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.