""As morally reprehensible as it was (and is), slavery or some other form of coerced labor was necessary for the plantation-style agribusiness practiced in the American South...as well as the British (and French) West Indies. Cotton, sugar and tobacco were labor-intensive products which were profitable only when produced on a large scale and with very low labor costs.""

To me, that sounds like the kind of rationalisation one might expect from a fat cat plantation owner, or a well bribed politician.

I suspect that labour as cheap, or cheaper, COULD have been acquired from various regions of South America, but THEY would have been free workers, able to come and go at will.

The whole point of slavery, it seems to me, was to have the workers under complete control, to get the crops planted and harvested, and meanwhile to breed more workers who would then become a commodity to sell for even more profit.

Given enough time, you don't even have to import more, you have enough for a sustainable breeding program.

There is NO conceivable rationalisation that could begin to excuse treating human beings worse than cattle.

However, as I tried to point out earlier in this unfortunate slanging match, THERE ISN'T A NATION ON EARTH FOUNDED ENTIRELY ON JUSTICE, TRUTH, AND FAIR SHARES FOR ALL!

So please tell me what is the sense in all this point scoring nonsense. None are innocent. None are exceptionally guilty, except possibly the fortunately defunct Third Reich.

Don T.