No … They became rich by buying influence and political favors along the way. Government policies they paid for made their ruthless predatory practices possible.
Which benefits the slave owners - who happen to be the people who wrote the laws…meaning, they are independent of government for their financial success.
Ford, like all good capitalists -Musk and Trump being the most recent example - convinced the country that people taking government safety net programs are the problem, while using the power of the government to tend to their individual corporate needs.
They are WAY more dependent on government in a gross dollar sense than some poor working mother of 3, yet she is clearly the leach…
Of course there were expenses! Who said there weren’t? But they were about 10% of free labor. And slavery was codified by the government slave owners like Jefferson created.
You believed that this expense was far less than paying someone and that’s what this exchange has been about. Yes…it’s less but it’s not even close to being the zero you implied. The two are in the same ballpark expense wise IMO.
Total Estimated Annual Cost
The total annual cost of owning a slave in 1776 was roughly between £75 and £130.
Which equals $152.
84 years later which is not long before they’re freed after the Civil War.
Total Estimated Annual Cost
Total Annual Cost: Approximately $1,200 - $1,500 per slave (in 1860 dollars).
Contextual Notes
The purchase price of a slave in 1860 was around $800, which would be significantly higher in today’s money.
Maintenance costs included basic necessities like food and clothing, which were essential for the slave’s ability to work.
Medical care was also a consideration
I converted that simply by asking what is $1500 from 1860 is worth today and here’s the conversion.
About $58,096.08
So there’s the conversion for over the centuries and as I said, it’s not as inexpensive as you business inexperiencedly implied
Up front and even maintenance costs were high. But compared to the value of what the slaves produced, cotton, it was more or less a pittance.
Basically cotton farming through slavery made a relatively small number of people filthy rich. It bankrupted the unlucky ones who never could get off the ground with their plantations just starting out.
But even the successful slavers were generally cash poor. They were property rich. But their liquid assets were tied up in the cotton industry. So if you were to ask the average wealthy slaver for a hundred bucks in 1855, chances would be that he would’t have that large of an amount to loan you. But when you looked at his plantation you were looking at the real marker of wealth back then.
They got rich as hell off of crimes against humanity. But that isn’t surprising. That always happens.