If slavery-based agriculture was so profitable, why the American South was so poor compared to the North? Why didn't it industrialize?

It was wealthy
Charleston was the wealthiest city in all the colonies for well over a hundred years
The average southerner was well off despite the image of le poor southern white trash. working class southerners owned multiple sets of clothes, books, lived in fairly large houses, etc.
>w-why didn't they built factories
They did
Yankees burnt them all down though

>>17819420
>They did
>Yankees burnt them all down though

All three of them

Tarrifs industrialize areas to the detriment of agriculture. These Neo-imperialists, called mercantilists are who Marx called "Capitalists". The US has a history of the highest tariffs in the west, this extracted untold amounts of wealth out of the south while they also supplied them all their cotton and food. It's the perfect system for industrialization, to the detriment of the people you're extracting resources from. This ultimately was the cause of the civil war, the mercantilists had had enough of the US and its constitution and broke it over their knees.

But to say the south wasn't industrialized is a farce, the south was more industrialized than europe outside of england

>>17819420
>The average southerner was well off
Prove it

>>17819470
>they also supplied them all their... food
The Northwest was the bread and pork basket of the world, not the South you lying fuckwad

>>17819583
The north had notoriously bad soils which is why they mostly relied on sheep farming for wool (sheep they stole from spain which produced an immaculate wool quality). The few actual farmers were immediately nuked from orbit after settlement of western New York and Pennsylvanian was settled. Even more so by the time the midwest was being settled (by southerners).

>>17819607
>the North is only New England
This board has never had a lower collective IQ since poor phonefags from flyover states (aka the south) started posting here I swear

>>17819623
Yes the north is mostly just new england, everything else is ideologically and historically detached

>>17819627
The argument can definitely be made that california is a northern colony and that's why it's so degenerate

>>17819627
>everything else is ideologically and historically detached
Holy delusional take

>>17819653
Yes, the entire US is controlled financially by new england which doesn't believe in what the rest of the US believes

>>17819413 (OP)
Originally it's simply the matter of the capital and incentives (promises either from the market or the gov-ment); no way Ireland would have industrialized earlier than England, right?

Later, once the market is established, one part of it would be the major dominating force. A good example is how the English "opened" India or how they pinned down (together with the Yanks I guess) the entirety of South America.

The south could not industrialized because it was a risky endeavor to battle the northern factories, so you might as well stick to the already-profit-making agricultural stuff, just like the Brazilians did lmao. Same for Italy also (North/South), same for France (Paris/non-Paris).

It's a great question though, I love it. To properly industrialize with already existing big markets you need to be both super-smart about it and independent, like Japan in the older times, Taiwan or some of the post ww2 miracle states

Its not profitable at all and stigles innovation leaving you at a long term disadvantage

>>17819413 (OP)
Because their operations were financed by northern credit.

Northern slaves and northern credit, it's how the Louisiana Purchase was integrated into the United States.

>>17819656
>which doesn't believe in what the rest of the US believes
Because New Englanders are actually educated KEK

>>17819413 (OP)
>If slavery-based agriculture was so profitable
It wasnt
>why the American South was so poor compared to the North
Are you retarded?
>Why didn't it industrialize?
Holy shit another one
"industrialization" isnt a button you press you fucking moron
Kill yourself

>>17819867
Ivy League colleges are filled with 80 IQ foreigners getting law degrees and focusing on gender and racial nonsense. Basically what communists were begging for 100 years ago

>>17819879
>getting a law degree is.... LE BAD
This is why the South will forever be a third-world shithole suckling off of blue state taxes

>>17819470
>This ultimately was the cause of the civil war, the mercantilists had had enough of the US and its constitution and broke it over their knees.

Lost cause is dead, that's a good thing. Time to move on.

>>17819413 (OP)
The South gets ragged on for being "backwards" in that era but if you think about it they were the most industrialized tropical region in the world

>>17819413 (OP)
It was starting to industrialise but it mostly has to do with RoI and capital accumulation. Invest in slave plantation you get moderate investment(land is somewhat cheap, slaves cost quite a bit) and decent returns, invest in a factory the land is expensive, the building is expensive but at least you don't have to pay for workforce. Slave factory means slightly cheaper land(you don't have to build it where people are present), same expensive building, expensive slaves. The returns on a plantation would be similar to the ones on free factory but because of higher initial investment factory is more risky. Slave factory has massive RoI(and they did historically have it, we're talking turning unprofitable factories profitable kind of returns) but the upfront investment is gigantic so until enough capital was accumulated and easier money from plantations existed it was always going to industrialise more slowly.