[Jonty30]

The North controlled the price of cotton within America. They weren’t going to pay more out of the goodness of their heart. They weren’t going to allow the South to deny them that cotton by allowing the South to sell the cotton for the world price at the time on an open market.

For the North, the best way to make more money in that situation is to eliminate the plantation owners and buy up the land. That way the North has their reliable access to cotton and only paying what they have to for it.

I don’t know why that doesn’t make sense to you. On the plantation, under slavery, the only costs to the plantation owner was food and clothing and incidentals. Their rent was all in house. If they switched to wages, the costs for food and clothing and incidentals would have had to be covered, as well as rent.

The costs go up. The revenue is flat. No business can pay increased wages and have their revenues remain flat and stay a going concern. You’re the only one who doesn’t get that, I think.

[SauronOfMordor]

There was also the issue of increased population due to immigration.

A slave only works as hard as he needs to in order to avoid punishment. A free man working his own land will be more productive. He can out-bid the slave owner for land.

Slavery was only economically viable as long as land was cheap. That’s why slave owners wanted new western territories, with new unsettled land, to become slave states.

[Bernard]

On the plantation, under slavery, the only costs to the plantation owner was food and clothing and incidentals. Their rent was all in house. If they switched to wages, the costs for food and clothing and incidentals would have had to be covered, as well as rent.

So "Sixteen Tons" was just a song. Correct?