re: New Book by Dr. DiLorenzo: The Problem with Lincoln

quote:

---

you think the millionaires in places like Natchez would've given up their livelihood without a fight?

---

Slavery was increasingly cost prohibitive. The larger slaveholdings had an economy of scale that gave them a buffer, but they had problems of their own.

Slaves were born and typically didn't do any work at all until 10 or 12 and didn't really get into production standards until mid/late teen years. And that was unskilled, agricultural work. Recall slaves did virtually everything on a large holding, construction work, slaughtering animals, teamster work, ranching, not just agricultural field work (although a huge portion did work cotton and food plot production). If a slave got too old or permanently disabled, certainly went to reduced duties if not outright retired (depending on the circumstances).

And they had to be fed, clothed, housed, medical care, all of it from birth to death. That was insanely expensive and getting more so by the year.

Economists estimate that by the mid-1880s, slavery would have not be economical for the vast majority of slaveowners. Many large Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina holdings were on pace to be significantly reduced (by manumission provisions in wills, primarily) before the war even started. There was little incentive to do that in the Cotton Belt, but in a generation or so, there would have been.