"If slavery was abruptly stopped during the founding of the country, a few things would have happened. First, a severe amount of currency would have stopped circulating because much of what the money was used on (crops, clothing, ect.) would not be made anymore because the ones who produced them would not have to anymore. This would severely cripple the economy, causing inflation.

Second, there would be an absence of some foods that were farmed by generally the slave population. This would have caused food supply to shorten in the short term until people could be paid to farm. The food shortage might have caused weakness or death for some of the working population and farmers which relied on their crops to survive which could also hurt the economy because of decreased production of goods causing further inflation.

Third, there would be hundreds of thousands of freed slaves with nothing except their clothes across the country. This would cause a dramatic increase in demand for things that were now severely decreasing in quantity. This would cause people not being able to get things essential to survive causing death for many, possibly including the United States of America."

Discuss

<Edited>

It doesn't suprise me to see this whole "it's not our fault" attitude. The US likes to use that a lot, epsecially when taking land from Native Americans and many of our other great feats.

You mean people actually think it was a good thing?

Simply amazing.

Hey, nice marmot!

Both African Americans and Native Americans are still feeling the effects of slavery, slaughter, and racism.

During slavery, slaves were not allowed to read, and can be seen today as many African Americans still have lower test grades, and a more difficult ability to succeed. During the 1900's, African Americans could not vote, own much, have good jobs, or much of anythign else. This can also be seen today as African Americans are some of the poorest people in the country. Native Americans were forced onto land, slaughtered, and given very little. This is also seen still today as Native Americans live on small plots of land, their numbers dwindling down, their education poor, and the poverty level incredible. Some may own casinos, but the majority are still poor.

Dune wrote: During slavery, slaves were not allowed to read, and can be seen today as many African Americans still have lower test grades, and a more difficult ability to succeed. During the 1900's, African Americans could not vote, own much, have good jobs, or much of anythign else. This can also be seen today as African Americans are some of the poorest people in the country. Native Americans were forced onto land, slaughtered, and given very little. This is also seen still today as Native Americans live on small plots of land, their numbers dwindling down, their education poor, and the poverty level incredible. Some may own casinos, but the majority are still poor.

education is relatively free (taxes) and everyone has the opportunity to go to school and if an african american person chooses to drop out of high school, get into drugs, gangs, or bad things that the stereotypes lay out, then why are the white people to blame?  I still dont see this.  I can see how some people would'nt be able to read because of what happend during the 50's and 60's but there is no excuse for not being able to read if you live during this generation or the previous one.  No excuse for making it bad in a job or dropping out of school.  But if its a bad neighborhood or bad school district, then theres another story.

Honest analysis, but a bit too simple.

WGP guy wrote: "If slavery was abruptly stopped during the founding of the country, a few things would have happened. First, a severe amount of currency would have stopped circulating because much of what the money was used on (crops, clothing, ect.) would not be made anymore because the ones who produced them would not have to anymore. This would severely cripple the economy, causing inflation.

This point contradicts your third point.  The realistic result would be exactly what DID happen when slavery was abolished - the slaves went right back to work for their former slave masters, except for pay now.  There is no reason to believe that the end to slavery would or did cause harm to the Southern agricultural industry.  The world did not change so much from 1776 to 1865.  No reason to believe that the economic impact would be so much different.

In addition, you would have added millions of former slaves as self-interested members of society.  If you believe capitalist theory, free men are more productive than slaves, since they have more to gain.  Arguably, slavery was holding back the economy, not advancing it.

18th and 19th century America was in desparate need of more people.  And instead of allowing slaves to reap their full potential, we held them back by not providing self-interested motivation.

Your point number one is only correct if capitalism is completely false, since it completely contradicts teh very fundamentals of capitalism.  You are essentially arguing that a totalitarian regime is better for the economy than a free market capitalist system.  I think history has shown that this is false.

Second, there would be an absence of some foods that were farmed by generally the slave population. This would have caused food supply to shorten in the short term until people could be paid to farm. The food shortage might have caused weakness or death for some of the working population and farmers which relied on their crops to survive which could also hurt the economy because of decreased production of goods causing further inflation.

Again, you are assuming that the former slaves would simply stop working.  When the slaves were freed in 1865 they did not stop working - why would you think that they would stop in 1776?

America in 1776 was a land filled with raw materials.  Lots of agriculture potential, lots of mining potential, lots of industry potential.  It is likely that some of the former slaves would not go back to work on the plantation, but then they would simply go farm someplace else - like Kansas or Nebraska.  There was plenty of land to be had.

