Milner. Soon after, other states such as Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida began implementing the system in a similar manner. These states realized the amount of revenue the system would generate, it was now a no-brainer to implement the system in their states, given that Alabama's state revenue from convicts was a substantial 73 percent cent in 1898. Many considered the convict leasing system a good idea because it would increase the economic power of the states, allowing for reconstruction and further development of the state. However, the system was far from fair, let alone ethical. The difference between convict labor and slavery was virtually nonexistent. During periods of slavery, African Americans were purchased by their masters to work on farms, factories, and in many other industries without receiving any monetary compensation. Slave owners, predominantly white, provided the basic necessities for survival, although this was not always the case. When it came to individuals and/or businesses paying any type of currency to state governments, they paid taxes on their slaves worth up to $300 per slave, which was an amount set at tax purposes. On the other hand, the difference when it came to convict labor was that convict tenants paid the state to hire their prisoners for work. In other words, states became the “masters” of all “slaves” and simply hired them out as workers to reap exponentially high profits. Some might have accepted the fact that they were prisoners and therefore the punishment was well deserved. This might have been a reasonable idea, except that most of the prisoners were these same African American slaves, or their relatives, who had been freed just over a decade earlier. From there