Would slavery died on its own?

[tompritchett]

In another thread a quote was made of an 1930's essay that made a point that many seem to accept on faith but has failed to satisfy my criteria for providing sufficient and credible support. The quote is as follows:

"No doubt the Confederates, victorious, would have abolished slavery by the middle of the 80s. They were headed that way before the war, and the more sagacious of them were all in favor of it. But they were in favor of it on sound economic grounds, and not on the brummagem moral grounds which persuaded the North." 1930 essay, The Calamity of Appomattox H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Sun

I have always wondered as to what facts claims like these were based and how universal those facts were to all of the slave holding states in general and to the states of the Confederacy in particular. While I could possibly see some basis for such suppositions in "border" states such as Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc., nothing that I have seen has ever suggested such a trend was occurring in the deep South where the rice and cotton growing economies were fundamentally based upon the presence of large amounts of dedicated, free labor (read slaves). One of the big issues in the Reconstruction era for these states was finding a means of finding a new means to lock in the large labor class needed to bring a season's crop from planting to final harvesting - a process that ultimately brought about the sharecropping system because the "free labor" system of the North was insufficient to guarantee that the laborers would stick around until the final harvest. Personally, I don't see the the cotton/rice bowl states undergoing such a painful and uncertain transition to the ruling plantation owners strictly based on internal forces. As far as I have read, there would have been no economic basis for it at all. If there was, I would like for someone to clearly demonstrate that here for all of us.

In a similar vein, from my reviews of the census data of decades leading up to the Civil War, I did not find any indication that the institute of slavery was in any sort of decline in the number of slaves or in the ratio of whites to slaves in most of the states of the Deep South. In other words, my research has shown little or no supporting data for such claims for the cotton/rice belt states and I am now challenging proponents of this claim to provide some hard facts and data, and not just individual's personal opinions - historical or current, to support such claims. If you truly believe that the person you want to quote was correct, find out the basis of his or her belief and bring that here for comment.

[JustinPrince]

It has always been my personal feeling that it *might* have died on its own, but no earlier than the 1910s.

The reason I claim this statement is because look at relations during the Mexican War era. John C. Calhoun in a defence of slavery called it a "positive good" in 1837, and many claimed that the enslaved African American was no worse off than the "enslaved" lower class laborer in the North. If anything, the slave had food and shelter, something a Northern factory worker was not assured of, or so the argument went.

For slavery to thrive it needed to expand. The frontier wasn't closed until 1890, so slavery could've had the chance to expand up until then. Once chocked off, it would have died after that, meaning that *maybe* slavery would have been eliminated by the time World War I historically occured.

If Southerners truly believed that slavery would die out, then why the violent reaction to the Wilmot Proviso of 1846, which would prevent the introduction of slavery into what would later become the Mexican Cession? Representative William Wick even tried to suggest simply extending the Missouri Compromise line which would theoretically have allowed slavery in the southern portions of the Mexican Cession, but this too was voted down.

The solution was the compromise of 1850 and popular sovereignty which would allow residents to choose to be a free state or slave state. Sounds good, but both slaveowners and abolitionists flooded the various regions (ala Bleeding Kansas) to fight over wether it would be free or, as it turned out, slave.

Because of the divisiveness of the issue and the massive amount of support the expansion of slavery had, it has long been my personal feeling that as of 1860 when secession began, there was no end to slavery in sight. However, as I said, as many of the slaveowning aristocracy claimed that slavery had to grow in order to work, it had to have ended rather quickly (my personal guess is 20-30 years) after the closing of the frontier in 1890. There would have been no place for it to expand to, unless of course the United States invaded Canada or Mexico.

[tenfed1861]

I do believe it would have.With the advent of the industrial revolution,the system of slavery would not have been able to keep up.
Yet with the invention of the cotton gin,slavery in general increased.But I believe that was because cotton could easily be grown.With other machinary,slaves would not have been able to keep up.So it is possible that it wouldn't have died out,yet it also could have.

