> While slavery made individual southerners wealthy, it's abolition [...] took millions out of poverty. But your original argument was about the economics for

> While slavery made individual southerners wealthy, it's abolition [...] took millions out of poverty. But your original argument was about the economics for the enslaver, not for the population. > It's the same economics that made slavery not viable. Sure you don't have to pay labor costs with a slave but if they break their arm you have to call a doctor [...] It's much more economical to work humans that you've paid a wage to the bone [...] wage slaves beat actual slaves every time. You're trying to make a point about capital vs operational expenses, but your example of US slavery's economic viability is both poor and distracting. Enslaving people is generally a financial boon for the enslaver. Focusing on the economic costs of owning your laborers and discounting the lack of wages sounds a lot like the "Positive Good" arguments from the mid 1800s: > Slavery is said to be an evil... But is no evil. On the contrary, I believe it to be the greatest of all the great blessings which a kind Providence has bestowed upon our glorious region... As a class, I say it boldly; there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth... Lightly tasked, well clothed, well fed—far better than the free laborers of any country in the world, ... their lives and persons protected by the law, all their sufferings alleviated by the kindest and most interested care.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_as_a_positive_good_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_as_a_positive_good_in_...