Here's this gem from the Columbia subreddit, which has been brigaded the last few days because a drunk student yelled a bunch of white supremacist remarks at a group of students of color and some, like the subject of this post, think that what this student said was appropriate.

lmao, braindead. It's very probable slavery wasn't actually economically beneficial because it hindered industrialization. You know the south was always poorer than it's northern counterparts, right? And, up until the last 40 years, Canada (which had almost 0 slaves in its entirety) was quite a bit wealthier than the US? You actually have to be [redacted] to think the west is affluent because it used some forced labor, seeing as how every continent in the history of the world had rampant slavery anyways.

https://np.reddit.com/r/columbia/comments/a4vqf7/students_of_color_harassed_outside_butler_by/ebiu4jy/

Wew, let's take this one step at a time:

It's very probable slavery wasn't actually economically beneficial because it hindered industrialization.

I'm sympathetic to arguments that slavery made it so that the South found it more difficult to develop a manufacturing industry as it could simply depend on imports from the North.[1] However, this assumes a counterfactual: that the South would have definitely developed strong industry without slaves. This is possible, but the south had a comparative advantage in large-scale agriculture in the first place because of its more fertile soils that could grow cash crops such as tobacco, cotton, and sugar. The latter two crops especially could not as easily grow in the North, which primarily had subsistence farms.[2] Think about it this way: why didn't the South use slavery in manufacturing? Agriculture might have been more profitable anyway. Moreover, the largest ports in the U.S. were in the North (closer to the U.S.'s largest trading partners in Europe), and this could have benefited manufacturing independent of the North not having slaves.[3] If you don't buy that argument, there are plenty of other reasons why the North could have developed manufacturing even if the South did not have slaves. For example, nascent industries like newspaper circulation and hog packing boomed during Jefferson's trade embargo, which were more highly concentrated in the North.[4]

You know the south was always poorer than it's northern counterparts, right?

• In 1860, the two richest states in the United States—per capita—were Mississippi and South Carolina.[5]
• "In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined."[6]
• The North did have more people than the south and estimates on all these figures certainly tend to vary[7] (note also "We also find that the South was initially much richer than the North on the eve of Revolution,") but it's definitely not settled that the south was always poorer.
• "In 1860, 5 of the 10 wealthiest states in the US are slave states; 6 of the top 10 in per capita wealth; calculated just by white population, 8 of 10. The single wealthiest county per capita was Adams County, Mississippi. As a separate nation in 1860, the South by itself would have been the world's 4th wealthiest, ahead of everyone in Europe but England. Italy did not enjoy an equivalent level of per capita wealth until after WWII; the South's per capita growth rate was 1.7%, 1840-60, 1/3 higher than the North's and among the greatest in history."[8] I know this isn't the best source, it traces itself to this and subsequently this book but I can't find a direct source on it. Would love a discussion about this in the comments. Nonetheless, I think the general point holds.

And, up until the last 40 years, Canada (which had almost 0 slaves in its entirety) was quite a bit wealthier than the US?

I'm going to talk about GDP per capita instead of wealth per se, but in 1960 (almost 60 years ago), the U.S. had a higher GDP per capita than Canada.[9] I don't have the PPP adjusted data that far back, but it's curious to me that current levels don't matter suddenly and what really matters when talking about the effect of slavery on economic growth is "up until the last 40 years." Is the argument here that all countries with lower numbers of slaves are wealthier than countries with more slaves? Brazil had many more slaves than Paraguay and is wealthier than Paraguay today, off the top of my head. Either way, this is a poor argument. Talk about omitted variable bias.

You actually have to be [redacted] to think the west is affluent because it used some forced labor, seeing as how every continent in the history of the world had rampant slavery anyways.

Don't use the R-word.

Edit: small grammatical changes, fixed a source.