Would the South ever emancipate slaves and give them rights on its own?
The trend in the western world for the last couple centuries was to do so. I'd imagine the southern states would have done so eventually.
It would have happened eventually
shit, even share-cropping was basically just one meager step above slavery and just about as profitable for landowners
Yes. Industrialisation and the development of modern farming equipment rendered the work done by slaves obsolete. It would be more economically beneficial (at least, in theory) to emancipate slaves to become consumers in a capitalist society instead of having them live off their masters.
>>426322
True, but slavery didn't make any economic sense long before. In fact, it was wrecking the South economy. It was propped up by racism that was shared by the whole White society there. It was the racism that held the Black first in slavery and later in Jim Crow.
>>426277
At some point, the industrialisation would have made slavery an uninteresting form of work contract, so even if it was still allowed, you can guess that there wouldn't be a lot of slaves around.
>>426338
Was it really just racism, or just stubbornness on the part of the proud Southern whites in "defying" Northern trends, coupled with plantationers perfect satisfaction with keeping their own gravy train rolling
the North was very racist as well, it's not like being against slavery meant you were some kind of 21st century kumbaya multiculturalist
>>426277
>Emancipation
Probably not, but there would have been a massive reduction in the number of slaves as farmers followed profits and mechanized.
>Rights
Lel fuck no. They would have shipped them back to Africa.
>>426322
Paying people a living wage is economically sound as well, but every capitalist wants the benefit of cheap labour while reaping the benefits of well paid consumers.
They only have control over one, and I assure you no capitalists are going out of their way to pay a good wage when they can pay the least possible.
>>426277
Well the demographic problem would've come up either way.
>>426338
Agreed. It was only economically sensical during the early days of colonisation when demand for cash crops was high and the size of the colonist labour force was low. By the time the Civil War came around, it had long been holding the South from being economically competitive with the North.
>>426375
I agree with you as well, but the capitalist system cannot reap the benefits of consumption on a mass scale if a large section of the population is essentially excluded from participating in the market.
I think capitalists wanted to have their cake and eat it too when it came to having cheap labour and mass consumption, but we both know it doesn't work like that.
