Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LS

What would it have done to an economy that depended on cotton?


8 posted on 04/17/2006 8:32:54 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: rhombus

Probably not a lot: the subsequent share-cropper contracts were a less effective arrangement than if the blacks had owned their lands themselves and had the planters had to "get competitive" from the get-go. They still ended up relying overwhelmingly on cotton.


10 posted on 04/17/2006 8:35:24 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: rhombus
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.

30 posted on 04/17/2006 10:30:53 AM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson