Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
I raised this question on another thread and I think it fits here.
How could a slave society survive industralization?
Easy. The slaves would operate machines as well as doing manual labor. Nazi Germany and Japan employed slave labor. China employs slave labor today. Industrialization is not incompatible with a slave labor system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSPowers
I think that slavery would have died of lack of necessity by 1890. I could be wrong, but that's my take.
The mechanical cotton picker wasn't feasible to produce until the middle of the 20th Century.
Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, a whole bunch of non-radical republicans, and the entire south seemed to believe that, if confined to where it was, slavery would wither and die.
Douglass came to believe that (he was initially a fire-eating abolitionist) because felt that the practice was as harmful to the south as it was to the slave. (There is some evidence of that in the south's decline as compared to the north's growth.)
I never have determined to my satisfaction why Lincoln believed it.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The Cotton "Reaper" wasn't invented until the 1930's. Even then it saw little use, as the government feared the machine's effect on sharecroppers and depression employment, futher hurting southern field workers.
I saw people picking cotton some three hundred yards off the road I was traveling in Texas. It was way back, way back, in 1963.
I pulled to the side of the road and watched. At that distance it was like watching a field in 1863, a hundred years earlier.
If you have any illusions that slavery would not continue, just read the Confederate Constitution (on the Internet) and note the number of times slave or slavery is mentioned. In that Confederate Constitution, states belonging to that union, had no "states rights" to ban slavery in their state or keep slaves out of their state.
It was slavery "forever" or until its citizens could amend their own constitution.
Without major military or political pressure, I think slavery would have gone on as long as it was economically feasible. In some parts of the world, it still goes on today.
Now I have enough faith in America to believe that -- assuming there was no secession, no Civil War -- a peacefully united Union would have eventually banned slavery/freed the slaves. I have no real idea when that would be. I cannot suppose that, starting in 1860, it would have been less than 20 years, and it might have been any number of years more than that UNLESS some event happened to make slavery economically disadvantageous.
While there were many new mechanical inventions to help farmers available by 1860, most of them were of little or no use to cotton, sugar, tobacco, and rice plantations. The inventions that helped in the harvesting of those crops generally did not come until the 20th Century. As a result, these operations remained very labor-intensive even after slavery ended; there would have been little incentive to change from slave labor to free labor unless some economic change tipped the scale. The end of slavery essentially wiped out rice production in the US (which had been built on the importation of slaves from the West Africa region in any case). Cane sugar growing was always confined to Lousiana (and later Hawaii) as a commercial endeavor in any case because of climate and geographical factors.
Now there were several natural pests that struck these crops. The boll weevil struck Southern cotton first in 1892 (Brownsville, TX), was in southeastern AL by 1915, and in all US cotton areas by 1925. The flea beetle ravaged the tobacco crop in the 1870s and 1880s (destroying half the national crop in 1876). The shocks from these events would have had major impact on slavery. IMHO, the flea beetle probably would have ravaged slave ownership in the tobacco farmers, but led to selling of slaves into cotton country. The boll weevil might have gad such a large impact as to force owners to free slaves rather than continue to support them, and would have driven prices down hard.
Another factor would have been the introduction of labor-saving devices to the home. In real-life history, the introduction of the washing machine and the vacuum cleaner had a tremendous effect on the employment of free-labor household servants in America. Graph one against the other in the 1920s and 1930s and the impact is undoubted: the more appliances sold, the fewer household servants employed. I see no reason to believe the effect would have been much different for house slaves.
As a result of all that, I can find hard reasons for a decline in slaves by about 1830 as new labor saving devices are introduced and natural disasters strike the crops. Other than the flea beetle, I can't see much that would have effected it in the 1861-1880 period. Unless we posit major political pressure from the North or international sources (i.e., Britain, maybe France) it seems unlikely slavery would have been voluntarily ended anytime soon.
Without major military or political pressure, I think slavery would have gone on as long as it was economically feasible. In some parts of the world, it still goes on today.
Now I have enough faith in America to believe that -- assuming there was no secession, no Civil War -- a peacefully united Union would have eventually banned slavery/freed the slaves. I have no real idea when that would be. I cannot suppose that, starting in 1860, it would have been less than 20 years, and it might have been any number of years more than that UNLESS some event happened to make slavery economically disadvantageous.
While there were many new mechanical inventions to help farmers available by 1860, most of them were of little or no use to cotton, sugar, tobacco, and rice plantations. The inventions that helped in the harvesting of those crops generally did not come until the 20th Century. As a result, these operations remained very labor-intensive even after slavery ended; there would have been little incentive to change from slave labor to free labor unless some economic change tipped the scale. The end of slavery essentially wiped out rice production in the US (which had been built on the importation of slaves from the West Africa region in any case). Cane sugar growing was always confined to Lousiana (and later Hawaii) as a commercial endeavor in any case because of climate and geographical factors.
