Was Slavery On the Way Out?

[thea_447]

I've been reading some excellent posts here. MobileBoy, the points that you make concerning the free blacks in the South before the war are spot on: "Actually there was roughly the same number of free blacks in the North as their was in the South."

"The famous Frederick Douglas said that if they were freed most of the slaves would fight for the South.That statement needs no elaboration.There are stories of numerous slaves who escaped to the north before the war and found conditions there to be a huge dissapointment." I can take that one step further. A few years back, in a conversation with another Yank who had proposed that the Negroes couldn't wait to leave the South, I had found a site that quoted that by the 1940's the blacks were returning to the South in droves, having found that living in the North was not what they had expected it to be. (That might not be the case now but I would think statistically that more blacks live in the South even today than in the North. Although I do remember as a young girl in the Sixties all the huge advertisements for "Colored Maids Wanted up North, Bus Fare paid")

"Also the Confederate constitution expressly forbid the slave trade." Now why is it that this simple statement gets overlooked time and again? Hmm, I guess it ranks right up there with Lincoln, in an appeal late in the war, indicating to Southerners that his Emancipation Proclamation was merely a "war maneuver" and in essence, wasn't worth the paper it was written on. I guess Yanks don't want to be reminded of that one. Of course , in my opinion, the Lincoln statement doesn't matter anyway because the South was not fighting for slavery, but for liberty from the Union, therefore they rejected this.

Also, MobileBoy, your statements about the horrid conditions of the tenements is something that, as far as I know, has been avoided like the plague on CWT. Yanks tend to want to overlook this.
People were crowded into rooms with often a whole family living in one room. In 1850, it was reported that in the Irish Fifth Ward in Providence, an average of nine people or 1.82 families lived in one or two rooms.4 The Five Points slum area in Manhattan was described by a witness as having 75 people living in 12 rooms and paying about $4 a month for rent. At this time, this was equivalent to about one week’s pay. In the back of the building were wooden hovels which rented for $3 a month. (W., pp. 65-66) Many tenements did not have indoor plumbing or running water. Sewage collected in outhouses and rats were prevalent, carrying and spreading disease, often to children. In 1857, 2/3 of New York City’s deaths were children under age 5, mostly Irish. (W., p. 67) There were also epidemics of typhoid, cholera, tuberculosis and pneumonia throughout East Coast cities. Before anyone here jumps on me (although I'm quite used to it by now .......LOL) I am not condoning slavery, but am STILL attempting to make members of this board look at this whole arena through the eyes of those living in the 1860's, not today: I would like stats on the average life span of slaves, and what diseases they died from in comparison with what was going on in those hovels in the North. True, because of our humid climate we had different types of diseases but I would be very interested in this information.

And Rob (Alabaman), I absolutely agree with your conclusion : "If the Southern population followed the voices of their leaders and three-fourths of the same owned no chattel slaves, great odds are against the continuation of slavery." Jefferson Davis himself said, at some point during the war, that slavery was done for. So why did they continue to fight? I've already answered that, they wanted out of the Union. They were being forced to pay for Northern goods they could easily have bought cheaper from Britain, yadda yadda. I could go on endlessly but I have stated all of these things ad infinitum.

Bill, as usual the "Voice of Reason" summed up something I've known, that these Southerners were not all inherently "bad" people. Just as with any group, there were some good, some bad, but most were middle of the road, just as in the North. But it only takes two big mouths to start a fight and unfortunately both sides had an abundance!

Which brings me back to the Statesmanship thread, and some more "light reading" before adding more comments. LOL

But first, I have to look to my Fantasy Football leagues. Ed, I can't thank you enough for including me in your two leagues. For the moment I'm riding high but all good things must come to an end, especially with so many BYE weeks for me this week-end!
Good luck to all of you on these boards who chose to participate in the Blue and the Gray.

