What would it have done to an economy that depended on cotton?
I think you mean "What would it have done to an economy almost exclusively dependent on agriculture?" Since slavery was used not only for cotton but also tobacco and rice, and to some extent indigo. Of these tobacco was considered the least onerous re: slaves, while rice was far and away considered the most brutal.
posted on 04/17/2006 10:30:53 AM PDT
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
OK, what would it have done to an economy almsot exclusively dependent on agricutlure?
posted on 04/17/2006 10:35:10 AM PDT
All true. In fact, a majority of slaves did not work on plantations . . . and yet, slave wealth was overwhelmingly tied to land value. See James Huston's new book, Calculating the Value of the Union which shows that slave wealth exceeded that of ALL the North's railroads and textiles put together!
posted on 04/17/2006 10:40:43 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson