Quote:Slavery was largely abolished due to abolitionists like Wilberforce in the UK, and the American Civil War saw the end to it in America. Cost effectiveness probably had little to do with it.
Bollocks. At the very least it was cynical pragmatism. Governments today do not make policy based on moral principe. This was even more the case C19th laissez faire Britain. (or rany other country)
With the Industrial revolution, slavery became redundant and grossly inefficient. The British abolished the trade in 1807. The bill was introduced by William Wilberforce, but passed only because it was politically advantageous.
From 1807, in the US, slaves ceased being a cheap form of labour and became an expensive,diminishing asset. Large landowners throughout the southern US had millions tied up in slaves. That meant money was not available for railways and other industrial infrastucture. At the begining of the Civil war, the South had almost no secondary industry,and that led indirectly [at least] to the defeat of the Confederacy.
AS a causal agent, slavey had nothing to with the civil war. Only a small percentage of people ON EITHER SIDE actually owned slaves.The US senate had passed The Confiscation Act in 1861, allowing Confederate slaves to be seized as property of the enemy. Lincoln cynically 'freed' Confederate slaves in January 1863.
Slavery was not abolished in Northern US until 1864. The Civil War ended on April 9 1865.
Quote:The thirteenth amendment, abolishing slavery, was passed by the Senate in April 1864, and by the House of Representatives in January 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56.[96
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_US
