone else would take it. In the end, the US would have been much better off, and not just economically, because the labor system would have encouraged innovation, a little more even distribution of wealth, and incentives for laborers.

The basic tenets of capitalism? K.

---

Well you're entitled to your opinion, now aren't you? I don't disagree with any of that, and none of it invalidates anything I've said. I don't see why you ever disagreed with me in the first place.

---

At 3/23/06 11:33 PM, red_skunk wrote: Well you're entitled to your opinion, now aren't you? I don't disagree with any of that, and none of it invalidates anything I've said. I don't see why you ever disagreed with me in the first place.

What I am getting at is if slavery was instituted to fill a labor gap, then it caused more problems than the minor one it fixed, so America would have been better off without it. Therefore, slavery did not help the US. Therefore, slavery was not a highly successful system. Therefore, slavery did not contribute to the US becoming a super power.

---

At 3/23/06 11:48 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote: What I am getting at is if slavery was instituted to fill a labor gap, then it caused more problems than the minor one it fixed, so America would have been better off without it. Therefore, slavery did not help the US. Therefore, slavery was not a highly successful system. Therefore, slavery did not contribute to the US becoming a super power.

And you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it. The problems that slavery caused were delayed, and it solved the immediate problem. It was economically successful, and helped the southern US become productive. All of this was of course important in later years. This is really becoming tedious.

---

had a debate with Jimsween back when I was just here about whether or not the US could've gone it alone. I recall him kicking my noob ass,

This is the whole problem with debates here as opposed to elsewhere. There shouldn't BE any feeling of victory or loss after a debate. The idea is to simply look at things from other vantage points, "walk in their moccasins" so to speak. It shouldn't feel like a football game.....

I also got a problem with personal attacks and crap, but since it's such a common place thing, I cater easily. I'm academic to those who wish to be, and a total asshole to those who wanna play "you idiot" games......

Now on to the arguments:

USA had troops in Europe too. If they won the war, then THEY would have devided Germany.

??? Huh? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but last time I checked, the US DID win the war, and Germany WAS divided........

The only reason the war turned out so painful for the Russians was the surprise attack (they did sign a peace treaty with Germany)

It took quite a long time for them to pull their heads out of their asses after the surprise attack. America suffered a massive loss at Pearl Harbor, but we weren't as sluggish as the Russians. Reason being we weren't as incompetent as Russian leaders at that time.....

They are using gunpowder just like the Germans, they fight just like the Germans, so you can't say that Russia had won all their wars due to the winters. It's cold for them too.

Well, SOME of the Russians used guns. Other people say standard military tactic was to stab a German with your pitchfork, take his gun, and kill more Germans.......

Russia won a LOT of wars thanks to their winters. They survive there 24-7, no one else does. The winters defeated more armies than the Russians themselves did by pure military might.

http://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Russian_Winter

3 wars resulting in Russian Winter Victory. Two very major armies too.
Last I checked, only war NOT attributed to the Russian winter victory was Russo-Japanese, but who knew Russians could swim?

You all think that Russians are drunks who wear those fur hats all the time. That's exactly what Germany thought, that is why they lost.

Germany lost for the same reason Napoleon lost, stretched supply lines and Russian Winter.

Sorry, but Imma need a wee bit more convincing that Russian military power was so great. They won some key battles sure enough , but I need a tactical readout or somethin. I've yet to hear that Russia during WWII were magnificent fighters, rather, I've always heard the vicory in the East due to Russian winter and Scorched Earth....thas it my man......

---

The sheer amount of Russians available for the war was also a factor. The Russians weren't a bad army, they just faced insurmountable odds... That were eventually surmounted.. Poor top leadership, their tech wasn't nearly as good as the Germans, supply issues. If they had absolutely nothing going for them beside weather, then they wouldn't have gained back all the territory lost and gotten to Moscow, eh?

---

The sheer amount of Russians available for the war was also a factor

Good point. No one ever said mass charges weren't TOTALLY ineffective.....yay for outdated tactics!

---

A variety of ways. Most importantly, a culture of individualism and self-reliance, lots of resources, free market capitalism, free trade with Europe and as a result East Asia in the early 1900s, and some strategic war victories. I don't agree with the argument that slavery made us powerful, seeing as the difference between a wage-worker and a slave was a neglible difference, especially in the short term. There's no denying it wasn't wrong, but it didn't make us a superpower, and in the long term it caused more damage (the Civil War) than it created wealth. Imperialism? Eh...maybe that played a small role, but not as crucial as the first three things I've listed.