[mnreb]

Read the book Complicity written by Anne Farow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank. I feel that it has its own way of answering that question. It is very interesting reading to say the least.
Sincerely,
William Feucthenberger
Oh, be sure to read the foreward by Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham

[FloridaConfederate]

Posted by: Florida Confederate
. "No doubt the Confederates, victorious, would have abolished slavery by the middle of the 80s. They were headed that way before the war, and the more sagacious of them were all in favor of it. But they were in favor of it on sound economic grounds, and not on the brummagem moral grounds which persuaded the North." 1930 essay, The Calamity of Appomattox H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Sun

Ah you noticed the views of the Sage of Baltimore….genius he was.



I had resided but a short time in Baltimore before I observed a marked difference, in the treatment of slaves, from that which I had witnessed in the country. A city slave is almost a freeman, compared with a slave on the plantation. He is much better fed and clothed, and enjoys privileges altogether unknown to the slave on the plantation. There is a vestige of decency, a sense of shame, that does much to curb and check those outbreaks of atrocious cruelty so commonly enacted upon the plantation. He is a desperate slaveholder, who will shock the humanity of his non-slaveholding neighbors with the cries of his lacerated slave. Few are willing to incur the odium attaching to the reputation of being a cruel master; and above all things, they would not be known as not giving a slave enough to eat. Every city slave holder is anxious to have it known of him, that he feeds his slaves well; and it is due to them to say, that most of them do give their slaves enough to eat. There are, however, some painful exceptions to this rule. Frederick Douglas , Chapter VI Narrative of the Life of an American Slave

JR Hummel adds another little discussed explanation for the CS surrender: the deeply religious South began to believe that their sufferings were the result of the sin of slavery.... "By the war’s second year, a significant movement within southern churches was agitating for such reforms as prohibiting the separation of slave children from their mothers, admitting slave testimony in courts, and permitting slave religious assemblies." (p 283) (Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men

A crowd eager for news of the battle thronged the town post office when the mail arrived. Dr. William S. White immediately recognized Jackson’s scrawl on the letter handed him. The minister cried out, "Now we shall know all the facts!" A hush settled over the townspeople. White then read the letter. "My dear pastor, in my tent last night, after a fatiguing day’s service, I remembered that I had failed to send you my contribution for our colored Sunday school. Enclosed you will find a check for that object, which please acknowledge at your earliest convenience, and oblige yours faithfully, T.J. Jackson." Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend, p 271

[mmescher]

Of course we will never know the answer because we can't turn the time clock back and try an alternative history.

But I expect that slavery in some form would still be around today if it had not been abolished. The factory environments that arose during the latter part of the 19th and early 20th century relied on cheap immigrant labor to make them work. Even today, look at the migrant farm workers that aren't exactly making super wages. If you had a business, wouldn't it be great to have a renewable labor force that you didn't have to pay?

However, one factor that might have doomed slavery is the improved transportation. If a runaway could stow away on a train, he could be a couple of states away before his disappearance would have been noted. Today, if he got aboard a jet he could be an entire continent away. So enforcing a subjugated work force would be difficult.

It does definitely pose and interesting discussion.

Michael Mescher

[jda3rd]

I believe with the increasing mechanization of agriculture, slavery would not have been economically viable for very long, and so would have been discarded.

I agree with the recommendation to read "Complicity".

Frank Brower

[bob 125th nysvi]

died on its own because even by 1860 it wasn't economically viable.

As stated above mechanization just generally makes a slave labor system inefficient. One machine can do the work of a number of slaves much more efficiently and cheaper. Even if the slave owners had been willing to continue the system the bankers (and the slave system was supported economically based on credit until the crops came in) would have been less willing to risk their money.

The choice of crops also outragiously depleted the soil requiring the development of new lands. The problem was that once you got west of the Mississippi the system to move the crop to market didn't exist. And considering the south's failure to develop an adequate rail system prior to the CW where slavery already existed does not lead me to believe they could have developed a viable system west of the Miss (where the soil basically needs a lot of help to support crops anyway). Even if they could have developed a rail system, New Orleans could only handle so much traffic anyway and the Texas ports were not really adequate to support more traffic.

Finally agricultural goods were giving away in importance to industrial goods. Without the war cotton would have been a viable export for at least another decade or two but its days were numbered.

