Was there any way for the US to both:

Was it really that profitable? Are there official figures? I mean, if you want your slaves to be effective you have to feed them more than the average joe, plus you have to buy them on auction, monitor them with specialized workers, give them a roof, a healthcare etc, it's everything but free.

Slavery was turning higher profit margins than the goddamn railroads, man.

On the LOOOOONG run (Longer than the lifetime of your average Slave-Owner) it didn't make sense, but why the fuck would they care? They want to be rich NOW.

economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2

Per capita the US didn't even have that many slaves.
You yanks are just fucking dumb sometimes. I mean, imagine being on the same level as Haiti.

Lol, answer the question, what other country in human history had as many slaves as the United States?

>economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2
Thanks.

>Per capita the US didn't even have that many slaves.

In Alabama, 48% of the population was enslaved.

In South Carolina, 57% of the population was enslaved.

In Florida and Georgia, 44% of the population was enslaved.

civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

>What other country in human history had as many slaves as the United States?

Not sure about the exact number however by percentage the following state had vastly more slaves often many times over what the US had.

Brazil
The Roman Empire
The City state
The Ottoman Empire
Some of the West African Kingdoms

>but are you not considering Wars of Independence

Only the ones were it was a central issue like in Haiti.

>The Haiti revolt was part of why the American Civil War was so bitterly fought.

two things

Firstly take a look at what happened in Haiti the massacre of white people only happened after Napoleon sent 30K of soldiers to re-enstate slavery after it had been abolished. It wasnt liberated slaves turning on their benevolent masters but paranoid blacks massacring conspiring whites.

Secondly doesn't that ignore the fact that it had been abolished in other countries or was gradually being abolished without any of that level of violence?

>Not sure about the exact number however by percentage the following state had vastly more slaves often many times over what the US had.

Source?

>Brazil
Brazil had a 15% enslaved population in 1872 (compared to the US 13% enslaved population in 1860) and it was hardly a peaceful transition with the many revolts and uprisings.

That's literally nothing in 1789 ***89%*** of Haiti were slaves and off that non slave population only 5.7% were white.

uky.edu/~popkin/Haitian Revolution Lecture.htm

>High Slave Populations lead to bloodshed

You don't say?

>Napoleon sent 30K of soldiers to re-enstate slavery after it had been abolished

Napoleon supported slavery? I had no idea.

Any one in particular?

>Brazil had a 15% enslaved population in 1872 (compared to the US 13% enslaved population in 1860) and it was hardly a peaceful transition with the many revolts and uprisings.

That was close to the point of total emancipation, it was much higher historically and had been in a gradual decline.

>By 1819 the population of Brazil was 3.6 million, and at least one third were African slaves. By 1825 the figure may have been as high as 56%.[27]

>it was hardly a peaceful transition with the many revolts and uprisings.

Never said it was only that it didnt result in a civil war. Likewise there was no where near the violence there was in the US or Haiti.

Remember 2% of the US population died in that war and more people than WWII and WWI combined

well he was a tyrant so why does that suprise you? :)

>The City state

Dont move the goalposts, the situation in the US had nothing on Haiti.

Its more complicated than that Napoleon was pragmatic and discovered what the new leaders of Haiti discovered - the sugar plantation economy was not viable without slavery. Its for the same reason the black leaders introduced a psuedo slavery were although people couldn't be brought, sold or tortured they were not allowed to leave or stop working at the plantations and work elsewhere

Had Haiti continued to be profitable without slavery he probably never would have invaded. Indeed it was a big regret of his

>“The Santo Domingo affair was a foolish business on my part. It was the greatest mistake I ever made in my administration. I should have treated with the black leaders as with provincial authorities, appointed Negro officers in all the black regiments, kept Toussaint L’Ouverture as viceroy, sent no troops, and left everything to the blacks, except for giving them a few white advisers, a treasurer for instance, and even these I would have wanted to marry black women. That way, seeing that they were not surrounded by the threat of white power, the Negroes would have come to trust my policy.”

Had he done that he would have had access to a pretty decent and disease resistant army in the Caribbean.

John Brown and Bleeding Kansas played a major role in convincing Southerners that there was an abolitionist conspiracy to stir blacks into rebellion. If those two events had been prevented, the Union may have been held together.

Nat Turner's revolt along with the Haitian Revolution also had the unfortunate side-effect of derailing the development of an organic abolitionist movement within the South. Both validated proslavery arguments in the eyes of many that blacks were inherently violent and had to be kept repressed. Despite this, Virginia's legislature in 1831 still came within one vote of ending slavery. Had it passed and been successful (i.e. not causing an economic crash), it may have started a chain reaction that led to abolition elsewhere.

God knows how much may have changed had one legislator had a change of heart.

Congratulations.

I think that if the North hadn't gotten fed up with the South's shit when they did and hadn't pushed back politically, then war 'probably' could have been avoided. If no war in the 1860s, I can see pissed off, lower-class Southern Whites ousting the Southern political establishment and eventually free the slaves by 1900 at the latest as industrialisation continued to prove more and more vital economically and the South's share of the Cotton market inevitably declined due to the British Empire consolidating and developing lands like Egypt and India.

>If no war in the 1860s, I can see pissed off, lower-class Southern Whites ousting the Southern political establishment and eventually free the slaves by 1900

That almost certainly would have happened in the event of a Confederate victory in the Civil War if you ask me. People seem to forget that even before the Emancipation Proclaimation, the war was extremely damaging to the Southern economy (mass escapes of slaves, crop failures, destruction of plantations etc.) and that a certain level of discontent for the Planter class existed even in the Army.

>A law was made by the Confederate States Congress about this time allowing every person who owned twenty negroes to go home. It gave us the blues; we wanted twenty negroes. Negro property suddenly became very valuable, and there was raised the howl of "rich man's war, poor man's fight." The glory of the war, the glory of the South, the glory and the pride of our volunteers had no charms for the conscript.

We don't talk a lot today about how poor non-slave owning whites before the war hated the plantation aristocrats and were very often against both secession and the war. The Union wasted a perfect opportunity to rally Whites against treasonous thinking by not holding up the plantation class as the instigators of the war and the true source behind their misfortune, like we did with the German and Japanese regimes after WWII for their respective populations. We let the aristocrats write the Souths history of the war and frame it as "Northern Aggression" instead of "A minuscule class of slavers roped you all into installing them as old European style Serf masters for your loss and their gain". It's the same as if we had let the Nazi higher ups write Germanys post WWII textbooks.

>1. Free the Slaves
>2. Maintain the Union

The issue wasn’t freeing the slaves int he South, it was banning slavery from spreading beyond the South.

Haha, yeah right. The south barely decided to emancipate slaves that fought for them in 1865 when they were on the verge of existential destruction, it always makes me lol when people think that if the south won the war they would've gotten rid of slavery in the next couple decades just because of economics. (More hilarious yet is when they think the south would've gotten rid of slavery because southerners thought they were "out of step" with the rest of the world)

The planters also used slaves to control the poor whites by giving even the lowest white something to look down upon and feel better about themselves.

No matter how shitty your life was, you were still better than a Negro, and that's a comforting thought to people who don't have much (because the planters with their slave labor could undercut the small farmers).

No peaceful resolution.