Third, there would be hundreds of thousands of freed slaves with nothing except their clothes across the country. This would cause a dramatic increase in demand for things that were now severely decreasing in quantity. This would cause people not being able to get things essential to survive causing death for many, possibly including the United States of America."

There were hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming in every year with nothing except their clothes.  They managed just fine.  In fact, they drove the growth of the country.  Why would freed slaves be any different?

Your entire 3-part argument is based on the premise that freed slaves would go from high productivity to low (or no) productivity.  I don't see why or how you can make that claim.  If anything, the opposite would be true.

Separately, of course, you have to consider the long-term effect of slavery.  The aftershocks of slavery remain one of the largest - and most expensive - problems facing this country today.  How much better would we not all be off economically without racial tension?  Slavery continues to hold us back to this day.

Yeah, a school that receives little funding, infested with crime and drugs. Good place to learn. The effects are still passed down today.

You're parents should teach you things other than "the white way is the right way." This country and it's people are too stubborn to admit when they did wrong. And claiming that it's easy to learn and get an education and succeed shows me that you have had it easy in your life and that you truly no nothing about struggle.

Dune wrote: His posts are also intelligent and thourough. He even states that slavery still effects us today; however, some of you amazingly disbelieve that.

But leik zomg it was teh sooo long ago i don own any slaves is not my faultys lolz111!!!1!

Hey, nice marmot!

No, they don't do it themselves. Those kids don't have much of a choice where they go to school, and who lives in your neighborhood.

Come on, don't play that I had it rough card with me. You've claimed multiple times that your family has a lot of money. People who grow up poor understand how impossible it is to move. Whether you want to admit it or not, our country and it's people are still effected by the appalling things we did to them years ago.

Dune wrote: No, they don't do it themselves. Those kids don't have much of a choice where they go to school, and who lives in your neighborhood. Come on, don't play that I had it rough card with me. You've claimed multiple times that your family has a lot of money. People who grow up poor understand how impossible it is to move. Whether you want to admit it or not, our country and it's people are still effected by the appalling things we did to them years ago.

Just give up Dune, Dbib lives in lala zany cartoon world where America can do no wrong.

If he knows he is wrong, he plays the apathetic card. Ala in the Police thread saying he didnt care, and now in this one saying he dosent care.

Hey, nice marmot!

Unless you won the lottery, you didn't rise out of the level of poverty that the majority of these people are in.

Whale's right, it's pure blindness and an unwillingness to admit faults.

Dune wrote: Unless you won the lottery, you didn't rise out of the level of poverty that the majority of these people are in. Whale's right, it's pure blindness and an unwillingness to admit faults.

Its the "Scared white man" theory. Its the same reason so many whites are opposed to Affirmitive Action and groups like the NAACP.

Its the same people that insist that there should be a WET and wonder why they cant use the N-word.

Its those people that think slavery wasa good thing.

Scared white man syndrome.

Hey, nice marmot!

Dune wrote: Scared white man syndrome is hereditary too Whale. That's the scary part.

Im not sure. My parents are all racist, weither they admidt it or not. I really just dont get racisim at all.

BTW, If you are one of those idiots that say "Im not racist but...I just dont like 'gangstas and thugs" You really are a racist. You dont like the "Thug" lifestyle becuase it has become one form of the embodyment of the black urban culture, and it scares you. You are racists, you just find a better way to say it.

Hey, nice marmot!

DBibeau855 wrote: Predatorr wrote: its called rich fairfax county world where a small house costs $400,000 so we know nothing of poverty or living at subsistence level. I too live there. 500,000 at my mothers house. The pricetag on my apartment would shock you.

you mean the 300,000 apartments out by springfield mall?  Or the ones for like 2000 a month?

DBibeau855 wrote: Or you find people shooting people for shoes and wearing baggy jeans hanging half way down your butt offensive.

You find pants offensive?

Hey, nice marmot!

DBibeau855 wrote: agentwhale007. wrote: DBibeau855 wrote: Or you find people shooting people for shoes and wearing baggy jeans hanging half way down your butt offensive. You find pants offensive? When i can see your underware. Yes. I just dont like poorly dressed people.

Im sure you dont mind when a female has her thong pulled up over her jeans.

No problem there, right?

Haha. Your offended by "Poorly dressed people"?? Thats just sad, honestly.

Hey, nice marmot!