Now there were several natural pests that struck these crops. The boll weevil struck Southern cotton first in 1892 (Brownsville, TX), was in southeastern AL by 1915, and in all US cotton areas by 1925. The flea beetle ravaged the tobacco crop in the 1870s and 1880s (destroying half the national crop in 1876). The shocks from these events would have had major impact on slavery. IMHO, the flea beetle probably would have ravaged slave ownership in the tobacco farmers, but led to selling of slaves into cotton country. The boll weevil might have gad such a large impact as to force owners to free slaves rather than continue to support them, and would have driven prices down hard.
Another factor would have been the introduction of labor-saving devices to the home. In real-life history, the introduction of the washing machine and the vacuum cleaner had a tremendous effect on the employment of free-labor household servants in America. Graph one against the other in the 1920s and 1930s and the impact is undoubted: the more appliances sold, the fewer household servants employed. I see no reason to believe the effect would have been much different for house slaves.
As a result of all that, I can find hard reasons for a decline in slaves by about 1830 as new labor saving devices are introduced and natural disasters strike the crops. Other than the flea beetle, I can't see much that would have effected it in the 1861-1880 period. Unless we posit major political pressure from the North or international sources (i.e., Britain, maybe France) it seems unlikely slavery would have been voluntarily ended anytime soon.
Regards,
Tim
I think you mean "1930," not "1830."
Freehling posits it would take at least 50 years for slavery to die out in the Border States. That takes us from 1860 to 1910. Barring some cataclysmic event, let's assume another 50 years for it to die out in the upper south. That takes us to 1960. Then another 50 years to die out in the lower south. That's 2010.
I don't know that the Boll Weevil would mean the end of slavery. Since the secessionists were willing to fight a war over a perceived threat to slavery, I don't see them giving it up easily. Rather, I see a hunkering down and enduring the emergency by shifting the labor elsewhere, and then recovering afterward.
Industrialization was used to replace workers who had already gone to other areas or to replace workers who had grown too expensive. Slave labor is the least expensive form of labor, so there is no economic incentive to replace the slave. Those servants who were replaced were paid servants who had to be paid enough to support not only them but their families as well.
There is compelling economic evidence to show that slavery would not wither and die but remain a highly profitable enterprise, so without the war, slavery would not end, oh, there would be graded emcipation, something under .5% are emncipated per annum, but since pop growth far excedds this, the number of free negros was actually declining in the south rather than increasing, so in short, no war no end to slavery.
About the only good thing to come out of the WBTS, and it was not even intentional.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Freehling posits it would take at least 50 years for slavery to die out in the Border States. That takes us from 1860 to 1910. Barring some cataclysmic event, let's assume another 50 years for it to die out in the upper south. That takes us to 1960. Then another 50 years to die out in the lower south. That's 2010.
Sounds inaccurate for the Border States by Freehling. DE and MD probably would have been gone long before then, since slavery was in steady decline in both and had been for some time. KY would have been tougher, but was very sectional in the state by 1860, as was secessionist feeling. MO probably would go before KY in my view. Both were getting heavy immigration from non-slavery areas. Maybe KY would have lasted until 1900 or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
I don't know that the Boll Weevil would mean the end of slavery. Since the secessionists were willing to fight a war over a perceived threat to slavery, I don't see them giving it up easily. Rather, I see a hunkering down and enduring the emergency by shifting the labor elsewhere, and then recovering afterward.
Financial disaster from the tobacco and cotton pests would have had a serious effect on slave owners. One of the problems with slavery was that it was a cash-poor and capital-intensive business. When there's a bust in commodity prices or a natural disaster to the crop, fixed costs (i.e., feeding and clothing and housing the slaves) can cripple the owners, particularly if the downturn is extended. That can lead to selling "assets" to pay debt (or bankruptcy sales). If the forced sales of slaves were happening at a time when the demand for slaves was light (because of the natural disasters or price-drops), then this can lead to a downward spiral to economic disaster.
So what happens in a real bust, when the owner can't afford to keep his slaves, has debts to pay, and can't sell them for a good price? Does he then free his excess slaves in order to get out from under?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Industrialization was used to replace workers who had already gone to other areas or to replace workers who had grown too expensive. Slave labor is the least expensive form of labor, so there is no economic incentive to replace the slave. Those servants who were replaced were paid servants who had to be paid enough to support not only them but their families as well.
Not entirely true. Mechanization was highest on farms in the West in 1860, where new people were moving in constantly. Slave labor is not necessarily the least expensive form of labor, and in some cases may be the most expensive way to get what you need done.
