Right Wing Discussion Thread XIX

[Vetalia]

Then if they don't enslave them, the colonization of the South becomes untenable until malaria and the weather can be effectively dealt with. Maybe a compromise would have been worked out where instead of having slavery, serfdom develops on the Southern plantations instead, which is sort of what happened in colonial Mexico. But I can't see the British government allowing that.

Malaria was certainly not good but it really didn't halt colonization of the South or expansion into the region during the colonial period or post-Revolution period. It would have happened no matter what because of the commodities the Southern states could produce reliably and in vast quantities.

Interestingly, though, about serfdom that's probably not too far off the mark; Carolina was unique among the colonies in that it proposed and created specific titles of nobility and land tenure. True serfdom would not have been likely at this point simply because it was an institution far in the past in Britain, but certainly sharecropping would have been commonplace which was essentially serfdom in practice if not legality. Not surprisingly this became a widespread system in the South following the abolition of slavery for both poor whites and blacks, which further supports the idea of it developing as a replacement system.

[Diopolis]

Then if they don't enslave them, the colonization of the South becomes untenable until malaria and the weather can be effectively dealt with. Maybe a compromise would have been worked out where instead of having slavery, serfdom develops on the Southern plantations instead, which is sort of what happened in colonial Mexico. But I can't see the British government allowing that.



Yes, but in the colonies it was particularly brutal and most of the people who went into it were already in poverty and basically didn't have a choice.

I want to make clear that I am not in the slightest defending indentured servitude, it is a cruel and exploitative system where the poor are taken advantage of, but chattel slavery doesn't apply to the individual but to an entire class of people; which means you can never escape it.

Actually the first negro slaves brought to America were mostly freed before their deaths, but the institution morphed later as indentured servitude went out of fashion.

[Fahran]

Then if they don't enslave them, the colonization of the South becomes untenable until malaria and the weather can be effectively dealt with. Maybe a compromise would have been worked out where instead of having slavery, serfdom develops on the Southern plantations instead, which is sort of what happened in colonial Mexico. But I can't see the British government allowing that.

Malaria was certainly not good but it really didn't halt colonization of the South or expansion into the region during the colonial period or post-Revolution period. It would have happened no matter what because of the commodities the Southern states could produce reliably and in vast quantities.

Interestingly, though, about serfdom that's probably not too far off the mark; Carolina was unique among the colonies in that it proposed and created specific titles of nobility and land tenure. True serfdom would not have been likely at this point simply because it was an institution far in the past in Britain, but certainly sharecropping would have been commonplace which was essentially serfdom in practice if not legality. Not surprisingly this became a widespread system in the South following the abolition of slavery for both poor whites and blacks, which further supports the idea of it developing as a replacement system.

Share-cropping semi-feudalism was the notion that crossed my mind as well. It would probably have become more tenable than indentured and penal labor in the long-term, especially after the American Revolution. The social system in place in Ireland had a lot of parallels to it as well, with British land-owners relying on tenant farmers in Ireland. The difference here would be that the United States didn't suffer through a potato blight so bad that people starved.

[Diopolis]

Malaria was certainly not good but it really didn't halt colonization of the South or expansion into the region during the colonial period or post-Revolution period. It would have happened no matter what because of the commodities the Southern states could produce reliably and in vast quantities.

Interestingly, though, about serfdom that's probably not too far off the mark; Carolina was unique among the colonies in that it proposed and created specific titles of nobility and land tenure. True serfdom would not have been likely at this point simply because it was an institution far in the past in Britain, but certainly sharecropping would have been commonplace which was essentially serfdom in practice if not legality. Not surprisingly this became a widespread system in the South following the abolition of slavery for both poor whites and blacks, which further supports the idea of it developing as a replacement system.

Share-cropping semi-feudalism was the notion that crossed my mind as well. It would probably have become more tenable than indentured and penal labor in the long-term, especially after the American Revolution. The social system in place in Ireland had a lot of parallels to it as well, with British land-owners relying on tenant farmers in Ireland. The difference here would be that the United States didn't suffer through a potato blight so bad that people starved.

More than likely.

[Bienenhalde]

Because they'd be the next easiest group to enslave (on account of their poverty and low social standing), and plantations really only work if you have slavery. If not, then colonization in the South fails.