DBibeau855 wrote: Predatorr wrote: DBibeau855 wrote: Predatorr wrote: its called rich fairfax county world where a small house costs $400,000 so we know nothing of poverty or living at subsistence level. I too live there. 500,000 at my mothers house. The pricetag on my apartment would shock you. you mean the 300,000 apartments out by springfield mall? Or the ones for like 2000 a month? Nah, i live in an apartment in DC off and on. The house im talking about is in Island Creek, up the street from where your mom works.

ohhh, the prices of town homes are crazy though, and im not even talking about the good ones

DBibeau855 wrote: When i can see your underware. Yes. I just dont like poorly dressed people.

How are they poorly dressed?

If I am sporting my $80 FUBU jeans, which were designed to ride low, and my $150 Nikes, and $2500 worth of gold chains and gold teeth, I have a very put together and deliberate look.

I am not "poorly dressed".  I may represent a different fashion than what you are accustomed to, but I am actually very well dressed.  You might as well criticize a Frenchman for wearing t-shirts that Americans would consider indecently tight.

People it was almost 300 years ago bringing it up on a forum is not going to fix what happened.

DBibeau855 wrote: Clark Kent wrote: DBibeau855 wrote: When i can see your underware. Yes. I just dont like poorly dressed people. How are they poorly dressed? If I am sporting my $80 FUBU jeans, which were designed to ride low, and my $150 Nikes, and $2500 worth of gold chains and gold teeth, I have a very put together and deliberate look. I am not "poorly dressed". I may represent a different fashion than what you are accustomed to, but I am actually very well dressed. You might as well criticize a Frenchman for wearing t-shirts that Americans would consider indecently tight. I would emediatly think that you lack culture and inteligence. To me that is almost on the verge of vulgar. Go to a museum exibit dressed like that. Or an opra or a play. You would get laughed at. Poorly dressed.

I would think that people who can't spell immediate or intelligence lack culture and intelligence. However, I would be wrong. As you would be in your assumption.

Darur wrote: agentwhale007. wrote: Affirmitive Action is not a punishment. Its not intended to be so, yes, but in reality it is. Having to give up your shot at a collage you have worked your whole life to get into because someone who is African American wants that same spot and his grades are only slightly lower then yours.

No. There's nothing more to say than you're wrong.

DBibeau855 wrote: I would emediatly think that you lack culture and inteligence. To me that is almost on the verge of vulgar. Go to a museum exibit dressed like that. Or an opra or a play. You would get laughed at. Poorly dressed.

Try wearing a pinstripe suit or a tuxedo to a barbershop in the hood.  That would also be poorly dressed.

The guy with low-riders doesn't LACK culture - he just has a DIFFERENT culture than yours.  Opera is not "more" cultured than "White Chicks" (the movie).  It is just different.

You are simply equating "different" with "inferior".

Are you a citizen by birth?

DBibeau855 wrote: English isn't my first language. I speak four languages...

What makes you think that English is the first language for anybody else around here...?

Dune wrote: Darur wrote: agentwhale007. wrote: Affirmitive Action is not a punishment. Its not intended to be so, yes, but in reality it is. Having to give up your shot at a collage you have worked your whole life to get into because someone who is African American wants that same spot and his grades are only slightly lower then yours.   No. There's nothing more to say than you're wrong.

well its kind of true about affirmative action.  My friend is A+ certified to work on computers at like best buy or something.  And a black guy who was C+ certified and indeed was wearing the bagy fubu jeans, gold chains, and talking slang got the job because of affirmative action. I fail to see how this makes any sense. But my friend got a job somewhere else so im just stating what happened.  I wouldn't care about AA unless my job was given to someone underqualified.

Why not? Because you refuse to associate with "those" people, all of whom are not bad? Because you're scared of what that neighborhood has become because of the little funding and poor education? Or because you think you're better?

Darur wrote: Dune wrote: You do not understand Afirmative Action, that's where you go wrong. Its supposed to make things "equal" for everybody by creating quotas of how many of each race are admitted into schools and even jobs. The reason it was created: To make amends for slavery and racism.

You know what it is, but you do not understand how it works.

Do you see the inconsistency between these two statements?

DiBi wrote: Thats what culture is. You enjoy different things from different cultures, enjoying traditions enjoyed by other nations. You start to cultivate yourself.

DBibeau855 wrote: On my free time I wouldnt be cought dead in "the hood"

DBibeau855 wrote: Those companies hurt themselves because they hire inferior workers. If they want to do it. Let them.

Once again, someone who doesn't understand the true implementation of Afirmative Action.

