There was no immediate economic problem in South Carolina. The most vulnerable part of the slave economy was the interstate slave trade. The moral and political attacks on the slave trade would accelerate with a Republican administration in charge.
The Republicans would steadily decrease the number of people in the border states willing to participate in trading coerced labor, and the expansion of cotton production would slow down.
The imbalance between demand and supply in forced labor would produce a narrower class of slave owners.
The British would not tolerate that, and cotton production would diversity across the globe, even at substantial cost to the British investors and consular offices.
You’re not taking into account that the value of slaves - assuming you buy them at a young age or simply allow nature to take its course and families to be made... increases over time. It’s an asset that grows in value over time because of reproduction.... this increased asset valuation can be used as leverage to take on more debt or sold for cash to be used for whatever.You read my mind.
Maybe this personification will help. Suppose all of SC's 32,030 square miles were owned by one planter. Question: Could he make enough off those 32,030 square miles --agriculturally and in every other way-- to pay his debts? I am trying to determine if SC were flush, failing or somewhere in between. Where am I going with the answer? I am contemplating adding the factor of debt repudiation as one cause, a veiled at that, of Secession. After all, what chivalrous South Carolnian laced with Sir Walter Scott imagery would want to go to New York factors and say, "Fellows, I am broke and cannot pay my bills." Much easier to say, "Oh No! We are in debt over our heads and can never pay our bills! Let us secede and cite as the cause that Lincoln wanted to end slavery," or words to that effect. You get my drift, I am sure.
Speaking of personification, SC Governor Charles Pinckney comes to mind. In the biography of Robert Hayne, Pinckney's son-in-law, the author states that Governor Pinckney owned 2,000 slaves and made $80,000 off them one year. That's $40 per slave. $40 on a $1,000 investment (reasonable price of a slave) is a whopping 4% per annum --vis a vis double digit percentages on stock certificates in railroads. Yet Pinckney ended up in financial embarrassment anyway, embarrassment that had to be sorted out by Hayne. One question becomes: Was impoverished Pinckney simply symbolic of SC at large? I have no idea. I am asking.
You’re not taking into account that the value of slaves - assuming you buy them at a young age or simply allow nature to take its course and families to be made... increases over time. It’s an asset that grows in value over time because of reproduction.... this increased asset valuation can be used as leverage to take on more debt or sold for cash to be used for whatever.
So your return is not just how much cotton you sell... it’s like a rental house that increases in value over time... your equity grows... that’s ROI as well... not just the rental income.
You made the claim that your ROI included both the sale of cotton and the increased equity in slaves. If you are sayin your $40 return / $1000 invested includes both ...,... then you should be able to share the breakdown. I didn’t make the claim. You did.Not at all. If you have, school me with the precise numbers you use