You've reduced slavery to a parenthetical. Where do you think the cotton and tobacco went? Where do you think the money came from? Where do you think it got spent?
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806069/slavery-ec...
The Rebel army was barefoot, because Southern industry could not even make shoes. The reason that Lee was in Gettysburg was to loot the shoe factory at nearby Harrisburg.
Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America? Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North?
> was the basis of the economic machine that you speak of
The Civil War destroyed what there was of the Southern wealth, literally burning it to the ground.
"made the South its most prosperous region"
That's just nonsense. Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865, and you'll see the stark difference in prosperity. Railroads latticed the North, far outstripping mileage in the South.
> Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America?
They weren't there precisely because slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize.
> Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North?
The south seceded in order to protect the institution of slavery.
> Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865
Good thing we don't measure wealth by photos and paintings, and instead we have census data.
Do you really think that photos and paintings are all lies?
> Be serious, think about why an economy based on slave labor and agriculture would not build a network of railroads even if they had the money for it.
I'm sorry, I can't take that comment seriously.
> slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize
Or that one. Sorry.
The South was so profitable they could not finance their military. The North did easily.
My argument summed up is that slavery was a "local maximum" that A) generated an enormous amount of wealth early on, and was thus a crucial factor in developing the American economy, even if it was no longer the main driver of wealth by the time of the civil war, and B) made it unattractive for the south to risk seeking a global maximum (investing in industrialization) a strategic misstep for sure.
It's clear which strategy wins long term, I don't think that's a debate. I should have phrased my earlier comment better, sorry.
The violent coercion is key, not starvation. Isn't it interesting that every example of an abuse by free markets actually turns out to be the government doing it? The anti-chinese laws, debt slavery, slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc.? It's almost as if these things won't happen with free markets!
> generated an enormous amount of wealth
I dispute that. Slavery was dying out in the US by 1800 (as evidenced by its disappearance in the northern states). The cotton gin revived it, but only for cotton, and it was dying out again by the time of the Civil War. The South though the North needed its cotton, but the North was importing it from Egypt. Egyptian cotton (not raised by slaves) was cheaper even including shipping it across the Atlantic.
> made it unattractive for the south to risk seeking a global maximum (investing in industrialization) a strategic misstep for sure.
So they sent their money north to found industries? That doesn't make any sense. Why didn't they invest locally, and get more slaves to work them, if slavery was so enormously profitable?
Slavery is terribly inefficient. First of all, your slaves hate you. They will work as little as they can get away with. They'll sabotage anything they can get away with. They'll piss in your oatmeal. They'll kill you if they can. You have to employ armed guards at all time. You have to provide cradle to grave care for them. They are expensive to buy. If your slaves don't have the right skills, selling them and buying ones with the right skills is far less efficient than just hiring a plumber. And so on.
The Nazis had all these problems with their slave labor war production. Sabotage by those workers was a constant issue.
Government instrumentalized to serve the interests of the wealthy elites, that is. So at the end of the day, it's the latter who are "doing" it.
The practice back in those days were to advertise inflated wages for a job in remote areas. People then traveled there, only to find out that food and living costs, all under the control of the company, were also inflated to the point where even a full working day would results in debt when subtracting food and living costs. People who tried to flee was prevented from doing so under the argument that they tried to escape acquired debt. The fines for smuggling food was also extreme, since food costs was the primary way that the companies held control over their debt slaves.
This practice was so vile that many countries created laws directly targeting it, including changes to inheritance so that debt would not follow from parent to child.
I.e. the government is doing it.
If you the only source, there is a reason for that, usually because you are shooting people who try to leave.
I'll cite a counter for you. The US was the first country in the world to eliminate the specter of famine (around 1800). Free labor was the distinguishing ingredient, not slave labor. (The slaves at the time were used to primarily farm cotton and tobacco.) The average height of Americans increased dramatically throughout the 19th century. Scores of millions of Americans arrived in America as paupers and moved into the middle class.
The economic machine of America was fueled by free labor, not starving people.