Nothing in economics is ever as fixed as this scenario would imply. Before the cotton gin was invented, a lot of people were sure slavery was doomed, and a state like VA was considering gradual emancipation (like NJ-NY-PA) as late as the 1830s. The King Cotton boom of the Industrial Revolution and the expansion into AL-MS-LA-TX-AR-MO fueled a great demand for slaves (including the "export" of slaves from the Upper South to the Deep South). Given a few economic shocks and the maturing of the frontier, slavery might have looked much worse economically by the end of the century.
Plus, cottom was a commodity and commodities are almost always subject to boom-and-bust cycles. Cotton had been immune to it because of the frenzied expansion of those days in industrial countries. Sooner or later, the bust part would come -- and then slave owners might have felt a bit differently.
Sounds inaccurate for the Border States by Freehling. DE and MD probably would have been gone long before then, since slavery was in steady decline in both and had been for some time. KY would have been tougher, but was very sectional in the state by 1860, as was secessionist feeling. MO probably would go before KY in my view. Both were getting heavy immigration from non-slavery areas. Maybe KY would have lasted until 1900 or so.
Lincoln gave Delaware the opportunity for compensated emancipation--they refused. They were one of the last holdouts on slavery and even refused to ratify the 13th Amendment. That attitude seems to confirm what Freehling postulates. Additionally, I haven't seen any historians contradict Freehling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Financial disaster from the tobacco and cotton pests would have had a serious effect on slave owners. One of the problems with slavery was that it was a cash-poor and capital-intensive business. When there's a bust in commodity prices or a natural disaster to the crop, fixed costs (i.e., feeding and clothing and housing the slaves) can cripple the owners, particularly if the downturn is extended. That can lead to selling "assets" to pay debt (or bankruptcy sales). If the forced sales of slaves were happening at a time when the demand for slaves was light (because of the natural disasters or price-drops), then this can lead to a downward spiral to economic disaster.
So what happens in a real bust, when the owner can't afford to keep his slaves, has debts to pay, and can't sell them for a good price? Does he then free his excess slaves in order to get out from under?
It cost an owner about $20 per year to keep a slave alive. Slaves could do other work, and could be hired out to do that other work. Absent the war, slavery would probably have expanded to other areas, including other areas using other crops and other areas using other types of labor, such as mining. The interstate slave trade would handle some of the excess labor, and hiring slaves out to do other forms of work would handle more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Not entirely true. Mechanization was highest on farms in the West in 1860, where new people were moving in constantly. Slave labor is not necessarily the least expensive form of labor, and in some cases may be the most expensive way to get what you need done.
Nothing in economics is ever as fixed as this scenario would imply. Before the cotton gin was invented, a lot of people were sure slavery was doomed, and a state like VA was considering gradual emancipation (like NJ-NY-PA) as late as the 1830s. The King Cotton boom of the Industrial Revolution and the expansion into AL-MS-LA-TX-AR-MO fueled a great demand for slaves (including the "export" of slaves from the Upper South to the Deep South). Given a few economic shocks and the maturing of the frontier, slavery might have looked much worse economically by the end of the century.
Plus, cottom was a commodity and commodities are almost always subject to boom-and-bust cycles. Cotton had been immune to it because of the frenzied expansion of those days in industrial countries. Sooner or later, the bust part would come -- and then slave owners might have felt a bit differently.
Regards,
Tim
Actually, if you look at the latest scholarship on mechanization and labor you'll see that what I wrote was pretty much entirely true.
To answer that question, one need study the Confederate Constitution, and then ask why they think slavery was going to die out, soon after 1860.
There is nothing in the Confederate Consitution that anyone would see as the dying out of slavery. More to the opposite viewpoint, that slavery was alive and well in the Southern States.
If slavery wasn't going to die out, then why did it die out elsewhere?
Only about 5% of the Black Africans brought to the New World in bondage ended up in North America. 95% of 'em ended up in the West Indies, and Central and South America.
We didn't have to fight a war to "free" them slaves. Slavery just died out in those countries. Why? Could it be because slavery wasn't as efficient a use of labor as ..... "free labor"?
Why'd it take a war to kill slavery in the United States?
Lincoln gave Delaware the opportunity for compensated emancipation--they refused. They were one of the last holdouts on slavery and even refused to ratify the 13th Amendment. That attitude seems to confirm what Freehling postulates. Additionally, I haven't seen any historians contradict Freehling.
