Slavery in the US in 1861 - question

[Viking]

XI. Iron works huge employers of slaves: Across the south about 10,000 slaves worked producing iron.

Sounds like manufacturing to me.

10,000/4,000,000.

Anecdotes and exemptions do exist naturally, and they prove only that exemptions are possible. Your contrarian instincts aside, the fact that almost half a dozen northern states had more industry than the entire confederacy suggest that slavery correlates with a lack of industry.

[dps]

XI. Iron works huge employers of slaves: Across the south about 10,000 slaves worked producing iron.

Sounds like manufacturing to me.

10,000/4,000,000.

Anecdotes and exemptions do exist naturally, and they prove only that exemptions are possible. Your contrarian instincts aside, the fact that almost half a dozen northern states had more industry than the entire confederacy suggest that slavery correlates with a lack of industry.

It wasn't that slave labor couldn't be used in industry, it was that slave cotton and tobacco farming were more profitable than small-scale industry, and the South didn't have much capital to build large-scale industry (because despite the profitability of cotton and tobacco cultivation, most of the capital in the South was tied up in land and slaves).

[Viking]

It wasn't that slave labor couldn't be used in industry, it was that slave cotton and tobacco farming were more profitable than small-scale industry, and the South didn't have much capital to build large-scale industry (because despite the profitability of cotton and tobacco cultivation, most of the capital in the South was tied up in land and slaves).

Why do Boston, New York and Philadelphia capitalists invest in Ohio, Indian and Illinois, but not in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia?

[Razgovory]

XI. Iron works huge employers of slaves: Across the south about 10,000 slaves worked producing iron.

Sounds like manufacturing to me.

10,000/4,000,000.

Anecdotes and exemptions do exist naturally, and they prove only that exemptions are possible. Your contrarian instincts aside, the fact that almost half a dozen northern states had more industry than the entire confederacy suggest that slavery correlates with a lack of industry.

You said it was only possible in certain situations which did not apply to ante-bellum South, my sourced proved you wrong.  It was possible as it was done.  It wasn't done very much, but it was still done.

[Viking]

You said it was only possible in certain situations which did not apply to ante-bellum South, my sourced proved you wrong.  It was possible as it was done.  It wasn't done very much, but it was still done.

I refer you to the Icelandic Banana Industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_production_in_Iceland

[Admiral Yi]

Why do Boston, New York and Philadelphia capitalists invest in Ohio, Indian and Illinois, but not in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia?

The existence of iron and coal in the former?

[Razgovory]

It wasn't that slave labor couldn't be used in industry, it was that slave cotton and tobacco farming were more profitable than small-scale industry, and the South didn't have much capital to build large-scale industry (because despite the profitability of cotton and tobacco cultivation, most of the capital in the South was tied up in land and slaves).

Why do Boston, New York and Philadelphia capitalists invest in Ohio, Indian and Illinois, but not in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia?

Why are you assuming they didn't?  Someone had to pay for those railroads.

[Razgovory]

You said it was only possible in certain situations which did not apply to ante-bellum South, my sourced proved you wrong.  It was possible as it was done.  It wasn't done very much, but it was still done.

I refer you to the Icelandic Banana Industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_production_in_Iceland

I fail to see how it's that's relevant.  You said something could not be, and it was.  There was nothing "special" about the circumstances.

[Viking]

Why do Boston, New York and Philadelphia capitalists invest in Ohio, Indian and Illinois, but not in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia?

The existence of iron and coal in the former?

iron and coal are found in large amounts in ante-bellum virginia, kentucky, tennessee and georgia. Not to mention the rivers making the entire mississippi rivier valley coal "producing".

[Viking]

It wasn't that slave labor couldn't be used in industry, it was that slave cotton and tobacco farming were more profitable than small-scale industry, and the South didn't have much capital to build large-scale industry (because despite the profitability of cotton and tobacco cultivation, most of the capital in the South was tied up in land and slaves).

Why do Boston, New York and Philadelphia capitalists invest in Ohio, Indian and Illinois, but not in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia?

Why are you assuming they didn't?  Someone had to pay for those railroads.

Yet they didn't choose to invest in manufacturing using slaves, preferring to use free men in the north.

[dps]

It wasn't that slave labor couldn't be used in industry, it was that slave cotton and tobacco farming were more profitable than small-scale industry, and the South didn't have much capital to build large-scale industry (because despite the profitability of cotton and tobacco cultivation, most of the capital in the South was tied up in land and slaves).

Why do Boston, New York and Philadelphia capitalists invest in Ohio, Indian and Illinois, but not in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia?

Because they didn't want to have send their sons to run plants in the South, where they'd be looked down on because they weren't part of the plantation aristocracy.

[Viking]

You said it was only possible in certain situations which did not apply to ante-bellum South, my sourced proved you wrong.  It was possible as it was done.  It wasn't done very much, but it was still done.

I refer you to the Icelandic Banana Industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_production_in_Iceland

I fail to see how it's that's relevant.  You said something could not be, and it was.  There was nothing "special" about the circumstances.

No I did not say that. I pointed out some of the specific problems with using slaves, suggesting that they might be the causes of the lack of southern chattel industrialization. I did not say it absolutely did not happen. You continually seem to not read my posts or consider their content before replying to them.

[grumbler]

Why do Boston, New York and Philadelphia capitalists invest in Ohio, Indian and Illinois, but not in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia?

The Northern ownership of the southern railway system is a constant bleat of the planter class. 

[grumbler]

I fail to see how it's that's relevant.  You said something could not be, and it was.  There was nothing "special" about the circumstances.

I am not sure what this argument is about.  Iron making isn't "industrial" except in the grossest sense.  The Pharaohs had those kinds of "industries" and probably used slaves to stoke the furnaces back then, too.

[Razgovory]

Yet they didn't choose to invest in manufacturing using slaves, preferring to use free men in the north.

Probably had more to do with transportation and proximity to customers.