This was ultimately the case, but it’s deeply speculative as to whether that was because of abolition, or in spite of it.
It was the development of industrial technology that drove slavery to its height. The cotton gin, envisioned as a means to reduce reliance on slave labor, actually caused a massive increase in the need for slave labor. The enslaved population went from 700K in 1790 to 4+ million in 1860.
While slavery existed, there was no need to pursue labor saving technology. In fact, selective breeding of cotton strains was a prime focus of the industry so that cultivation could be extended to less optimal environments to be harvested by even more slaves. Slavery was on the increase prior to the war of emancipation and there was no incentive to look for alternatives.
Had the breakaway states achieved victory, it’s questionable if the nationwide hunt for industrial efficiency would have occurred. Best case it would have been delayed by decades. The USA would certainly not have been in a position to become involved in WWI and without that no (or greatly reduced) involvement in WWII and everything that followed.
Had the breakaway states achieved victory, it’s questionable if the nationwide hunt for industrial efficiency would have occurred.
Now that’s an interesting question. Automated farming equipment is ultimately much cheaper than use of slaves, but how much of an incentive does it take to make a nation invent or adopt a cheaper method? Very debatable whether “I’ll ultimately make K% more profit” is sufficient, or if “I’ll go bankrupt if I don’t find a solution right now” is needed.
Highly relevant in the context of AI. There are lots of jobs that an LLM can do well enough right now, given the right scaffolding, and a lot of money gets saved if that gets done, but it’s a laborious and very sensitive process to get from here to there.
This was ultimately the case, but it’s deeply speculative as to whether that was because of abolition, or in spite of it.
It was the development of industrial technology that drove slavery to its height. The cotton gin, envisioned as a means to reduce reliance on slave labor, actually caused a massive increase in the need for slave labor. The enslaved population went from 700K in 1790 to 4+ million in 1860.
While slavery existed, there was no need to pursue labor saving technology. In fact, selective breeding of cotton strains was a prime focus of the industry so that cultivation could be extended to less optimal environments to be harvested by even more slaves. Slavery was on the increase prior to the war of emancipation and there was no incentive to look for alternatives.
Had the breakaway states achieved victory, it’s questionable if the nationwide hunt for industrial efficiency would have occurred. Best case it would have been delayed by decades. The USA would certainly not have been in a position to become involved in WWI and without that no (or greatly reduced) involvement in WWII and everything that followed.
Now that’s an interesting question. Automated farming equipment is ultimately much cheaper than use of slaves, but how much of an incentive does it take to make a nation invent or adopt a cheaper method? Very debatable whether “I’ll ultimately make K% more profit” is sufficient, or if “I’ll go bankrupt if I don’t find a solution right now” is needed.
Highly relevant in the context of AI. There are lots of jobs that an LLM can do well enough right now, given the right scaffolding, and a lot of money gets saved if that gets done, but it’s a laborious and very sensitive process to get from here to there.