Darur wrote: Dune wrote: Darur wrote: Dune wrote: You do not understand Afirmative Action, that's where you go wrong. Its supposed to make things "equal" for everybody by creating quotas of how many of each race are admitted into schools and even jobs. The reason it was created: To make amends for slavery and racism.   You know what it is, but you do not understand how it works. Then teach me, I'll listen

The problem occurs with companies, employers, etc. who may or may not use race as a basis for who gets hired. However, it is supposed to be used, as with many types of job and school openings as a way to allow more minorities equal chances. So in addition to those spots already open, more spots would be allotted for minorities, and those who do not qualify would not be allowed in. It is not the fault of the program, just those who do not know how to implement it or those who hate it because they don't understand it.

DBibeau855 wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Do you see the inconsistency between these two statements? DiBi wrote: Thats what culture is. You enjoy different things from different cultures, enjoying traditions enjoyed by other nations. You start to cultivate yourself. <!-- Signature --> DBibeau855 wrote: On my free time I wouldnt be cought dead in "the hood" Yup. I perfer what is called "High Culture"

High culture maybe to you. But that's just your opinion. You thinking you're superior shows me you have little understanding for the culture of the inner city and the code of the streets.

DBibeau855 wrote: They dont take kindly to a rich white kid in south east DC.. It would be like that scene from Die Hard With a vengance.

Maybe if you wore FUBUs instead of a Polo shirt...

I have been to S.E.  There are some very bad neighborhoods there.  There are also some perfectly nice neighborhoods that white folk are scared of for no reason.

You should venture in.  There are some great restaurants there (more of that "culture" stuff...).

DBibeau855 wrote: Yup. I perfer what is called "High Culture"

And thus you have completely and irrefutably proven my point for me.

Predatorr wrote: I think that it would be worse if you hired a minority worker and had to fire him/her because of poor performance.

You don't have to hire anyone. White people are fired everyday for poor performance, but no one says anything.

it's common place to see a white person fired for slacking or the like, but when a minority worker gets cut, you tend to see lawsuits and such.  Im not saying this in prejudice, but im saying this from what i see in the news.  And i like Dbib prefer the Fine elements of culture.  In fact one of my black friends goes golfing with me and to polo stores.  He's quite the geltleman and he's black.  The stereotype that black people live the ghetto life makes me laugh.  There is a mixed culture of blacks, middle eastern, and white people and my local country club.

Darur wrote: Dune wrote: Darur wrote: Dune wrote: Darur wrote: Dune wrote: You do not understand Afirmative Action, that's where you go wrong. Its supposed to make things "equal" for everybody by creating quotas of how many of each race are admitted into schools and even jobs. The reason it was created: To make amends for slavery and racism.   You know what it is, but you do not understand how it works. Then teach me, I'll listen   The problem occurs with companies, employers, etc. who may or may not use race as a basis for who gets hired. However, it is supposed to be used, as with many types of job and school openings as a way to allow more minorities equal chances. So in addition to those spots already open, more spots would be allotted for minorities, and those who do not qualify would not be allowed in. It is not the fault of the program, just those who do not know how to implement it or those who hate it because they don't understand it. Sounds exactly like what I thought.  A program based on race. Why not go a step further towards equality and base the program on where people live and their wealth.  The program is deisgned to help minorities better themselves, but if they are already very well off why not stretch it down to those who arent better off and live off what they can, including the whites.  That sounds more fair to me.

There's much more to it that what I explained. It's a very difficult program to understand and I'm still working on it. In fact, many times there is emphasis placed on those who are in financial need as well, not only race.

Darur wrote: Dune wrote: Darur wrote: Dune wrote: Darur wrote: Dune wrote: You do not understand Afirmative Action, that's where you go wrong. Its supposed to make things "equal" for everybody by creating quotas of how many of each race are admitted into schools and even jobs. The reason it was created: To make amends for slavery and racism.   You know what it is, but you do not understand how it works. Then teach me, I'll listen   The problem occurs with companies, employers, etc. who may or may not use race as a basis for who gets hired. However, it is supposed to be used, as with many types of job and school openings as a way to allow more minorities equal chances. So in addition to those spots already open, more spots would be allotted for minorities, and those who do not qualify would not be allowed in. It is not the fault of the program, just those who do not know how to implement it or those who hate it because they don't understand it. Sounds exactly like what I thought.  A program based on race. Why not go a step further towards equality and base the program on where people live and their wealth.  The program is deisgned to help minorities better themselves, but if they are already very well off why not stretch it down to those who arent better off and live off what they can, including the whites.  That sounds more fair to me.

because we white people are responsible for all the minority problems, or so we are told by our liberal friends such as Al Sharpton, whos views on just about everything but race, i can associate with.