So it was going to die. But not by 1880 and not quitely under any circumstances.

[Southern Cal]

The southern planter class certainly believed slavery would end if confined to the south. Most "moderate" northerners, Lincoln included, believed the same thing. The last nation to abolish slavery, Brazil I think, or Portugal in it's colonies? seems to have done so in the 1880's. A wild guess suggests the south would have done the same.

[tompritchett]

With other machinary,slaves would not have been able to keep up.

I am curious what machinery was there to replace the labor of slaves in growing cotton and rice and, if that equipment was available, why did the sharecropper system arise to fill the void during the Reconstruction and persist all the way into the early 20th Century. I will concede that machinery would have replaced the industrial uses of slavery but I still would like to hear specifics about what machinery would have replaced the need for cheap and dedicated labor for these two crops which were so reliant on slave labor.

As far as "Complicity" it was one of my Christmas presents and will be the next book that I read after the one that I have already started.

[tompritchett]

The choice of crops also outragiously depleted the soil requiring the development of new lands.

Granted that growing cotton does deplete the soil but historically how long did it take before the lands in the Deep South actually become so depleted that cotton was no longer a viable crop?

[tompritchett]

However, as I said, as many of the slaveowning aristocracy claimed that slavery had to grow in order to work, it had to have ended rather quickly (my personal guess is 20-30 years) after the closing of the frontier in 1890.

But did it really? Or were the Southern aristocrats merely making that argument because they feared that, as more and more non-slave states were brought into the Union, they would lose their ability in Congress to block any attempts to legislate slavery out of existence?

[tompritchett]

died on its own because even by 1860 it wasn't economically viable.

Sounds like an often quoted platitude. Specifically, how was slavery not economically viable in the growing of cotton and rice? The loss of such a locked in source of "cheap" labor during the later portions of the war in occuppied territories and during the early stages of the Reconstruction severely hurt the growth of the rice and cotton crops to the point the some Federal governors enacted policies on farm labor contracts and black vagrancy (i.e., not employed directly under such a contract) that effectively forced the "freed" blacks to work on the plantations whether or not they wanted to or not. Their justification for such policies - it was the only way that they could see which would prevent the almost complete shutdown of the production of such crops. IMHO, this does not sound like economical non-viable system.

[tompritchett]

Great quotes, but how do these quotes address my fundamental question of proving that slavery would have quickly died a natural death had the Confederacy been allowed to leave the Union peacefully and the Civil War not been fought?

The first quote has Douglass discussing how much better and humanely the slaves in the cities were treated than the agricultural slaves. However, my question specifically was associated with slavery in the Deep South where the vast majority of the slaves were fundamental to the agricultural cash crops.

The second quote deals with some Southerners having second thoughts because of the ill effects of the war. If there was no war, there would not have been the ill effects.

As far as Jackson, first, he was a unique individual. Second, Jackson was a Virginian and not a citizen of any of the Deep South states where cotton and rice were the major cash crops. And lastly, Jackson was not a plantation owner who had large number of slaves growing his cotton and/or rice. Therefore, I fail to see how his personal beliefs and actions reflect on the future of slavery in the cotton/rice belt had there not been a war.

[FloridaConfederate]

Great quotes, but how do these quotes address my fundamental question of proving that slavery would have quickly died a natural death had the Confederacy been allowed to leave the Union peacefully and the Civil War not been fought?

They demonstrate with annotated reference, that rather through enlightenment or social stigma, there was a change in the tides of attitude towards slave chattel.

[tompritchett]

They demonstrate with annotated reference, that rather through enlightenment or social stigma, there was a change in the tides of attitude towards slave chattel.

I will readily concede that slavery may have very well been on the decline in the "border" slave states. That was in my opening statement. I am just no longer willing to take on faith the assertion that slavery would have readily died out in the Deep South where is was such a fundamental component in the growing of the two major cash crops of cotton and rice had the the Confederacy not started the Civil War by firing on Fort Sumter. All my reservations about how revelant the changes in attitude where to my initial question were because none of them addressed the issue of the importance of the agricultural slave in the Deep South in a time of peace where the ravages of war had not shaken the moral certainty of some Southerners in the rightness of their cause.

