They weren't very good accountants and they didn't understand economics. They never really appreciated the full cost of owning the slaves as a productive unit of the cotton industry. And they didn't understand that the gin had rendered the slaves uneconomic.
Slavery was a dead institution within twenty years whatever happened in the war.
Read some history. The cotton gin actually made slavery far more economic than before. By cutting the cost of cleaning the cotton boll it made cotton far more cost effective. By making it more cost effective it raised the demand for cotton. By raising the demand it increased the need for slaves, thus increasing demand for slaves, thus increasing the price of slaves, and so forth and so on.
Eli Whitney was the savior of slavery, not the other way around.
that is hilarious....it was the cotton gin invented by a Yankee which made the production of cotton so lucrative ...much more so than before when most large slave operations in the south were over Indigo and Sugar.
the cotton gin did not pick cotton, it took the seeds out
am I the only one here who has ever actually picked a row of cotton?
I find two things curious..well, a lot more actually but these will do for now....
Why is it that every other slaving nation in that century ended slavery without war and compensated for then most part the slave owners for loss of property?
Does anyone here really think we or world opinion would today support a total war against Islam along the lines of how Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and other Federals waged against civilians in the south....the very folks who today on this forum high five over that are the first to call bigot on such action against third world based Islam.
Guess all that matters is the color of the aggrieved.