| >>It kept the south rural, whereas the north was far wealthier without slaves because it industrialized. I feel for you. Those evil slaves didn't work hard enough till their deaths to make their rightful masters win. >>It’s just not right to say that so few people should get to control the entire continent just because they were there first. This is so Winston Churchill'esque, dog in the manger analogy where there are some superior people who have rights to exterminate existing people, and those existing people are evil for even resisting. >>Combine that with the fact that Europe was devastated by two world wars, it was inevitable that the USA should pull ahead. The USA is the most successful imperialistic project executed by the western civilization ever. To separate the US from Europe is simply splitting hairs. The same could have happened to the Indian subcontinent. But there were too many people to kill and the British got caught up in a few wars. Else Mr Churchill had pretty great genocidal plans. He even got along and executed a small project where he killed a few million people(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943). |