Explain why this happened, why it went on for as long as it did, and why it stopped...

sugar mang all for some fucking sugar

...

>mfw you fags don't know how to make your own sugar

Explain why this happened.

Slavery was outlawed.

>European powers tried to hold onto their advantageous economic position by force of arms.
>This is exactly what started the American Revolution, and all of the revolutions afterward in Latin America.
No. Or at least, very disingenuous way to put it.
The american wars of independence were more about not having to pay taxes to the motherland and being able to trade freely with every nation rather than just with the motherland than anything else.
They certainly weren't about the old world trying to stop the new world from developing a manufacturing sector, that's just a moronic thing to say.

>Explain why slavery was outlawed
Literally muh feels.
I'm not saying slavery is good for the economy mind you, just that the abolitionists did it because feels rather than economy.

You just restated my point.

The US wanted to be able to trade with the rest of the world on even terms.

Hence, an advantageous economic position. Having another country dictate your trade policy and tax your economy for their own benefit is not good for your economy.

expensive, inefficient, dangerous

It actually had nothing to do with feels, and everything to do with competition.

The logic went that slavery would devalue the labor of free men, and if free men had less economic capital, society would logically have to become less democratic.

A very small proportion of the north were moralfags about slavery, and the majority of the north didn't care about it beyond making sure that the slave states didn't gain more power than the free states and outmaneuver them.

The actual war portion was essentially 100% about keeping the union together, from the top all the way down to the individual diaries of the soldiers that historians have found. Lincoln explicitly said that if he could preserve the union and free no slaves, he'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

>You just restated my point.
No, you said
>Once the societies in the New World became competitive with the Old World in terms of manufacturing and defense, the European powers tried to hold onto their advantageous economic position by force of arms.
Which is wrong. The new world wasn't competitive in neither field (US independence came at the hands of french and spanish, SA independence came at the hands of brits and french), what they wanted to trade freely were their raw materials like cotton. Talking of manufacturing is ridiculous.

I was referring to war production

What I was trying to say is that the second the countries in the New World gained the ability to win a fight with the ones in the Old World, they proceeded to do so, because they had every economic incentive to.

That and slave based industry would pose a risk to British goods, which is why the English tried to shut down slavery worldwide.

You're talking of america banning slavery.
I was talking of britain and france, which is what effectively stopped the triangle trade. If you read up on that, you'll find almost exclusively muh feels bullshit as motivations. The economic argument came after Europe had already banned slavery.

That's actually still kinda wrong, because they sure as shit didn't wait until they could win a fight, they only waited until another power offered to win a fight for them.

It was still mostly money. The moral and political realities behind the triangle trade are just icing on the economic cake. Besides, the triangle trade was just a general pattern, not something rigid and enforced. European shipping generally went anywhere it could chasing rumors of profit to be made, and the triangle trade happened to be a fairly reliable circuit.

Nah, see The feels argument was just the way to win popular support for the ban.

But by the time the brits banned slavery, they only owned caribbean islands. No kind of british (as in, from the actual british islands) was also made in say Jamaica and viceversa, so where exactly was the competition?

Well, the US did produce a shitload of guns, gunpowder, and cannons during the war.

France contributed a large amount of powder and fought diversionary battles, but playing larger powers off against one another is a universal feature of insurgent conflict.

Aside from them taking sick and dying in droves, why didn't American colonists make slave populations of the natives?

This doesn't effect countries in the world today, for the same reason. Does a nation like Saudi Arabia, which produces basically no finished goods say "Hmmmm, you know, this trade scheme seems inherently uneven. Maybe we'll be better off just not exporting oil."

Literally that first one.

They died too quickly, and were hard to capture relative to Africans.

With Africans, you had entire slaver kingdoms that existed solely to capture slaves and sell them to European traders for more guns to go capture more slaves. And the exchange rate was cheap as fuck, being that it's Africa and they can't get firearms or other manufactured goods anywhere else.

If we're talking about America there's also the fact that whites were ridiculously out numbered, something like 8 Africans to ever 1 white american. Not to mention the Amerindians would likely have supported an African revolution, because A.) No knowledge of the Africans past and B.) The colonists history with them. Sure the Amerindians were dwindling in numbers but support is support.

Additionally, there is also the point that an african revolution would have likely come as a surprise to white slave owners. There are many accounts of plantation owners in shock at the slaves walking off their plantations after the abolition of slavery. Why? The owners thought the slaves loved them.

Needless to say, it was wise that slavery was abolished considering the possibilities.

It's the exact, polar opposite.

The moralfags may have pushed Britain out of the slave trade directly, but they still made every effort to profit from slave trade indirectly.

Britain was seriously considering intervening on the Confederate side for that sweet cotton.

I think that at the height, there were two whites in the south for every one slave.

Your numbers are a bit off, especially being that the slaves didn't exactly leave afterwards and blacks are less than 10% of the population in the US today.

Also, linking back to the triangle trade, people got bills of exchange from GB because of their sugar daddy shit, so they were literally getting niggers for free.

Hm. Smallpox is a bitch, huh?

Fun fact.

The smallpox epidemic that happened after the Columbian exchange is on the shortlist for the deadliest single event in the entire history of the human race.

The other contenders are WW2, the Mongol Conquests, and a couple of civil wars in China.

All of them are estimated at somewhere in the 50-100 million death range, it's impossible to be precise because the people keeping records died.

>a couple of civil wars in China

Didn't a few thousand people get eaten in a single sacking of a city? Or was that unrelated?

This

They import so many Negros hither that I fear this Colony
will some time or other be confirmed by the Name of New
Guinea. I am sensible of many bad consequences of
multiplying these Ethiopians amongst us. They blow up the
pride, & ruin the Industry of our White People who, seeing a
Rank of poor Creatures below them, detest work for fear it
should make them look like Slaves. . . .

Rev. Cotton Mather 1696

I'm pretty was a siege, but yeah, that shit happened.

Read into Zhang Xianzhong and the seven kill stele if you want to get into some really crazy shit.

The Great Leap Forward probably killed around 30 million people, and that was so recent that it happened when Elvis was still big.

China is great.

>muh 100 gorrilion
Literally worse than the Jews.

Wew.

If that isn't eerily prescient...

I know, it's super weird.

Smallpox is no fucking joke if you have no tolerance for it.

They're still finding cities in the jungle that nobody in the area know anything about.

Keep in mind that everyone before maybe 100 years ago was an intense Romaboo.

They knew exactly where things could go.

I can tell you why it inevitably stopped. The rise of The Industrial Revolution. Since factories became the new primary investment agricultural slave plantations lost a lot of backing, and began to fall out of popularity. The US South was stubborn in this regard, since all the factories were built in the North. If tractors and all the other tools that came with the Green Revolution were created before the US Civil War, then slavery probably would've just fallen out of style.

And yes, it was 90% because of money that slavery became abolished. Since it was now not needed, the rich simply did away with it to obtain a moral high ground. Sure there were people that were against it when it was still significant to profit margins, but that accounts for that 10%, the ideologically charged. The saying, "Money makes the world go round." exists for a reason. Nothing significant happens in the world without action or reaction from the wealthy man's checkbook.

Rum is awesome and worth more than most human life.

Could you imagine trading slaves for rum?
That sounds like a nice day.

But to get slaves in the first place you need guns. Where do you get the guns?
Also, have you ever tried Bumbo? Its the pirate style of having Rum, has a Christmasy taste.