this is a bit of a mess, but I discussed this more elsewhere and thought it might help if others care.
assets aren't included in GDP, the "market" for chattel was made illegal and a new separate market was created that was nearly as exploitative for the ability of emancipated slaves to sell their labor. GDP measures production/spending/outputs, not assets, slaves were property and a store of value completely separate from being an input, there were markets where they were traded, those markets became illegal and thus their "value" to the exploitative class was lost. for instance, female slaves that were fertile commanded a higher price as they could provide more property to sell. how is that ever realized in sys' view that the "human capital" the labor production (work of slaves e.g.--picking cotton) was transferred from owner to slave upon emancipation? Never mind, the insanity of claiming that the market that emancipated slaves entered was not completely rough ridin' rigged when they tried to sell their labor.
I was waiting to get to the part were there was this whole thing called the "great migration" that helps explain a lot of what coleman hughes completely ignores.