The fundamental problem of the Slaver society was its inability to accomodate the demands of modern life including capitalism. Jefferson and the Republican's view of banking put them in the power to banks outside the South and insured that the region would never be able to develop the infrastructure which could lead to financial strength and independence. This attitude insured that the wealth of the region would flow out of it and there is a great deal of truth in the statement that the plantations were run for the benefit of British bankers initially then the NE bankers after independence.
Those economic interests dragged ideologies along with them and the ideology of Freedom was more appropriate and powerful than the ideology of Boundage.
The fundamental problem of the Slaver society was its inability to accomodate the demands of modern life including capitalism.
Before I can address this remark intelligently, I'd need to know how you think an agrarian, monocrop, cash-crop society could develop capitalism that didn't involve cash-crop agriculture. By definition, it would have to -- subsistence agriculture is off the books, economically.
I'd also like to know what you mean by "modern life", and whether you are defining it in terms a little broader than the worldview from a corner office in a New York bank building.
You'll have to elucidate a little better what you mean by that comment. If you mean that the South "failed to develop heavy industry", then you have to look at accidents of geography that placed almost all the usable industrial-mineral deposits east of the Mississippi, and the preponderance of valuable anthracite deposits, in the North and Canada.
It's true that Birmingham, Alabama, has been an industrial center (and Chattanooga, to a lesser extent) for some hundred years, using Appalachian coal from Tennessee and the Alabama Hills. But the oil industry still lay in the future, notwithstanding that in 1863 Pennsylvania's crude-oil production had already risen to two million barrels per year, or about 5500 barrels of stock-tank oil per day (as we say in the oil patch, writing that as 5.5 MSTBOPD), or about the same as one typical Iranian or Saudi oil well that's been producing for a while.
Jefferson and the Republican's view of banking put them in the power to banks outside the South and insured that the region would never be able to develop the infrastructure which could lead to financial strength and independence. This attitude insured that the wealth of the region would flow out of it and there is a great deal of truth in the statement that the plantations were run for the benefit of British bankers initially then the NE bankers after independence.
That doesn't quite square with what I know of the fight between Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle over this issue -- a fight Jackson won. True, the U.S. took a depression after the promulgation of the Specie Circular, but does that speak more to lack of Democratic Republican understanding of the banking business, or to the unsoundness of the banks' prolific issues of currency?
And assuming arguendo that the bankers were right about the best way to grow the banking business, is it necessarily entailed in their answer, that their best solution is simultaneously what is best for the American people and their freedom? This is Al Capp's General Bullmoose ditty again -- and Capp's implicit New Dealer's answer was, no. What is best for the People is best for the People, not what is best for New England bankers.
As for capital flows, it does not appear, from examination of the nation's cotton exports, that the Southern planters were going broke. If the New England and New York bankers cried about slavery and the lack of banking competition in the South, they cried all the way to their own banks, and so did the planters, belying your statement about capital flowing out of the South, which would be true only if you could show that the leading cotton-growing accounts in the South were all land- and slave-poor, and that their margins had been reduced to nothing by the clever market manipulations of trading interests tied to the banks. Has anyone demonstrated that this is true? On the contrary, the newest study of the question of slavery's "economic decline", which I posted a link to in another thread last year, shows that the Southern economy was growing rapidly and that planters were still investing vigorously on the eve of the Civil War. This is not the picture of e.g. a Central American extractive economy such as was described in the 18th century by Ulloa and Juan in their royal economic census and review of the Spanish Empire.
Moreover, your statement overlooks the fact that, wherever they banked, the planters' balances were still theirs and available to them to do as they pleased, and that there were still many banks in the South; and it dissembles the degree to which Northern businesses' returns were assisted by corporate-welfare legislation like the Morill Act and the 1848 Warehouse Act. The latter was a true benison to the New York economy and made New York the unquestioned commercial capital of the nation.