<"Actually there was roughly the same number of free blacks in the North as their was in the South."</FONT></FONT></FONT>


"The famous Frederick Douglas said that if they were freed most of the slaves would fight for the South.That statement needs no elaboration.There are stories of numerous slaves who escaped to the north before the war and found conditions there to be a huge dissapointment." I can take that one step further. A few years back, in a conversation with another Yank who had proposed that the Negroes couldn't wait to leave the South, I had found a site that quoted that by the 1940's the blacks were returning to the South in droves, having found that living in the North was not what they had expected it to be. (That might not be the case now but I would think statistically that more blacks live in the South even today than in the North. Although I do remember as a young girl in the Sixties all the huge advertisements for "Colored Maids Wanted up North, Bus Fare paid")

"Also the Confederate constitution expressly forbid the slave trade." Now why is it that this simple statement gets overlooked time and again? Hmm, I guess it ranks right up there with Lincoln, in an appeal late in the war, indicating to Southerners that his Emancipation Proclamation was merely a "war maneuver" and in essence, wasn't worth the paper it was written on. I guess Yanks don't want to be reminded of that one. Of course , in my opinion, the Lincoln statement doesn't matter anyway because the South was not fighting for slavery, but for liberty from the Union, therefore they rejected this.

Also, MobileBoy, your statements about the horrid conditions of the tenements is something that, as far as I know, has been avoided like the plague on CWT. Yanks tend to want to overlook this.
People were crowded into rooms with often a whole family living in one room. In 1850, it was reported that in the Irish Fifth Ward in Providence, an average of nine people or 1.82 families lived in one or two rooms.4 The Five Points slum area in Manhattan was described by a witness as having 75 people living in 12 rooms and paying about $4 a month for rent. At this time, this was equivalent to about one week’s pay. In the back of the building were wooden hovels which rented for $3 a month. (W., pp. 65-66) Many tenements did not have indoor plumbing or running water. Sewage collected in outhouses and rats were prevalent, carrying and spreading disease, often to children. In 1857, 2/3 of New York City’s deaths were children under age 5, mostly Irish. (W., p. 67) There were also epidemics of typhoid, cholera, tuberculosis and pneumonia throughout East Coast cities. Before anyone here jumps on me (although I'm quite used to it by now .......LOL) I am not condoning slavery, but am STILL attempting to make members of this board look at this whole arena through the eyes of those living in the 1860's, not today: I would like stats on the average life span of slaves, and what diseases they died from in comparison with what was going on in those hovels in the North. True, because of our humid climate we had different types of diseases but I would be very interested in this information.

And Rob (Alabaman), I absolutely agree with your conclusion : "If the Southern population followed the voices of their leaders and three-fourths of the same owned no chattel slaves, great odds are against the continuation of slavery." Jefferson Davis himself said, at some point during the war, that slavery was done for. So why did they continue to fight? I've already answered that, they wanted out of the Union. They were being forced to pay for Northern goods they could easily have bought cheaper from Britain, yadda yadda. I could go on endlessly but I have stated all of these things ad infinitum.

Bill, as usual the "Voice of Reason" summed up something I've known, that these Southerners were not all inherently "bad" people. Just as with any group, there were some good, some bad, but most were middle of the road, just as in the North. But it only takes two big mouths to start a fight and unfortunately both sides had an abundance!

Which brings me back to the Statesmanship thread, and some more "light reading" before adding more comments. LOL

But first, I have to look to my Fantasy Football leagues. Ed, I can't thank you enough for including me in your two leagues. For the moment I'm riding high but all good things must come to an end, especially with so many BYE weeks for me this week-end!
Good luck to all of you on these boards who chose to participate in the Blue and the Gray.

I remain, YMOS,

[bill_torrens]

Had the confederacy achieved its independence, they would have revered the sacrifices of their forefathers to give them a nation based on chattel slavery, and it would be seen as a betrayal to their forefathers to get rid of it, just as it would seem a betrayal to the Revolutionary Generation to get rid of taxation based on representation. It's more than a reasonable comparison, since they were both founding principles. In fact, what is not reasonable is discounting the comparison merely because it's inconvenient to your position.

You’re presuming you know how post-war Confederate citizens would have thought. I can’t help remembering that you are a Northerner, and it’s a bit like an Ulster Protestant forecasting how Irish Catholics would behave: the baggage you carry with you pretty well disqualifies you from understanding the people whose minds you seem to think you can read.

