At the risk of diverging even further from the point of this thread, the virtual slavery of Northern factories probably fragmented as many families as the express practice of selling slave children did in the South. Chattel slavery demotes one group from enfranchisement, to be sure. But in doing so, it also places the entire burden of that group's well-being on the owners. And no slave holder with half a brain would risk damaging a piece of property as valuable as a field hand by neglecting him or physically abusing him.
No such constraints compel the factory owner. If a serf is injured on the job, he can be discarded and another put in his place. The injured or dispossessed employee is left to fend for himself.
One of the traditions the South embodied was that of noblesse oblige. In shunning the South's gentility, the North also sacrificed the moral obligation that comes with great power. In the name of Mammon, all things are allowed.
In other words, your betters know best. Are you honestly arguing that it's better to be a slave than a free worker? Are you honestly making that comparison? Here's the difference--my great-grandfather immigrated to this country and worked a miserable job in the coal mines. His children did better than him, and their children did even better. That's why immigrants flooded to America,. By contrast, a slave's children were going to be slaves. His grandchildren were going to be slaves. His great grandchildren were going to be slaves. Conflating free labor and the opportunity for social mobility that America has always offered with slavery is mind boggling.
In the name of Mammon, all things are allowed.
Such as owning people. Don't pretend that the south's interests in slavery weren't purely economic.