In the late 18th and early 19th century British textile mills bought their cotton from the US South, which used slave labor. It seems it would have been cheaper to use slave labor then ship the goods to Europe rather than buy cotton and produce the goods in England.
Why didn't British textile owners set up factories in the US South and utilize slave labor to produce their goods? Would it be because of tariffs? Lack of energy sources in the US South? Were slaves somehow not cheaper than workers in England?
Thanks
British 18th & 19th century industry used alot of cheap labour to begin with. Yes we had Indian labour but we also had prison labour, child labour and also cheap poverty. Irish workers would come from poverty stricken Ireland and would be cheaper to hire than English. Poor children were illiterate as they never went to school and we're put to work in factories for long hours a day. Child labour was very cheap. Most factories would also hire orphans and pay the orphanage the child's wages.
We had alot of ways to get cheap labour that didn't require slaves since slavery was abolished - we improvised alright if you ask me.