Your hypothesis, moreover, lacks verisimilitude. Do you really believe that people would say to themselves: “Well, slavery is clearly an anachronism, and no longer serves our interests; but out of reverence for the Founding Fathers we’ll keep it anyway” ? Nobody thinks like that.

How many nations refuse trade with China today based on its use of slave labor?

You’re not comparing like with like. The torpor and apathy of much of the 21st century’s western population is an issue which should shame us all; but in the mid-19th century the hostility to slavery in much of Europe was very real and could certainly have brought down any government which ignored it.

[dawna]

MobileBoy:

Here is an article that I posted on Irish immigrants several months ago:

Excerpts from The Irish in America (McGuire) and The Irish Diaspora (McCaffrey):

The poor living conditions contributed greatly to the physical strife the Irish people first faced upon entering America. Cellar tenement's were unsuitable for any living creature but the Irish lived in these tenements where floors "ranged from ten to thirty feet below high-water mark! 'In sub-tidal basements nineteen families, 110 persons, live beneath the level of the sea. In very many cases the vaults of privies are situated on the same or a higher level, and their contents frequently ooze through walls into the occupied apartments beside them...These are the places in which we most frequently meet with typhoid fever and dysentery during the summer months.'"(Maguire, 225)

The Irish people not only had to look for jobs but overcome these unsuitable conditions that led to weakness and death. Observing the conditions Irish immigrants lived under repulsed the American people, further isolating them from a society the Irish strived to be a part of. Instead of lives filled with happiness, the Irish lived in areas where sewage flowed through the streets, rats lived among them, and disease affected a significant number of people. Their children were left to perish in these conditions, denied the right to be a child, those that did survive only had days of hard labor and a life of misery to look forward to. Girls sold their bodies while boys resorted to thievery in order to get money to pay for food and housing.(McCaffrey, 67-68)

The poverty and crime that grew with the new immigrants resulted in a greater hate for the Irish people labeling them a "social plague." These conditions affected the mental health of the Irish, destroying the beliefs and virtues they once held close to their hearts. "It is an accepted fact that to live for a long time deprived of pure air and sunlight will not only depress a man physically and mentally, but will actually demoralize him. The atmosphere is precisely adapted, through its properties and constituents, to the wants of the beings designed to breathe it...A man gradually loses ambition and hope; concern for the welfare of his family, by slow degrees, losses its hold upon him."(Maguire, 229)

This demoralization of man contributed greatly to the lost sight of their hopes and dreams. Alcoholism was high during this time as people looked toward stimulants to help them cope with their inadequacies as a provider. This condition carried over to the children who learned to yearn for stimulants as a way to deal with problems; a stigmatism that will stay with the Irish people till this day. In order for the Irish people to better themselves they were forced to acquire unskilled labor and work their way up the food-chain, but this climb to success would be long and hard putting a great strain on the already struggling family life.

During this time of immigration the Irish people were forced into jobs that demanded many hours of hard physical labor with very little pay. The family structure slowly deteriorated as men obtained work on railroads, canals, and the military, while women worked long hours outside of the home. Since family presence was lacking many of these workers spent their hard earned salaries on alcohol with which they felt they could wash their sorrows away with each drink. This further escalated the alcoholism problem developing in the Urban Ghettos.

The Father's absence and the mother's long working hours resulted in a lack of family structure. Parents left their children home alone to fend for themselves, continuing to live in poverty slowly wasting away over time. The Irish people were "Community-minded, gregarious by nature, fond of visiting and talking," and the absence of one or both of the parents left the children isolated from this social interaction and led to a loss of their beliefs and morals. Without interaction between other people children became socially dysfunctional while the adults felt a deep loneliness that they could not prevent, instead, they took it out on their families through violence brought on by alcoholism. Once the family structure deteriorated the Irish population started to wither away only to be saved in the end by this hard work that first brought on this internal deterioration.