[FloridaConfederate]

Sorry to bung up your thread.

I can see now where an indication of changing attitude, however slow or isolated it may have been, could have had no effect on future societal actions.

Slavery would still be alive and well in the South today.

Please delete my non-relevant posts.

It won’t happen again. I promise you that.

[ScottWashburn]

Modern economic studies have indicated that in 1860 slavery was viable economically and that money invested in a slave paid as good a return as money invested in a northern factory. By the end of the century you had poor immigrants working in factories in what amounted to slavery, hopelessly in debt to the Company Store. So there is no reason why slave owners would not put their slaves to work in factories instead of in the fields. Even today we hear of factories in China and elsewhere using what amounts to slave labor. So I don't think that purely economic reasons would see the end of slavery.

A growing sense of moral outrage and a desire to not look 'primitive' in the eyes of the world, probably would have seen the abolition of formal chattel slavery, with people actually sold at auction, by the end of the century. But the restrictions placed on the 'free' blacks to keep them under control (always an issue nearly as important in the South as the economic ones) would have left their true status little changed (in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War white southerners tried to set up a similar system with forced labor until the Federal Government shut it down).

What the final outcome would have been is hard to say. A lot probably would depend on just why salvery had not been abolished. if there had been no secession, or if there had been no war and a peaceful re-union then it might go as I suggested above. If the South had won its independence at the cost of a half-million casualties I could see slavery persisting for much longer just on a point of pride (i.e. not giving the **** Yankees what they wanted). In any case, there probably would have been a long period of intense discrimination, similar to the 'untouchable' caste in India, that we would only be breaking out of today. One thing is certain: we would not have a black presidential candidate today :)

[bill watson]

Logic says part of the push for more slavery-legal states was partly economic, not purely philosophical. I shall search for the source, but here's the premise: Some slave owners, most often from Virginia and North Carolina, were increasingly interested in liquidating their human assets and investing in other things. For various reasons, undoubtedly, and you can lump distaste for slavery, a desire for a higher return on investment, an appraisal of the value of having your wealth in something not under constant moral attack, and the ability to have more portable and versatile assets than actual human beings with limited skill sets. Combining the end of the legal importation of slaves in 1808 and the desire for more slave-owning states, both moves supported by the same slave-owning interests, and you get a finite commodity coupled with plans to have a growing demand for the commodity. That equals higher value, or, in terms most of us can appreciate today, equity that grows. So that when you do decide to cash in your slavery operation, you get top dollar for the actual asset, the owned labor.

Owners interested in getting maximum value for their investment when converting into other assets would have exactly the same interest in expanding the ability of others to own slaves, in new territories judged to be places where slavery would be economically attractive, as those who had built a whole culture in which their social status in the community was measured by slave owning.

Speculation as to when it might have all ended is not completely without references. It was abolished by the French during their revolution, reinstated in 1802 and abolished again in 1818; it was abolished by Great Britain starting with initial limits in 1772 culminating in an 1838 abolition throughout the empire; Canada 1793 and 1802 (separate sections of the country), Holland 1814, Argentina 1843, 1846 Tunisia, 1847 Sweden, Denmark 1848, Germany, 1852, Hungary, 1853, Peru 1854, etc. Russia 1861, Cuba 1886, Brazil 1888 , Korea 1894, Zanzibar 1897, China 1910, Nepal 1921, Ethiopia 1942, Saudi Arabia 1962, Yemen 1962, United Arab Emirates 1963, Oman 1970 and Mauritania, 1980. It is now illegal everywhere, although still practiced illegally in some places.

Economic arguments against abolition were huge in Great Britain, but were overcome anyway. It is surely not out of line to expect that something similar could have occurred here without war, probably within the time frame of the other nations that abolished it prior to 1900. Those were the nations with whom southerners would have been interacting in trade and culture; they were already behind the times.

There's an interesting movie out now on cable channels, "Amazing Grace," about William Wilberforce and the abolitionists in Britain. I'm sure it has its historical errors, but it is interesting.

