[muir_redwoods]

"The South built it's economy on slave labor. When that labor was gone then there was no substitute, so they did suffer as a result of losing their rebellion. But prior to the war the South was one of the richest areas of the nation, with a per-capita income far in excess than that of the North".

Due to the small population, the wealth of the few obscenely rich planters may have resulted in a higher per capita income average but the wealth of the south was insignificant compared to the north. As you said, without the slaves the south had no middle class to replace these lost workers. An asset that evanescent is not an asset it's a drain.

With slaves they could never establish the capitalist elements of true wealth, capital, factories, banks and other businesses. Farmland you can't work because of a lack of labor is not an asset, it's a fallow field.

[Non-Sequitur]

As you said, without the slaves the south had no middle class to replace these lost workers. An asset that evanescent is not an asset it's a drain.

No, what I said was that the South had an active middle class who embraced slavery as enthusiastically as the upper class did.

With slaves they could never establish the capitalist elements of true wealth, capital, factories, banks and other businesses.

All probably true, but it is due more to a lack of interest in investing in those areas than a lack of capitol. James D. B. DeBow was an early and fervent advocate of Southen economic expansion and diversification, giving facts and figures as to why it was in the South's best interest. He was widely ignored.