Immigrants arriving from foreign countries (Ellis Island)



Physical examination of female immigrants (Ellis Island)


Excerpt from The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII:

With the great increase in the volume of immigration in later years (we refer to the period since 1820), the Irish immigrants, both those newly arriving, then mostly Catholics, as well as those already residing in the country, found themselves confronted with a deep-seated sense of antagonism based on both racial and religious prejudice entertained by certain elements of the population. While this spirit of hostility was avowed against all residents of foreign birth, Irish Catholics, by reason of their religion, their large numbers, and the resulting influence which as citizens they exercised in the political contests of the time, were singled out as a class to be especially attacked by this un-American section of the nation.

Although the principal of freedom of religion was definitely incorporated in the Federal Constitution, yet so persistent and obstinate was this prejudice that it found expression in the original constitutions of various of the states which made the profession of the Protestant religion a condition of holding office in the Government. It was further manifested in the repeated efforts to change the naturalization laws so as to withhold the rights and privileges of citizenship from all immigrants except upon onerous conditions, including a fourteen years' residence in the country.

We are not attempting to detail the history or development of this spirit of prejudice against the Irish Catholic immigrant. Suffice it to say that it was only too real and widespread, and that, under the guidance of bigots and unprincipled agitators, it took shape and form in the various native American and Know-Nothing movements which were organized during the period of 1830 to 1855. As a result of the activities of these associations, Irish Catholics in many parts of the country, almost alone among all classes of the population, were subjected to insult and oppression and were made the victims of mob violence, their dwellings demolished, their families made homeless, their churches and convents fired, and their clergy ill-treated.

Dawna

[elektratig]

There seem to be two questions being addressed. First, whether and when the United States (assuming no secession) would have abolished slavery; and second, whether and when the Confederate States (assuming secession) would have done so.

In either case, I think those who are asserting that slavery would have been abolished relatively quickly (10 years? 20 years?) are underestimating the structural difficulties presented by the demographics and constitutions of the respective countries.

It is worth remembering that slavery was gradually being pushed south and west. The Gulf States in particular were becoming blacker and blacker. Thus it is possible (particularly if no secession is assumed) that some border states might have chosen to end slavery within their borders as their slave populations decreased. (I am not sure whether this could have been accomplished on a state-by-state basis within the CSA, since I believe that the CSA Constitution forbade states to bar the importation of slaveowners' "property" from other states).

But this gradual migration of slavery presented the remaining states with a demographic problem that only grew more serious over time. In my view, the likelihood was that the Gulf States would become more -- not less -- resistant to abolition.

The only remaining option, in either country, was constitutional amendment. But (simplifying somewhat), constitutional amendment required approval by three-quarters of the states (in the US) and two-thirds (in the CSA). That was not going to happen anytime soon.

Presumably, abolition would have occured at some point, but it's hard to imagine when -- particularly in the (hypothetical) CSA -- because its hard to figure out HOW it would have been accomplished. Two-thirds is one heck of a supermajority.

Some seem to argue that there would have been a sea change in attitudes toward slavery in an independent CSA, without those pesky Northerners constantly accusing them of being bad people. I don't buy that, but accepting the proposition for sake of argument, that still doesn't get you to abolition. Earlier in the 19th Century, when the demographics were less daunting, some Southerners had recognized that slavery was a problem and that its abolition was desirable. Yet they never were prepared to bite the bullet. Thomas Jefferson, for example, ultimately threw up his hands and hoped that future generations would somehow figure a way out of the conundrum. How much more intractable that conundrum would have been in, say, 1880!

[ole]

Very thoughful, elektratig, and a telling observation.

Thanks,
Ole

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by bill_torrens

You’re presuming you know how post-war Confederate citizens would have thought. I can’t help remembering that you are a Northerner, and it’s a bit like an Ulster Protestant forecasting how Irish Catholics would behave: the baggage you carry with you pretty well disqualifies you from understanding the people whose minds you seem to think you can read.


You’re not comparing like with like. The torpor and apathy of much of the 21st century’s western population is an issue which should shame us all; but in the mid-19th century the hostility to slavery in much of Europe was very real and could certainly have brought down any government which ignored it.

