Okay, I’m pretty much done arguing with you, because it’s useless, but I have to respond to this one point.

Just because slavery, generally speaking, is inefficient doesn’t mean that slavery in the US was inefficient or that it wasn’t insanely profitable. Read The Half Has Never Been Told by economic historian Edward Baptist.

Slave productivity skyrocketed between 1800 and the Civil War in tandem with industrialization because of “innovations in management” and production, namely what Baptist calls the “whipping machine.”

Cotton was the single most important commodity in the Industrial Revolution. Period. It accounted for 60 percent of US exports and around 70 percent of cotton used in Britain’s textile mills. Britain was so dependent on slave cotton that the Liverpool merchants nearly sparked a war with the US by supplying the Confederates with money and ships.

At the height of slavery, 1 out of every 5 dollars of capital was tied up in black bodies, including the dollar value of the slaves themselves, insurance and financing. Slavery also helped drive industrialization in the North, by stimulating the demand for implements, clothing, etc. And Northern financial interests, such as Wachovia Bank and AIG profited immensely from financing the slave enterprise.

Also slavery didn’t last “100 years.” It started in the early 1600s and the colonies absolutely could not function without it because they could not get enough free labor. They didn’t have enough free labor to build Washington, either, so they used slaves to build almost every early government building.

Lastly, it’s curious you mention slavery in the Middle East and not, say, the Roman Empire. Ottoman slavery was primarily household slaves, concubines and soldiers. They did not use slave labor on a mass scale, whereas the Romans did have a slave economy and they were, in fact, rich, so….