• Cipher22@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    True, except, we gave ourselves room to be more than 40% wrong. We change. Not well, we’re not even good at it.

    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have no idea what you meant with that. I’m not saying this to be snarky, I really didn’t understand what you’re getting at

    • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      In their meager defense, they were correct at the time, slavery was a dying institution. It wasn’t until the later invention of the cotton gin that slavery exploded in profit. By then, it was too late. The economic interests of the slavers had grown and entrenched, and the war became inevitable.

      Not to defend the slavers, or their advocates among the founders, just to explain the founders’ reasoning a little more.

      • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        For further reading, the Wikipedia page for the Cotton Gin goes into some detail.

        The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the region became even more dependent on plantations that used black slave labor, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of its economy. While it took a single laborer about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day. The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850. The invention of the cotton gin led to increased demands for slave labor in the American South, reversing the economic decline that had occurred in the region during the late 18th century. The cotton gin thus “transformed cotton as a crop and the American South into the globe’s first agricultural powerhouse”.

        • rothaine@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Huh. You’d think the cotton gin would’ve allowed them to get by with fewer slaves.

          • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            That would’ve maintained production at the level it already was (and also reduce prices and profits).

            Under capitalism, you can’t just maintain production. You gotta EXPAND EXPAND EXPAND.

              • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                You don’t have to subscribe to Marxian economics for this to be true, though Marx and those who listened to him are the only people who dwell on the topic for long.

                Part #1 of my statement is pretty much self-evident. Part #2 is the very premise of market competition, no?

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You don’t have to, no, but Marx makes a compelling case and explains it simply, and thoroughly. It’s easy to think that Capitalists can just maintain production, but this doesn’t bear out in reality.

                  Additionally, Marx points out what are the necessary consequences of these forces.