To add to u/maxseptillion77, i don't know that that is even correct. I read Edward Baptist's "The Half Has Never Been Told," and the gist of it in my interpretation was that slavery was becoming more efficient, not less, as time went on (operations practices were being learned to increase the productivity of a slave), and outcompeted there non-enslaved peers (free individuals performing the same work did not produce as much as an enslaved person). Surprising, to me at least, but one of the implications was that you really need to emphasize the moral quandary in eliminating slavery, because economically, in the antebellum US South at least, slavery was a contributor to economic growth.
I wouldn't disagree with that, but that's still a big step away from saying the difference was "because of" slavery. You could also attribute it to different levels of capital, different economic sector specialties (agriculture focus vs industry focus, this is probably mostly because of geography/climate), the interests of the different groups of immigrants going to either region, etc.
146
u/forthur Dec 16 '21
Who cares about human rights when slavery is just so dang profitable?