You're aware that Europeans typically didn't enslave other Christian Europeans right?
As mentioned before indentured servitude was widely practiced among Europeans, not outright slavery.

Many enslaved Africans converted to Christianity, but that didn't persuade their masters to grant them freedom.

[Genivaria]

You're aware that Europeans typically didn't enslave other Christian Europeans right?
As mentioned before indentured servitude was widely practiced among Europeans, not outright slavery.

Many enslaved Africans converted to Christianity, but that didn't persuade their masters to grant them freedom.

Yes that's when the whole 'race theory' started emerging as an excuse.
Also I originally said 'European' Christians.

[Bienenhalde]

Ah yeas, because the 1600s were so great...

No they sucked.

Actually our problems mostly go back to the 1970s and 1990s.
Long after the industrial revolution.

Massive amounts of Asian slave labor is actually the opposite of technological progress. We have neglected better manufacturing technology in favor of outsourcing to the cheapest labor, not productivity improvements.

Only by productivity increases, through technology can we actually improve living standards.

Our problems date back the the fourteenth century. Long before industrial revolts.

Are you referring to the rise of Renaissance humanism?

[Fahran]

Many enslaved Africans converted to Christianity, but that didn't persuade their masters to grant them freedom.

Yes that's when the whole 'race theory' started emerging as an excuse.
Also I originally said 'European' Christians.

Pretty much different points in time. A lot of early (and even later) abolitionists were devout types.

[Bear Stearns]

Malaria was certainly not good but it really didn't halt colonization of the South or expansion into the region during the colonial period or post-Revolution period. It would have happened no matter what because of the commodities the Southern states could produce reliably and in vast quantities.

Interestingly, though, about serfdom that's probably not too far off the mark; Carolina was unique among the colonies in that it proposed and created specific titles of nobility and land tenure. True serfdom would not have been likely at this point simply because it was an institution far in the past in Britain, but certainly sharecropping would have been commonplace which was essentially serfdom in practice if not legality. Not surprisingly this became a widespread system in the South following the abolition of slavery for both poor whites and blacks, which further supports the idea of it developing as a replacement system.

Share-cropping semi-feudalism was the notion that crossed my mind as well. It would probably have become more tenable than indentured and penal labor in the long-term, especially after the American Revolution. The social system in place in Ireland had a lot of parallels to it as well, with British land-owners relying on tenant farmers in Ireland. The difference here would be that the United States didn't suffer through a potato blight so bad that people starved.

The potato blight actually started in the United States. There was pretty large potato blight in the 1820s and 1830s, but since the US could produce other types of crops, it wasn't that big of a deal.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You're aware that Europeans typically didn't enslave other Christian Europeans right?

Then if they don't enslave them, the colonization of the South becomes untenable until malaria and the weather can be effectively dealt with. Maybe a compromise would have been worked out where instead of having slavery, serfdom develops on the Southern plantations instead, which is sort of what happened in colonial Mexico. But I can't see the British government allowing that.

Not true, they just wouldn't have been able to run giant plantations that ran on slave labor.

[Bienenhalde]

Our problems began when the Macedonian Empire collapsed tbh

One of the few moments in antiquity history of the West that wasn't terrible.

Well, Alexander may have been a military genius, but were his conquests really beneficial to the people who lived under his rule?

[Diopolis]

Our problems date back the the fourteenth century. Long before industrial revolts.

Are you referring to the rise of Renaissance humanism?

I'm referring to protohumanist and protoprotestant ideas.

[Fahran]

The potato blight actually started in the United States. There was pretty large potato blight in the 1820s and 1830s, but since the US could produce other types of crops, it wasn't that big of a deal.

Essentially. The potato blight didn't decimate American access to food crops. I imagine the solution would have been to ship corn or wheat down South to laborers based on cotton, indigo, and tobacco plantations, though that might be giving the Southern Planters a bit too much credit given their historical record.

[Bienenhalde]

Nope, rad trad propaganda. I'm just self aware enough to realize that "because they're not brown" is probably a better demarcation line to the Judeo-Bolshevik homsexualist academic elite that sets politically correct opinions than whether or not they happened to be Catholic.

Most of radical left-wing academia is the US is strongly anti-Israel. This nothing remotely Judaic about them, even if some of them happen to have Jewish ancestry.

