Slavery, would it have died out in the US without the war?

[unionblue]

Shane,

I very much like the observation you have made in your above post, 19th century slavery operating on a small farm much like a modern day small company operating versus a modern day large company. I could really understand a difference in attitude and treatment with such a concept to wrap it around. Not a bad bit of reasoning at all, my friend.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

Slavery once existed in each of the 13 original colonies.

By 1860, it had died out in all those areas north of Delaware.

Slavery in the upper South was becoming unprofitable, and anti-slavery sentiments were on the increase everywhere.

The pressures on slavery were not subsiding. The north to south march of its demise was not stopping.

Slavery died out in every other western nation engaged in the African slave trade without a war.

It was dying out, regardless.

Hal

[johan_steele]

"Slavery in the upper South was becoming unprofitable, and anti-slavery sentiments were on the increase everywhere."

Hal, do you have anythiong to back that statement up? You've made it before and still never given any evidence to support your point.

[hawglips]

Why was slavery going to die out in the US in the 19th century, if there had not been a war? I have seen many on this board say the Civil War was NOT about slavery, that it was not THE cause of the war, that slavery was dying out. I have even read from some that whites and blacks would have been working in the fields together if only the war had not come.

Neil, whites and blacks were working in the fields together already.

Perhaps you mean, "the cause of the first wave of secessions was slavery?"

Though I would disagree, that at least is an arguable position for you to take. Saying "the cause of the war was slavery" is not logical.

Where do you get the ideas, the facts, the sources that bring you to the conclusion that slavery was on its way to extinction in the South? I must conclude, that I have seen NOTHING to convince me that slavery was on it's way out and I firmly believe that the institution would have survived well into the 20th century.

No one knows for sure whether slavery would have died out or not. But here are a few on-the-surface points to consider:

1: Slavery once existed in each of the 13 original colonies, but died out from north to south, until Delaware was the northernmost state still legalizing slavery by 1860.

2: Slavery was weaker and less profitable the further north it existed by 1860.

3: By 1860, in the eyes of many pro-South commentators, slavery was considered wrong by many all over the South.

4: Only about 4% of all slaves shipped from the African continent went to the USA. And slavery ended in the remaining 96% of the slave-trade-world without a war.

5: Abolitionist sentiment was increasing around the world and within our own slave infested territory. This pressure was convincing more and more of the evils of the peculiar institution.

6: One cannot point to the ideas of a few radical slave ideologues as evidence that slavery would not end here, unless one has equally researched all the other nations who embraced the peculiar institution and experienced its peaceful demise, and can demonstrate that no such pro-slavery rhetoric was spoken there.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

To answer your questions in order.

1. Yes, slavery did exist in all 13 colonies and did die out in the North to South.

2. Slavery was weaker and less profitable the further North it existed in 1860.

3. By 1860 there is no evidence that in the eyes of many pro-South commentators that slavery was considered wrong by any significant numbers of those in the South. It was touted as a 'positive good' and such during this time.

4. I agree with your statement above.

5. I agree somewhat with your observation on abolitionist sentiment increasing around the world and within the United States.

6. I agree one cannot point to the 'ideas of a few radical slave ideologues that slavery would not end here' but slavery had not been abolished in other nations of the world at the time of the Civil War. And it would be more correct to say that slavery in those areas it had been ended, ended in a 'peaceful and painful demise' to the former owners of slaves in those areas. Southern slaveowners were aware of the English ending their own slave practice with promised compensation that fell far short of what they expected and left many island plantation owner ruined. This is but one of the factors that contributed to the South being very stubborn about giving up the institution. I would be happy to give you some more facts on the matter if you wish.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[nicolo]

The South initiated a great civil war to preserve slavery. In 1865 a few months before Appomattox, the Confederate Congress tackled the last piece of major legislation it cared to discuss, enlisting slaves into the Confederate service as soldiers to fight to preserve the government that made them slaves.
There was much twisting on a cruel hook. In the end the legislation was passed only because Gen. Rob't E. Lee urged them to do so. But the interesting thing about the new law was, that despite a pious assumption that if the Confederacy won it's freedom then the Slaves who served in the Confederate armed forces would be freed, the actual legislation itself said no such thing, except to state that nothing in that legislation would affect the relationship of the slave with the master.
This was when the South and it's cause was 'en extremis' on the brink of utter extinction and still the Southern law makers could not bring themselves to write into the law the only proviso that would possibly induce the Slave to render full and faithful service to the Confederacy.
IMO emancipation of the Slave in an independent confederacy would have been a long time coming. I shudder at the thought of even a confederate gov't entering the 20th Century as a slave state.

[hawglips]

Neil: ...3. By 1860 there is no evidence that in the eyes of many pro-South commentators that slavery was considered wrong by any significant numbers of those in the South. It was touted as a 'positive good' and such during this time....

6. I agree one cannot point to the 'ideas of a few radical slave ideologues that slavery would not end here' but slavery had not been abolished in other nations of the world at the time of the Civil War. And it would be more correct to say that slavery in those areas it had been ended, ended in a 'peaceful and painful demise' to the former owners of slaves in those areas. Southern slaveowners were aware of the English ending their own slave practice with promised compensation that fell far short of what they expected and left many island plantation owner ruined. This is but one of the factors that contributed to the South being very stubborn about giving up the institution. I would be happy to give you some more facts on the matter if you wish

It appears that the main difference in our views here is that you take the words of the extremists and hold them up as if they represent the majority, or something to that effect.

I believe the pressures were growing from all sides. As Lee pointed out, by 1856, there were but few who believed slavery to be right.

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages."

Your point in Number 6 is a good one. But I think you overemphasize the words of the few and ignore the thinking of the many.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

I believe you when you quote Lee stating what he believed, but don't you think other sources, Southern ones at that, give a completely different view on the 'positive good of slavery', the 'civilizing influence of slavery on the negroe', that 'God has ordained slavery', and other such comments from all over the South, from its leaders in Congress, from the pulpits of its churches and its newspapers and articles?

Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Hal, you've read the articles of Secession, yet you can still say that only a minority of those in the CSA power structure wanted slavery to remain indefinetly? Those radical few were who took power in the CSA, who wrote it's policies and who controlled the destiny of a rebel nation. I think the reality is that if Jeff Davis had suggested an Emancipation of the slaves in 1862 so that there would be a positive incentive for England to recognize the CSA he would have ended his presidency w/ a short drop and sudden stop.

Nicola has put forward a good point, even in the end the CSA wasn't willing to give up their slaves. In SC near Eastover one plantation owner killed all of his slaves so that they couldn't go free. A madman surely, but noone stepped forward to stop him. The problem both North and South was that the Black Man was not viewed as an equal, and in the slave holding south he wasn't even viewed as human, but as property.

The slave owners had the money, political power and the financial incentive to keep slavery alive indefinetly. They even had the backing of a good bit of the clergy. What incentive was there for slavery to end?

[suwannee]

There is only one way slavery in the South would have died out.

If the textile mills of Massachusetts had closed.

If the British who outlawed slavery in the 1850's stopped clamoring for slave cotton because it was better quality than the cotton of India, their enslaved nation.

If John Brown, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, Lincoln, and every northerner who wore them refused to purchase cotton clothing.

That is the way slavery in the South would have never been born much less died out.