Yes, in essence little changes. Cost in human life is hardly worth the trouble. I think i expressed a little of Brinton's feeling in a post some time ago when i suggested Australia had achieved at least good enough, relative independence without a bloody revolution as your people suffered. And do understand more now what you meant.
Historical Context: Was Slavery the Engine of American Economic Growth? [...] Did slavery create the capital that financed the industrial revolution? P - The answer is "no"; slavery did not create a major share of the capital that financed the European industrial revolution. The combined profits of the slave trade and West Indian plantations did not add up to five percent of Britain's national income at the time of the industrial revolution. P - Nevertheless, slavery was indispensable to European development of the New World. It is inconceivable that European colonists could have settled and developed North and South America and the Caribbean without slave labor. Moreover, slave labor did produce the major consumer goods that were the basis of world trade during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: coffee, cotton, rum, sugar, and tobacco. P - In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all US export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=166738816
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