[tompritchett]

There's an interesting movie out now on cable channels, "Amazing Grace," about William Wilberforce and the abolitionists in Britain. I'm sure it has its historical errors, but it is interesting.

Excellent movie. I recommend it.

[tompritchett]

Sorry to bung up your thread.

I can see now where an indication of changing attitude, however slow or isolated it may have been, could have had no effect on future societal actions.

Slavery would still be alive and well in the South today.

Please delete my non-relevant posts.

It won’t happen again. I promise you that.

Might I suggest that instead of taking the above attitude, you provide examples possible changes of attitude in the years immediately prior to the war from states such as Mississippi, South Carolina and regions as southern Alabama and eastern Louisanna as these are the regions of the South which I am saying that I do not necessarily believe that slavery was dieing in immediately prior to the war.

[tompritchett]

Logic says part of the push for more slavery-legal states was partly economic, not purely philosophical. I shall search for the source, but here's the premise: Some slave owners, most often from Virginia and North Carolina, were increasingly interested in liquidating their human assets and investing in other things. For various reasons, undoubtedly, and you can lump distaste for slavery, a desire for a higher return on investment, an appraisal of the value of having your wealth in something not under constant moral attack, and the ability to have more portable and versatile assets than actual human beings with limited skill sets. Combining the end of the legal importation of slaves in 1808 and the desire for more slave-owning states, both moves supported by the same slave-owning interests, and you get a finite commodity coupled with plans to have a growing demand for the commodity. That equals higher value, or, in terms most of us can appreciate today, equity that grows. So that when you do decide to cash in your slavery operation, you get top dollar for the actual asset, the owned labor.

Owners interested in getting maximum value for their investment when converting into other assets would have exactly the same interest in expanding the ability of others to own slaves, in new territories judged to be places where slavery would be economically attractive, as those who had built a whole culture in which their social status in the community was measured by slave owning.

I do agree with that premise. It would have been particularly interesting how this liquidation would have played out had these "border" states remained in the Union because there was no muster call. I suspect that there might have been a buy-out plan similar to the one used in DC.


Speculation as to when it might have all ended is not completely without references. It was abolished by the French during their revolution, reinstated in 1802 and abolished again in 1818; it was abolished by Great Britain starting with initial limits in 1772 culminating in an 1838 abolition throughout the empire; Canada 1793 and 1802 (separate sections of the country), Holland 1814, Argentina 1843, 1846 Tunisia, 1847 Sweden, Denmark 1848, Germany, 1852, Hungary, 1853, Peru 1854, etc. Russia 1861, Cuba 1886, Brazil 1888 , Korea 1894, Zanzibar 1897, China 1910, Nepal 1921, Ethiopia 1942, Saudi Arabia 1962, Yemen 1962, United Arab Emirates 1963, Oman 1970 and Mauritania, 1980. It is now illegal everywhere, although still practiced illegally in some places.

There are several countries in the above list that probably did have agricultural based economies that were as dependent on slavery as that of the Deep South. Without further research I would guess at least Cuba and Brazil would fit the bill.

[amity]

Yes, slavery would have died "on its own." Feudalism also died on its own, and so did every other socioeconomic order that ever existed. This death process always involves a war or two, and also involves ideological justifications for and against the old order, too.

[mnreb]

Hello,
Just thought I would add a couple of things to the conversation. 1st, big business in the north relied on the cotton from the south (see book I mentioned), so there is the problem of supply and demand economics to put in the mix. I would venture that in due time they would have. As has already been stated, many knew and or felt that it was wrong, they just had to come up with a way to make it work. No, I am not going to quote verse and chapter about where the information is. It is out there, and I have read it in more than one source. Another factor to throw in, is the invasion of the boll weevil. I cannot state the year that the cotton industry was affected by the little buggers, but it did force many to grow other crops. I believe it was around the late 1880's to 1890's. I feel that with this, and the passage of time, the South would have freed the slaves on there own. Will we ever be able to prove without a doubt what we are discussing here? No. But is sure makes good food for thought, great discussions, and the right to agree to disagree.
William Feuchtenberger
Co.H
1st South Carolina Volunteers

[tompritchett]

Will we ever be able to prove without a doubt what we are discussing here? No. But is sure makes good food for thought, great discussions, and the right to agree to disagree.