I have to reply to this; are you suggesting that only a modern Southerner can understand a Southern Slaveholder of 1860? It doesn't take much to read period accounts whether in a library in England or in the United States and come to at least some of the same conclusions. Reading minds and putting thoughts into them doesn't appear to be what Cash has been doing. Instead looking at the words, in context, of the men of the day seems to be the order of the day. Slavery didn't keep the Belgians, Austrians, British or French from selling arms, ships as well as non war materials to the CS and the US before and during the war. The treatment of the Native American by the US prior to the CW didn't seem to effect sales either. Those sales were about profit and very little about principles.

No one has put forward what exactly would have been the death knell to Slavery. It is fairly obvious that a slave could be a very profitable financial and in some cases a social investment, a valuable tool w/ many years of good returns to an investment. I believe $20 a year has been mentioned as the cost to a slaveholder for a slave per year. As I have seen that figure before I'll give it credence, compared to a freeman who would expect to see at least $.50 a week... An Artisan or skilled craftsman could expect considerably more. A slave artisan or craftsman could net his owner that much more profit. So I don't see an economic incentive to abolish slavery in the South.

Some have mentioned industrialization as the beginning of the end of slavery, China is a superb example of the negative to this argument... they are far more industrialized today than the CS was in 1860 and still they rely heavily on Slave Labor for many things. After the invention of the Cotton Gin slavery should then have been reduced but the opposite is true. I used to think w/ the advent of the tractor and more efficient machinary slavery might have begun a decline; but then I have discovered just how many skilled slave artisans/craftsman there were; so I see no reason slaves could not be used to do the required repairs and maintenance. Teaching by rote could easily bypass the refusal to allow slaves to learn to read. After all it doeesn't take a degree to change the oil or an air filter and even more complex repairs are not all that complex. Knowing what to repair is more so but frankly the idea that a slave couldn't figure it out is a bit insulting.

My own view towards the survival of slavery is how I see a man of 1860 looking to a slave. One has to remove the human element, as the Black man was certainly not looked to as an equal to his owner or by most whites North or South. The way I come to terms with the attitude is to look at it in the same way that a modern individual treats a valuable and expensive tool such as a car or tractor that he owns. He is going to take care of it so that it functions efficiently for whatever he needs it to do. Some owners take very good care of their vehicle while others give it only just enough care for it to continue to function. I'm not certain it's the most effective way to look at it but it seems to explain some of it at least to me. This of coarse doesn't take into account those slave owners who treated slaves as family... though even the most caring I think balked at the idea of treating a slave as an equal.

I just don't see anything short of a cataclysmic agricultural disaster ushering slavery out. But even something as destructive as a Cat 5 Hurricane... somebody had to do the clean up and if a slave was available. When I speak of cataclysmic I think of catastrophic drought or disease, crop destruction for several years in a row of the type that would lead to economic ruin on the scale of the Great Depression.

Now I think we would all agree that the average CS soldier did not think he was fighting to preserve slavery. The number of 70% who didn't own slaves is reasonable and accurate. But of that 70% how many aspired to become slave owners or materially supported the institution? And of the 30% who owned the slaves, most of the leadership in the CS was part of that 30%. They were the politicians, the monied class all who had an economic stake in the continuation of slavery and in some cases the spread of it.

Just my reasoning on the subject

[MobileBoy]

Hey Dawna,
Thanks for your post.You do an excellent job of explaining my condition better in more articulate words than I can contrive.I just try to add a common sense dimension to the discussion.

Bill thank you for your educated defense of Southern honor as well.I'm in total agreement with you that the Confederacy would've allied with Britain.That fact alone would make the continuance of chattel slavery in the South into the 20th century very doubtful.Especially considering there were plenty of options to exploit black labor in less controversial forms.

Have a good night.

[dawna]

MobileBoy:

I welcome and appreciate your postings. :-)

Dawna

[bill_torrens]

MobileBoy,

Carry on posting, on this and other threads. You're suffering the full, fetid experience of what passes for civilised discourse on another thread right now, and many of us are watching with sympathy.

