This New Basin Canal example has got me thinking more about the general differences between chattel slaves and wage slaves. How is war effected by the difference between chattel slaves and wage slaves? Two things come to mind. Like the canal example, chattel slave owners wouldn't have been willing to risk their slaves in war as soldiers because they could easily lose their investment. Also, chattel slaves are unlikely to make good soldiers (perhaps--I'm not sure about this. It may be false) because they aren't invested in the interests of the owners. Wage slaves however are easily risked in war, just like the Irish canal builders and being 'free' they are invested in the system and inclined to defend it. So were the horrific wars of 20th century Europe fueled by wage slavery? Would those wars have been possible if Europe had instead been exploiting the labor of chattel slaves instead of wage slaves?
Related to that--how did slavery in the south effect the waging and outcome of the Civil War? Did the North have an advantage since it employed wage slaves instead of chattel slaves?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13