[throwaway535]

> I’m an immigrant, and I’ll never stand for any kind of reparations for descendants of former slaves. Invariably this will come out of tax dollars to which I’m contributing by way of income tax. Why should I be charged for wrongs - however horrible - in which neither myself nor my ancestors were involved?

Why should you be a contributor to the wrongs of this country's past? Simple, because you are a member/resident of this country, and this country benefits from them. I could be wrong, but I don't see any complaints about paying of any war debt accrued by the US from entering WW II or the Vietnam war, but you also pay towards that. It's accepted that current us citizens who benefit from the previous actions of the country, also have responsiblity for the previous decisions of the country.

An enormous part of the reason why this country is so financially successful is because of slavery and stealing wages for so long. That's why the US was an agricultural powerhouse, that's why the north industrialized so quickly, that's why we became a major economic power in the 20th century.

And even you yourself admit you see all of those benefits, and reap them. You came to this country presumably for those exact reasons. You're as you say an immigrant, and the reason you chose to come here, and not stay where you were was because of exactly the benefits this country accrued by leaning heavily on slavery during it's critical period.

The fact you had negative experiences while here (and I'm sorry you did), doesn't invalidate or outweigh the fact that you came here to benefit from America's benefits, and that you have benefited from them.

American education does an incredibly poor job of covering the financial windfall of slaver in the US. And (extremely reasonably) people from other countries who move here never learned about it back home. To give some perspective, the value of "human capital" held as chattel slaves, was more valuable than all industrial and transportation capital in the entire country.[1] That's how much value was present. I'd highly recommend anyone who hasn't really read about slavery to really read about it. Unfortunately there was an intentional concerted effort in the middle of last century to downplay the scope and impact of slavery in the US and a lot of those vestiges are present because it was very successful.

There is way more here than the simplistic arguments that are made online in chat forums. I'd recommend looking into it. While not ideal, this essay is a decent place to start if you're curious. [2]

[1] - https://slate.com/business/2013/07/america-s-slave-wealth.ht... [2] - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-cas...

[zozbot234]

Slavery was not in the least a contribution to "financial success". It was very much a dysfunctional and failing system, for reasons that were made clear even by Adam Smith, who wrote in 1776 - and that are agreed upon by modern economists. What it did was create a huge unfair advantage for the few who could afford to "own" someone who had been enslaved - but that never translated to region-wide progress. Indeed, the part of the U.S. where slavery was widespread is still the most unequal today and the one with the most uninclusive, regressive, extractive culture and institutions (despite a very real change in outlook during the 1980s), and that's no coincidence.

'Slavery made economic sense' is a narrative that, until recently, you would only have heard from the likes of "Black-Israelite" conspiracy peddlers. Let's not give credence to such unscientific and misleading claims.

[throwaway535]

> Slavery was not in the least a contribution to "financial success"... What it did was create a huge unfair advantage for the few who could afford to "own" someone who had been enslaved

I think you have been given a very skewed view of the role that slavery played in our country's economic past. There have been long efforts to downplay the role of slavery, and there still are. Cotton was the US's #1 export from ~1800 through 1930 due to slavery, and then continuing into the extremely exploitive sharecropping. That's the core period our country developed - and the single export that brought in the most capital into this country. That continuous inflow of capital is also what made New York City the financial powerhouse it became. [1]

Slavery wasn't a just for the few. One of the number one ways that people mislead with slavery is by trying to show the percentage of the slaves divided by the total population in 1860. That's extremely misleading, as individuals didn't own slaves, families did. The same way measuring what percentage of families own their home is accurate, not individuals that own the home, as only one in the family typically owns the home.

