There is a reason why you get nothing of relevance when you google search the term, it’s because you are misusing and making up terms as has been repeatedly brought to your attention. What didn't you understand about the Investopedia definition? Apparently everything....you can't pay your bills with slaves. You need to first sell the slaves to get the cash you can use to pay your bills. That's in part why, as previously and repeatedly explained, slaves were capital assets. They weren't capital. They were not cash. As previously and repeatedly explained slaves were treated like any piece of hardware. No, as previously and repeatedly explained and documented that’s bullshit. I think the article was clear enough. The fact is the South was primarily an agrarian. You didn't find "skilled" workers are farms. Farm work was brute labor, tilling the fields, seeding the fields, weeding the fields, and harvesting the fields. The North had industrialized and industrialization creates the need for skilled workers. Contrary to your assertions, the North was an economic powerhouse. That's why the North won the Civil War. Well, for starters, a professor of African and African-American Studies isn't an economist. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And the guy is a nut case. He equated slavery with capitalism, “there was no capitalism without slavery. The two were, in many ways, one and the same." The guy's a nut case. Two, no one has said the South wasn't heavily invested in the institution of slavery. You are using a straw man and you are evading the issue. Actually, it isn't. What you are attempting to do here is change the issue from aggregate wealth to income inequality. The issue wasn't income inequality. The issue was aggregate wealth. The issue here is your assertion that Tubman's stealing of slaves somehow crippled the Southern economy....remember? And the facts are just not there to support your assertion as is usually the case with you. You don't seem to be able to discern the difference. As has been previously repeatedly explained to you, when slavery ended, the instruments of wealth generation didn't vanish just because slavery ended. The formerly enslaved laborers didn't vanish. The land didn't vanish. The crops didn't vanish. The demand for agricultural products didn't vanish. It was all still there, except for the damage incurred by warfare, all the income producing assets remained. Ending the institution of slavery didn't end the Southern economy. As previously pointed out to you, it just ended how the wealth was distributed. Instead of wealthy plantation owners, you had individual farmers who either sharecropped or farmed their own lands. Tubman's "stealing" (i.e. freeing) of slaves didn't demolish the Southern economy. What adversely affected the Southern economy was the decision of Southern white leaders to secede from the Union and the resulting war. That's what damaged the Southern economy during the Civil War years. It wasn't Tubman's participation in the Underground Railroad as you have previously asserted. That's not the least bit relevant to the discussion. Let me remind you, the Tubman, the Civil War, and slavery were issues of the 19th century, not the 20th century. Well, that's all nonsense as has been repeatedly explained and debunked, and you like to promulgate it, but that doesn't make it true. While slavery was a major institution in the South, it wasn't in the North. And the North was the dominant economic power for the reasons previously. And as much as you want to make it an economic issue, slavery was a moral issue. Most of the Northern abolitionists were not wealthy people.