Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I was surprised to see, in another thread, that several members stated their belief that slavery was “on the way out” when the War started. They suggested that, even without the Civil War, Southerners would have done away with slavery within a reasonably short period (several decades?) after the 1860s. Rather than hijack that thread, I thought I’d start another to raise the issue and elicit views.
I, frankly, have no idea how or when slavery would have been abolished but for the Civil War, but however it would have been accomplished, I can’t imagine that Southerners would have voluntarily done so within a relatively short period. Among other things:
1. By all accounts, slavery remained a viable economic institution. The number of slaves had increased dramatically between 1800 and 1860. The price of slaves remained high, indicating that slaves remained valuable and desired possessions. In his book, The Peculiar Institution, Kenneth Stampp suggests that Southerners were increasingly experimenting, with success, with the use of slaves in factories, mills, railroad construction and the like. This raises the likelihood that slavery was not even tied to the health of the plantation-agricultural system and might survive and thrive even if the South turned increasingly to manufacturing. It also casts doubt on the assumption that slavery was geographically limited to the South and might be transplantable to territories opened to slavery by Dred Scott.
2. The South seems to have been terrified of its slaves and caught in a dilemma (going back at least to Thomas Jefferson) that it had been unable to solve: how to free slaves without being swamped (in its view) by hordes of free blacks. Thus, even assuming that southerners concluded that slavery was no longer desirable (for whatever reason), they had never devised a feasible way to free slaves. I have not seen an argument that the South was any nearer to resolving this issue in 1860 than it was in 1800. To the contrary, the increased number of slaves, and the failure of deportation and back-to-Africa remedies, made the problem all the more intractable.
3. Complicating this further was the fact that it was illegal, or at least forbidden by custom, even to discuss the issue of freeing the slaves throughout most of the South. Just ask Cassius Clay. Even assuming that some southerners entertained the idea that such a drastic step was desirable or necessary, they could not even raise it.
In making these points, I do not mean to exclude the possibility that slavery might have shifted geographically. William Freehling (in The Road to Disunion) makes the point that historically northern states had abolished slavery prospectively when slave ownership fell below a percentage of 15% or 10%. Thus it is conceivable that one or more border states where slave ownership was slowly declining (again, not because large numbers of slaves were being freed, but rather because they were being sold into the deep south) – Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri – might have within, say, twenty years, abolished slavery prospectively. But (again taking history as a guide), this would not have decreased the total number of slaves, but simply moved them. Either they would have been sold “down the river” and/or they would have been sold into the territories opened to slavery by the Dred Scott decision. Deep South states with increased numbers of slaves would have become even more resistant (if that’s possible) to the idea of freeing them (see my point no. 2).
In short, I have trouble imagining the abolition of slavery throughout the country except by war or, eventually (50 years? more?), constitutional amendment. I certainly can’t imagine deep south states abolishing slavery of their own accord by 1870, 1880 or even 1910.
Although I’ve set forth my views, I don’t mean to be dogmatic about this. If you think I’m wrong, I’d love to hear why.
I come not to disagree but to give a hearty second to all you said. The price of slaves was at its highest point just prior to the war breaking out, meaning the demand for slaves was never higher. There was a movement afoot among some southerners to bring back the Atlantic slave trade to increase supply and thus lower prices. The prohibition on the international slave trade in the confederate constitution was a sop to Virginia, another inducement for her to join the confederacy by keeping the value of her excess slaves high.
Slavery was a profitable venture that showed no signs of going away anytime soon. In addition, it was a means of racial control, especially in the counties in the south where blacks outnumbered whites.
The technical advances that led to less labor-intensive means of crop production didn't happen until near the middle of the 20th Century, so technology wasn't going to lead to the end of slavery anytime soon.
The only thing that would end slavery was something that took it out of the control of the slaveholders, either the Civil War or some other cataclysmic event.
Gentlemen, I am personally grateful for this thread. I've been toying with the idea myself for some weeks now and elektratig has (and more eloquently, I might add) beat me to it.
Intuitively, I've gone with Abe: Slavery, confined to where it existed, would die out of its own accord. This is a feeling -- not a conviction.
Economics notwithstanding, the best use of slaves was in southern agricultural practices which were, necessarily, labor intensive.
Slaves proved to be capable of intricate labor as well, so factory work was a possible employment venue. I find two questionable areas in that argument. 1) Fear of slave insurrection. How long would it take for the slave-owning factory owner to realize that for roughly the same cost, he could get free workers and do without the patrols, passes, security and fear? 2) Slavocracy. The wealthy slave owner tended to think of himself in a class above all others. Nobility engaged in planting. Nobility did not engage in money-grubbing merchandising or manufacturing.
How long would it have lasted? As a major factor, 40 years. Until it was gone altogether, another 40. That's assuming morality shifts would not affect the slaveholder or that it would not be eventually forced on the slaveholder.
