The southern slave economy 1800-1860 performed very poorly, which is one of the underlying causes of the South wanting to secede from the Union. The industrial northern economy, based on free labor, completely overpowered the slave economy.

As for natural resources, Asia, Africa, and S. America are loaded with natural resources, yet the booms did not happen there.

> Asia, Africa, and S. America are loaded with natural resources, yet the booms did not happen there

They are also loaded with people. America was a free-for-all (except the American Indians, of course, who were overpowered by superior technology).

How is N. America different from S. America in the 1800s, in people and resources?

Oil? I'm unaware of any big (existing) land-based oil extraction in S. America. Maybe they had them in the past, though.

S. America had enormous silver mines. Venezuela is big on oil production.

I imagine the main resources that USA had are the huge plains to grow food in, in a relatively favorable climate. The industry comes later.

Maybe there was a lot of wealth in silver, I don't know about that. It seems that it had some land-based oil that they started extracting in the beginning of the 20th century, but I've no idea if they were as extensive as in the US (where there was Standard Oil, an immensely wealthy corporation).

Mind you, I'm not saying it was only the natural resources, there are other factors as well - different climate, geography, cultural background (English vs. Spanish/Portuguese), colonial history, ... I somewhere read that it's a curious phenomenon how so many countries in SA had so many dictatorships in sequence...

It's really hard to argue that S. America, Africa, Asia, etc., all don't have immense natural resources and favorable climates.

A small note. I read a Statfor report that North American Rivers were very important.

What about the systematic destruction and de-industrialization of places like India by the British tho?