Bill

[cash]

Did I ever say that free blacks went South and offered to be slaves.Talk about a strawman.
-------------------------
Well, if blacks going North found it a disappointment compared to slavery, as you claimed, then certainly they'd want to get right back down south and get themselves back into slavery where conditions were so much better, right?




Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
As I've said before a black shipbuilder was paid 3 times the salary of a white Confederate soldier.If the South was so evil why didn't they just force him to work for free.

Then he would be a slave. A shipbuilder was a skilled laborer. You could take any kid off a farm and make him a soldier. There's quite a difference involved. There were slaves who did skilled labor, and their [u]masters were paid quite well for their labor.-Cash

Right Cash if someone is a skilled laborer then they have to be a slave.
-------------------
Wrong. That's a mischaracterization of what I said. You're the one who said, "why didn't they just force him to work for free." That's a slave.


Actually there was roughly the same number of free blacks in the North as their was in the South.
--------------------
According to the US Census of 1860 there were 132,760 free blacks in the 11 states that became the confederacy. There were 343,988 free blacks in the rest of the country. Not even close to roughly the same.

Now, if you want to include the southern states that remained loyal to the United States, which does not include Delaware, there were 230,958 free blacks in the southern states and 245,790 free blacks in the rest of the country. Closer, but still not roughly the same.

Now, let's count Delaware as a southern state. In that case there are 250,787 free blacks in the "southern" states and 225,961 free blacks in the rest of the country. Not roughly the same, but at least more free blacks in the so-called "southern" states. But let's remember that those 250,787 free blacks were just under 6% of the black population in those 15 states, while the 225,961 free blacks in the rest of the country represented 99.9845% of the black population in those states and territories.

So the comparison you're attempting to make is bogus.




Didn’t you ever question why these free blacks remained in the South?
----------------------
I can think of a few reasons:

1. It was their home.
2. They had family members as slaves on plantations.
3. It was dangerous for blacks to travel without a white person in charge of them.





During the period of slavery, free blacks made up about one tenth of the entire black population. In 1860 there were almost 500,000 free blacks—half in the South and half in the North. The free black population originated with former indentured servants and their descendants. It was augmented by free black immigrants from the West Indies and by blacks freed by individual slave… www.britannica.com.library.unl.edu:80/ebi/article-197664>
----------------------
Rather than rely on someone's interpretation, take a look at what the Census actually says. It depends on what you consider the south and how close to "half" you want to call "half."




Where's the evidence that there were large numbers of 7-to-10-member families living in one-room shacks?

People were crowded into rooms with often a whole family living in one room. In 1850, it was reported that in the Irish Fifth Ward in Providence, an average of nine people or 1.82 families lived in one or two rooms.4 The Five Points slum area in Manhattan was described by a witness as having 75 people living in 12 rooms and paying about $4 a month for rent. At this time, this was equivalent to about one week’s pay. In the back of the building were wooden hovels which rented for $3 a month. (W., pp. 65-66) Many tenements did not have indoor plumbing or running water. Sewage collected in outhouses and rats were prevalent, carrying and spreading disease, often to children. In 1857, 2/3 of New York City’s deaths were children under age 5, mostly Irish. (W., p. 67) There were also epidemics of typhoid, cholera, tuberculosis and pneumonia throughout East Coast cities.

Gutman, Herbert G. Who Built America. New York: Pantheon Books, 1989.
---------------
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what "W." is in your parentheticals. This talks about one ward in Providence, which I assume is Providence, RI, and one small part of New York City. I hope you're not extrapolating this to cover all the immigrants in "the North." I could find the two plantations that treated slaves the worst and if I extrapolated that to cover every slaveholder in the south, you would rightly cry "foul."





I’m not sure if it was you Cash but some poster made reference to some slaves being better off than they were in Africa.
----------------------
That was Robert E. Lee. He was talking about all of them.



Of course some of them were.Look at the starving Africans on TV today it’s not hard to imagine slaves being better off.
------------------------
How much did forcibly removing millions of people from Africa hold that continent back from developing the way it was supposed to develop?



Have a good weekend.
---------------------
Hope yours was excellent.

Regards,
Cash