The profitability of slavery is still hotly debated. Most agree that it was profitable to some extent--but the rate of profitability varies depending on who you ask (i.e. some claim a 5% return in slave investments, while some claim a 10-12% return). These differences are significant because 5% returns may not have been enough to justify slave investments if 8% was available elsewhere. But, to answer the question, the profitability of slavery in the south probably depended quite a bit on the potential for future capital gains. Slave women bore many children (at the urging of slaveholders), and these children were sold--either when young or after they had been raised to adulthood. Since the slave trade had been shut down in the early 1800's, this was the only source of new slaves for southern landowners--thus those that owned slaves to start with had an advantage and could "produce more capital" (to use a highly insensitive method of describing childbirth for slave women). I hope that helps.
Yes, Georgia did have slavery in the 1700's. In the 1700's, the south depended greatly upon farmland. The only way to farm quickly and get money, people would use slaves. The north was less depended and so didn't need as much slavery as the south did. Hope this helps!
One of the most important facts about slavery in the South in the antebellum period was that the large Southern plantations depended on slave labor to run them. Because of this dependence, slavery became a fact of life in the South.
They did not want slavery in the south they wanted to be apart of slavery.
South Carolina seceded from the Union primarily due to their belief in states' rights and the protection of slavery as an institution.
Yes. The South was pro-slavery, while the North was anti-slavery. Hope this helps!
plantation owners
The Economy of the South depended on slavery.
the south couldn make bullets and keep up like the south because they depended on slavery while the north depended on machinery
Because much of the souths economy depended on it.
The north had factories, and had a more urban lifestyle. The south, however, had a more agricultural lifestyle, and depended on slavery.
There really isn't a specific reason 'why' the South depended on slavery labor. They just chose to. Plantations owners knew that keeping their crops maintained would be a lot of work so that's why slave labor came in to place.
Yes, Georgia did have slavery in the 1700's. In the 1700's, the south depended greatly upon farmland. The only way to farm quickly and get money, people would use slaves. The north was less depended and so didn't need as much slavery as the south did. Hope this helps!
One of the most important facts about slavery in the South in the antebellum period was that the large Southern plantations depended on slave labor to run them. Because of this dependence, slavery became a fact of life in the South.
About how the South would react to it since their economy depended on slavery.
Slavery! The SOuthern States had the cotton industry that the North depended no.
The plantations depended on slavery. The factories did not want slavery, couldn't use it, needed the free movement of skilled labour.
During the antebellum period, the profitability issue primarily revolved around the economic reliance on slavery in the Southern states, which created a stark division between the agrarian South and the industrializing North. Southern plantations generated significant profits through cash crops like cotton and tobacco, relying heavily on enslaved labor. However, this reliance on slavery not only raised moral and ethical concerns but also contributed to economic vulnerabilities, as the South's economy became overly dependent on a single crop. The profitability of slavery became a contentious issue that ultimately fueled tensions leading to the Civil War.