The author challenges the 1619 Project / New History of Capitalism claim that slavery was the engine of U.S. wealth by using Brazil as the harder test: it imported more enslaved Africans than the rest of the Americas combined (~3.2 of 8.4 million) and kept slavery until 1888. A new GDP-per-capita series from ~30,000 prices and wages (1574–1821) is said to show roughly zero colonial growth—sometimes a lower living standard at the end than at the start.

Growth stays negative while the trade is legal (−0.14%/year to 1850), near zero while slavery lasts (−0.01% to 1888), then 0.35% after the trade ban and 0.62% after abolition. The pattern holds in 216 robustness runs. Mechanisms named: a large enslaved share locked at a subsistence basket; free wages in Salvador and Rio collapsing as imports peaked, then jumping after 1808, 1831, and 1850 crackdowns. Cheap coerced labor, the piece argues, killed the incentive to mechanize.

Elites had no reason to leave a “high-slavery trap”; Britain’s naval ban is called the outside shock. Contrast: U.S. post-Constitution corporations—perpetual life, limited liability, tradable shares, New York’s 1811 general incorporation—made pooling capital cheap. Lesson the author draws: U.S. rise came from those legal tools and free labor plus machines, not from bondage as the growth engine.

On the American Left, a familiar idea has taken root: that slavery was not just one feature of the young republic’s economy but its actual engine, the true source of the wealth that later carried the United States into industrial preeminence. This argument, once confined to specialist debate, has since moved into the mainstream, most visibly through the New York Times’ 1619 Project, and it draws further support from a cluster of historians writing under the banner of the New History of Capitalism. These scholars argue that the productivity of enslaved labor and the credit markets built on slave-backed collateral were foundational to American growth rather than incidental to it.

If that argument is right, it should be easiest to prove in the place that relied on slavery more than any other society in the hemisphere, for longer, and at greater scale. That place is Brazil. Brazil imported more enslaved Africans than the United States, the Caribbean, and every other part of the Americas combined, and it kept slavery legal decades after its neighbors had abolished it, right up until 1888. If coerced labor really were a reliable path to prosperity, the Brazilian economy over these centuries is exactly where that success should show up. Instead, as the evidence below makes clear, it shows the opposite result.

For nearly two hundred and fifty years—from 1574 to 1821—the Brazilian economy essentially failed to grow. A newly-reconstructed series of GDP per capita, the first of its kind for this period, draws on more than 30,000 archival price and wage observations gathered from probate inventories, account books, and institutional records across Bahia, Rio de Janeiro, Pernambuco, São Paulo, and Rio Grande do Sul. Because no direct output data survive from this period, the reconstruction relies on an established method in economic history, an Engel elasticity framework that infers income from the relationship between real wages, food prices, and consumption patterns, essentially working backward from what people bought to what they must have earned.

The result is striking in its simplicity: average per capita growth across the entire colonial era comes out to approximately zero and, by some measures, the standard of living at the end of the colonial period was lower than it had been at the outset of settlement. The scale of what was at stake makes this stagnation harder to explain away rather than easier. Of the roughly 8.4 million enslaved........

© Eurasia Review