[taxcontrol]

I disagree.

I would postulate that the industrial revolution did not show that slavery was immoral, rather that it was economically costly.

After all, in the pure calculus of profit, a slave must be bought, fed, protected from the elements, and there is an additional cost of the enforcement of the slavery. If you want to lower the cost of purchasing slaves, then each slave must have certain basic maintenance to stay alive and productive.

On the other hand, machines also require maintenance (mechanic instead of a doctor) and housing and even food (coal, steam, oil etc).... but there is one cost machines to not require.... the cost to enforce the condition of slavery. No guards, no whips, no injuries, no dogs and slave hunters etc.

I would also postulate that had a machine been available to pick cotton then within a decade or two slavery would have simply been too costly to maintain in the US.

[Clock King]

Beat me by that, much!