There were 15 slave states in 1860. Of the top 10 states, in all of them at least 25% of families owned slaves. With the top two states South Carolina and Mississippi topping out at 46% and 49% of families. Almost half the families owned slaves. And that's ignoring everyone else in the south who didn't own slaves, but participated in the slave trade - and those who rented slaves for labor but didn't technically "own them". [2]

On top of that of the top 5 states owning slaves, enslaved people ranged from over 40% of the population in Georgia, to almost 60% of the entire population of the state of South Carolina. [3]

Slavery and the white supremacy views it was built on, were an absolutely core part of the first part of this country's existence - culturally, economically, politically. Slavery wasn't a niche occurrence only for the elite - and especially so for the white South. It was disgusting, it was violent, it was immoral and it was everywhere. It didn't play a minimal role. The idea that a few wealthy elite slave owners "tricked" the rest of the southern population to go to war for them is a farce. The entire south gathered up to go to war because white supremacy was the culture of their land.

It's taken this country a long time to try to undo that work - and we still haven't finished...

But to downplay Slavery is to also downplay what was taken from Black Americans, and how much that theft built this early country.

1. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cr... 2. https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/08/07/percent-of-whites-own... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_census

[zozbot234]

> Cotton was the US's #1 export from ~1800 through 1930 due to slavery

Wait, you're making a very different claim than what I was talking about. I agree that it probably made some sense to have some kind of plantation economy in the South, and that, as a matter of fact the plantations the South did have were based on enslaved labor. And for sure, there are interesting debates to have about the unacknowledged contribution that's inherent in that. But slavery was never a necessary part of that successful economy; indeed, it's quite physically possible to have plantations that employ free laborers as opposed to relying on slaves!

[sudosteph]

I don't think that interpretation of history is quite so strong, for a few reasons. While buying enough slaves to run a plantation was extremely expensive - buying a single slave to have for household purposes was not unobtainable or rare at all. Since slave status was inherited and the "one-drop" rule ensured it tended to get inherited, it was extremely common for less-financially well-off slave owners to simply rape an enslaved woman (multiple times over her lifetime) and then to either sell his mixed children, or commonly - to gift them as slaves to his white children when they come of age. This is a hugely valuable financial advantage for those who inherit a slave, and having a slave made them more valuable as a spouse as well, meaning they could increase their wealth more by marrying better than they could have without a slave. Nearly every white person from the south, has a family member who owned a slave - even if you would never guess by their economic status today. I'm from the south myself, and even though my great-grandparents were dirt poor in the mountains, I don't doubt someone somewhere back in time owned a slave. It really was just so common that the probability is a near certainty.

Also, when slavery was at it's height, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia were far more prosperous regions than they eventually became post-civil war. The south in general was more financially well-off during the time of slavery than it has been since - and you can read primary sources from the time and region saying as much. I can point you towards primary sources from elected officials of the time period saying as much - that they knew slavery was evil, but they also knew it was the source of economic and social stability that they enjoyed. The institution of slavery itself did not directly lead to economic fall of the southern states - rather it was the tensions from having a nation with both slaveholding states and non-slaveholding states, and the south's extremely strong incentive to protect their advantageous status even at the cost of war.

When the war did happen, the civil-war-related destruction that happened in the south (ie, the burning of Atlanta), had an equally dramatic impact and the outcome that we see today. Decades of slavery were certainly impactful, but so were the effects of the civil war, reconstruction, the great migration, and later cycles of industrialization, which tended to reach the south last due to network effects (there was no impetus to branch out from the skilled workers available up north... until unions took hold at least). All of those effects are more recent, and more relevant to the economic conditions today.

Additionally, the cultural regressiveness you speak of is closely tied to the Great Awakening and the particularly conservative religious denominations that became regionally dominant - and notably, these denominations had, and still have strong pull on southern white and black communities alike. The south actually had a reputation for being quite a fun and "sinful" place before that. My own state, NC, founded the first public university in the world (UNC Chapel Hill) - a paradoxically very progressive institution - despite being founded by slavers during a period of widespread slavery.

So understanding inequality and culture that exists in South, both now and then, and today is a complex thing. I would strongly caution trying to reduce it down that completely.