Exactly. Every now and then it is good to challenge assumptions that many of us in the hobby have pretty much taken on faith as it often leads to a better understanding of the dynamics of the issue.

[RJSamp]

I do agree with that premise. It would have been particularly interesting how this liquidation would have played out had these "border" states remained in the Union because there was no muster call. I suspect that there might have been a buy-out plan similar to the one used in DC.



There are several countries in the above list that probably did have agricultural based economies that were as dependent on slavery as that of the Deep South. Without further research I would guess at least Cuba and Brazil would fit the bill.

Also interesting is the number of countries who used slave labor after it was outlawed in those countries.....Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Japan, etc...... Communism and Fascism had a nasty habit of enslaving prisoners, civilians, etc. and working them as slaves.....literally to death.

[madisontigers]

Great quotes, but how do these quotes address my fundamental question of proving that slavery would have quickly died a natural death had the Confederacy been allowed to leave the Union peacefully and the Civil War not been fought?

Sir, with all do respect, there is no way to prove a point, which is founded under the auspices of speculation.

David Long

[madisontigers]

Also interesting is the number of countries who used slave labor after it was outlawed in those countries.....Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Japan, etc...... Communism and Fascism had a nasty habit of enslaving prisoners, civilians, etc. and working them as slaves.....literally to death.


Yep, just ask the eastern Europeans that worked in slaughterhouses, in certain geographic locations in the United States.

Dave Long

[tompritchett]

Sir, with all do respect, there is no way to prove a point, which is founded under the auspices of speculation.

David Long

You are quite right. But by the same token, the same applies to those that pontificate that slavery would have died out within one or two decades in the Deep South had there been no Civil War when the Confederacy left the Union. I have lost count of the number of times that assumption has been pronounced as a certainty on this forum. Again, I have lost count the number of times that I have seen it stated as a fact that slavery was in the process of dieing out in the South. All I am saying is that I am no longer willing to take those assumptions/statement as a certainty without seeing more data to support them, especially as it applies to the Deep South.

If there is indeed uncertainty on whether or not slavery would have persisted in the Confederacy had there not been a war, let's state so. I just have a problem present the issue on way or another as an absolute.

[Rob Weaver]

I think slavery would have continued, at least through the turn of the 20th century. The controversy of the 1850s was about expansion of slavery into the newly-won western territories. I can think of a number of western ventures which had the potential to make profitable use of slave labor: mining, ranching, large scale farming on the plains. These ventures, mostly would cast slavery in the same agrarian role which it had largely filled historically. Would slavery have evolved in the industrial age? I believe so, and would have received the shot in the arm that the cotton gin gave it when it was about to go under at the turn of the 19th century. I believe if business owners were figuring slave labor into their labor costs, they would have found a way to continue to make it profitable. We haven't touched the small-scale operation of owning 1 or 2 slaves to help around the house or do the books for a small business.

[tompritchett]

I can think of a number of western ventures which had the potential to make profitable use of slave labor: mining, ranching, large scale farming on the plains.

With California closed to slavery I do not see the cultivation of cotton and rice expanding any further West as the climate and soil types of the Southwest from Central Texas on IMHO would not be supportive to the growing of such crops. As far as other large scale crops that could be grown in such climates, I suspect that mechanization and migrant labor may very well have surplanted the need for "dedicated" slave labor. As for the other occupations you listed, yes, I could see slavery having a possible role in providing a role. Also for the building of the Western railroads, which you did not mention, I definitely would have expected to be have used slave labor had it still been available.

[Rob Weaver]

As far as other large scale crops that could be grown in such climates, I suspect that mechanization and migrant labor may very well have surplanted the need for "dedicated" slave labor.
I realize it's not a strong arguement, but the easy availablility of an existant slave labor force could conceivably have shortcircuited both of these phenomena. I suspect slavery could have mutated fairly quickly into new markets, as well: build railroads for a few years, infiltrate the timber market later, liberalize slave education laws and produce a labor force educated enough to handle menial "desk jobs" etc. All the while, that labor force are still bondsmen (and women).