I think it also had to do with the rise of a cash economy. Slavery would hinder that, but it does make sense under a mostly-barter economy. A slave might not "get paid" in money, but his owner is responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing him in lieu of that. The owner might not have "money" and barters for everything himself! Money existed but only served to determine how much things were worth against itself, and mostly only the merchant class used it regularly. Until they started actually printing cash (and even in the USA, there were little regional banks and even businesses printed their own money until a central bank system was made. Then and only then did money become a regular thing for everyone.)
I don't think cash was quite so common as it became to be in the 1800s, and wasn't the real measure of one's wealth. Land was.
And I bet the original biggest opposition to slavery was from people who were forced to actually look for work to make that new cash. "Fuck those scabs, if I can't have job security, why should those niggers have any."
I think it also had to do with the rise of a cash economy. Slavery would hinder that, but it does make sense under a mostly-barter economy. A slave might not "get paid" in money, but his owner is responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing him in lieu of that. The owner might not have "money" and barters for everything himself! Money existed but only served to determine how much things were worth against itself, and mostly only the merchant class used it regularly. Until they started actually printing cash (and even in the USA, there were little regional banks and even businesses printed their own money until a central bank system was made. Then and only then did money become a regular thing for everyone.)
I don't think cash was quite so common as it became to be in the 1800s, and wasn't the real measure of one's wealth. Land was.
I think it also had to do with the rise of a cash economy. Slavery would hinder that, but it does make sense under a mostly-barter economy. A slave might not "get paid" in money, but his owner is responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing him in lieu of that. The owner might not have "money" and barters for everything himself! Money existed but only served to determine how much things were worth against itself, and mostly only the merchant class used it regularly. Until they started actually printing cash (and even in the USA, there were little regional banks and even businesses printed their own money until a central bank system was made.)
I don't think cash was quite so common as it became to be in the 1800s, and wasn't the real measure of one's wealth. Land was.
I think it also had to do with the rise of a cash economy. Slavery would hinder that, but it does make sense under a mostly-barter economy. A slave might not "get paid" in money, but his owner is responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing him in lieu of that. The owner might not have "money" and barters for everything himself! Money existed but only served to determine how much things were worth against itself.
I don't think cash was quite so common as it became to be in the 1800s, and wasn't the real measure of one's wealth. Land was.