In 1860, in DE, the population breaks out like this: AGGR. FREE COLORED PERSONS
KENT 7,271
NEW CASTLE 8,188
SUSSEX 4,370
========================================
Delaware 19,829
AGGR. SLAVES
KENT 203
NEW CASTLE 254
SUSSEX 1,341
========================================
Delaware 1,798
TOTAL SLAVEHOLDERS
KENT 66
NEW CASTLE 86
SUSSEX 435
========================================
Delaware 587
TOTAL POPULATION
KENT 27,804
NEW CASTLE 54,797
SUSSEX 29,615
========================================
Delaware 112,216
As I am sure you will note, slavery is a tiny part of the state, and if you look at previous censuses, you'll find it has been in decline for a long time. Postulating that DE was likely to be the next to end slavery and would do so sooner than 50 years isn't much of a stretch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
It cost an owner about $20 per year to keep a slave alive.
Probably a "hard money" cost estimate that doesn't show true costs, at a guess. Southern planters tended to be cash-poor, so you'd have to cast about for other things to get a complete picture of what was involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Slaves could do other work, and could be hired out to do that other work.
Sure, but it was often done on a barter basis where money didn't change hands. In particular, this was a complaint of non-slaveowning whites (such as craftsmen) who were run out of business by the practice. This is a "hidden economy" side to slavery that most people don't include in their dollar calculations. It was one reason the non-slave-owning class in Charleston was so adamant about hte annual slave-tag taxes and took pleasure in punishing physically slaves they found on the slightest violation, and in the fines levied on their masters, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Absent the war, slavery would probably have expanded to other areas, including other areas using other crops and other areas using other types of labor, such as mining.
It *might* have expanded. It *might not* have expanded. There was clearly a lot of resistance to the concept, and no real successes as yet to point to for confirmation.
There were some places where slaves were used for mining. John C. Gordon owned a piece of one down on the AL-GA line. But there is a vast difference between a tiny use of slavery in a minor part of the economy, and a massive use such as existed in the cotton-tobacco-rice-sugar cane sector. The little piece cannot take up the slack for a disaster in the big sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
The interstate slave trade would handle some of the excess labor, and hiring slaves out to do other forms of work would handle more.
And if too many slaves are dumped on the market because owners need cash, so that prices drop, which brings more slaves in because they have debts to pay, which causes slave prices to drop ...?
This is all normal supply-and-demand economics. The slave-states had been immune from it so long largely because of the worldwide cotton demand and their near monopoly on supply and high-quality. Sooner or later, there would be another bust cycle. When there was, if it was bad enough, slave owners would be subject to the sort of pressures the rest of the nation felt in the Panic of 1857, when the planters were laughing and talking about "King Cotton". Then the shoe would be on the other foot, and the rest of the country would be laughing at them. The tobacco and cotton pests are known historical events that might have easily triggered such economic hardship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Actually, if you look at the latest scholarship on mechanization and labor you'll see that what I wrote was pretty much entirely true.
There is a wide difference between general and specific analysis. 19th century mechanization had little application to cotton/tobacco/rice farming. It did have wide application to crops raised in other areas, which was why it was so widespread in 1860 North of the Ohio and Potomac, but rare South of them.
The decision to invest in equipment vs. labor is also dependent upon cost and the availability of capital, as well as return-on-investment.
In the slave states, labor costs were theoretically controlled by slave ownership, but the rising costs of slaves from the mid-1840s on threatened their entire societal structure and was one of the reasons men line Rhett/Yancy/Pollard fought for the reopening of the Atlantic Slave Trade. If you buy a "prime field hand" for $1000 or more and he has an expected average useful "working life" of thirty years, then we are already approaching $35/year -- above the $20/year you are presenting as an average -- and the master hasn't fed him, clothed him, housed him, etc. yet.
If you extend the rise in slave prices after they recovered from the Panic of 1837 into the 1870s, you'd be looking at a "prime field hand" price somewhere above $2000. This scared the Fire-Eaters. They saw a need to increase the supply (thus the Atlantic Slave Trade) to avoid rich-poor class conflict among Southern whites in that case.
Southerners invested their wealth in large tracts of land, and slaves, for the most part. The average ROI on the land was much lower per acre; so was the value of the land itself (typically 1/3rd the value/acre in the North). So while the South had many wealthy men, they typically were cash-poor and financed many expenses through Northern bankers. In a downturn, they still owe the payments, but their cash income may melt away. How then do they pay their debts? You sell assets, either land or slaves, and if too many of you try it, you see prices fall. This leads to Panics, as they called them then, or recessions, or market crashes.
Many slave labor costs are soft or hidden costs. Buying a new pievce of equipment is a hard cost where you have to come up with actual cash or take on debt. Accounting for the differences is a murky area.
A slave owner who was land-and-slave-rich but cash-poor might stay with slaves for just that reason, even if he had an acceptable mechanization choice. For cotton/rice/tobacco in the 19th century, there really wasn't one to choose. So they chose slave labor over free labor.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