[Bienenhalde]

Are you referring to the rise of Renaissance humanism?

I'm referring to protohumanist and protoprotestant ideas.

Early Protestants were in fact suspicious of the humanists because the humanists introduced many pagan and anti-biblical concepts into their philosophy. The Reformation was originally intended to return to the pure doctrines of the ancient church in reaction against the corruption and decadence of the Renaissance papacy.

[Diopolis]

The potato blight actually started in the United States. There was pretty large potato blight in the 1820s and 1830s, but since the US could produce other types of crops, it wasn't that big of a deal.

Essentially. The potato blight didn't decimate American access to food crops. I imagine the solution would have been to ship corn or wheat down South to laborers based on cotton, indigo, and tobacco plantations, though that might be giving the Southern Planters a bit too much credit given their historical record.

The diet of plantation slaves is something we actually have surprisingly good records on. It was unsurprisingly high in corn and greens, watermelon was a frequent food during the summer, and meat was a rarity- and mostly pork, although racial pseudoscience was the main reason. It was also much lower in dairy than the poor white diet at the time due to a higher rate of lactose intolerance in the black population. Beans were the main source of protein. Most handbooks on slave nutrition recommended allowing slaves to have their own food plots and some level of control over their diets.
AKA, most of their food was non-potato related already, and the majority produced locally. As potatoes don't grow very well in the American south, this is unsurprising.

[Vetalia]

Share-cropping semi-feudalism was the notion that crossed my mind as well. It would probably have become more tenable than indentured and penal labor in the long-term, especially after the American Revolution. The social system in place in Ireland had a lot of parallels to it as well, with British land-owners relying on tenant farmers in Ireland. The difference here would be that the United States didn't suffer through a potato blight so bad that people starved.

The South also possesses much better soil conditions and a growing climate that prevents the kind of mono-culture dependency on a single crop that was the case in Ireland. Cotton and tobacco cultivation was arguably the biggest risk to agricultural land in the South due to how badly it depletes the soil in a fairly short amount of time, but there was a lot of land to expand into that could keep the plantations going and a system of crop rotation that could restore the previously depleted lands to a healthier state for use in growing other crops. This is a far different situation that that of Ireland, of course.

There's a great book by Frederick Law Olmstead, A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States that describes his experiences in the antebellum South and how closely even then it matched the kind of share-cropping semi-feudalism you describe, particularly among poor whites.

[Las Islas de Metanoia]

Advanced happy Valentine's y'all. Its' currently Valentines here in the Philippines and I have a date later. Wish me luck.

[Pyrghium]

One of the few moments in antiquity history of the West that wasn't terrible.

Well, Alexander may have been a military genius, but were his conquests really beneficial to the people who lived under his rule?

Sure they were. They stopped being so after his sudden demise, and the breakup of his Empire.

[Pyrghium]

RWDT: Is there any way the American Revolution could’ve been avoided? And what would a British North America look like?

[Fahran]

RWDT: Is there any way the American Revolution could’ve been avoided? And what would a British North America look like?

Extend representation to the American Colonies immediately or don't impose all those laws in the aftermath of the French and Indian Wars.

[LRON]

RWDT: Is there any way the American Revolution could’ve been avoided? And what would a British North America look like?

No, I'm afraid colonial America was the equivalent to a manchild. Unsurprising given that it was composed of Puritans, criminals, and down on their luck third sons of nobles.

[Pyrghium]

RWDT: Is there any way the American Revolution could’ve been avoided? And what would a British North America look like?

No, I'm afraid colonial America was the equivalent to a manchild. Unsurprising given that it was composed of Puritans, criminals, and down on their luck third sons of nobles.

Surely then, the illustrious Royal Army should’ve been able to defeat a “petulant manchild”...

[Genivaria]

RWDT: Is there any way the American Revolution could’ve been avoided? And what would a British North America look like?

Yeah the Petition to the King actually making it to the eyes of Parliament and the King.

[Samudera Darussalam]

RWDT: Is there any way the American Revolution could’ve been avoided? And what would a British North America look like?

Extend representation to the American Colonies immediately or don't impose all those laws in the aftermath of the French and Indian Wars.

I guess plenty much this. After all, the slogan says, "No taxation without representation".