Another factor is the abolitionists. I think they were despised by both North and South.
However, without the war that broke out, I think abolitionists would have grown in numbers and stepped up their activities. As they increased, they would have worked to remove their image as meddling lawbreakers and to change it to that of “the conscience of our society”. Their underground railroad work would be facilitated by more and more sympathizers all over the country including the South. Slaves would melt away leaving their former owners shorthanded.
Abolitionists would most likely have tried to initiate boycotts of Southern products. This probably wouldn’t have been entirely successful but would have hurt some planters, and would of course have gotten nationwide publicity. However, I also think abolitionists would have themselves come under violent attack and this would lead to localized guerilla fighting similar to that in Missouri and Kansas. In the end, abolitionists wouldn’t have removed slavery. They would have freed many slaves but at the same time caused many enraged conflicts.
That slaves were increasing in value might not show that slavery was not going away; it might indicate that, like our present-day petroleum, conservation measures would be instituted: owners/employers might veer into a combination of slave and free workers. Of course, contact with free workers would “poison” any submissive attitude present in slaves, and unless they resorted to violence, I think many slaves would rather quickly be freed and converted to paid employees.
I think it would have been a very hard struggle to bring back transatlantic slave trading because most “civilized” nations of the world had outlawed slavery and would have condoned privateering against slave ships.
So, simply put, I think POSSIBLY slavery could have ended without the war but it would have been among hard feelings nevertheless. Maybe the “clean cut” of war was better than a lingering, festering struggle, but I cannot pass that judgment. It hasn’t turned out all that beautifully anyway.
Nothing has been mentioned so far about the idea that slavery was a moral wrong, only whether or not it was economically viable. As long as slaveholders were ready to proclaim that enslavement was the rightful, natural, God sanctioned condition of the negro.....as long as they were to insist it their constitutional right to own chattle, then I can see nothing short of constitutional amendment and federal or state force to bring an end to it.
Natural emancipation, IMO, would have been an ugly history of two steps forward, two steps back.
I have seen no compeling evidence that slavery was indeed on the way out, the treatment of the negro after the war certainly doesn't imply that and before the war. THe Dred Scott Decision pretty much settles that score.
All good points that are sure to raise the ire of some.
He who increases knowledge increases sorrow. Old Testement.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Slavery was a moral wrong, no doubt about it. However, at the time, quite a number of people didn't think it so to the point that some of those thought of it as a benevolence to the negro.
But it's immorality was becoming accepted in other quarters -- even, to a degree, among slave owners. Would this realization have grown? Would the growth, if any, have accelerated? Granted, that is an extraordinarily slow way to abolish slavery, but we are exploring are we not?
I'm still leaning toward the idea that southern agricultural practices and economics would have lead to its natural elimination.
A scenario: Mechanization creeps in. A steam tractor replaces the labor of several slaves. They are rented out, but before long, there is a surplus of slaves. Their value drops. Collateral loses value and loans are called. Slaves are sold to meet those loans and the value drops more. More loans are called. The market for slaves collapses.
A growing manufacturing block absorbs these cheap slaves. For a while, slavery again becomes economical. But there remains the fear of them. As conditions have eased for the slaves, and they've become literate, they become more troublesome -- so troublesome, in fact, that free workers begin to look much better.
This trend continues until few, if any, actually need a slave. The price of a slave becomes so low that the upcountry farmer can afford to own one. This also results in an eventual disaffection in that the slave's upkeep becomes more of a burden than a benefit. But there is no longer a market for the slave. Now where do we go?
Slavery would die out of its own accord, and it would be accompanied with massive want and death of many. It would not be pretty, and perhaps uglier than the immediate transition occasioned by the south's loss of the WBTS.
Although I too would have thought that the employment of slaves in industrial settings would have raised concerns in the South, Professor Stampp cites numerous examples of this from the 1830s on -- in iron works, tobacco factories, cordage factories, cotton mills and the like.
By way of example, I was surprised to learn that the famed Tredeger Iron Works successfully converted from free to slave labor during the 1840s.
Meanwhile, some in the Southwest were complaining about a shortage of slaves. It may be hyperbole, but I was particularly struck by the reported claim of one Austin, Texas paper that estimated in 1858-59 "that Texas needed at least six million more Negroes." (Peculiar Institution p. 274) Yikes!
Slaves had become some of the most skilled craftsman in the South, and the profits they made their masters was stunning. IIRC a Blacksmith might easily make his master $50 a month in profit. IIRC the particular man I'm thinking of was in the Charleston area and had been smithing for most of thirty years. In short he had been apprenticed as a child and was working for the plantation before he was 20. Income and a steady source of it.
There were several "Slave Farms", literally a plantation w/ the crop being children. IIRC they were created in the early 1850's by a planter w/ a "vision." He was expecting major returns in his investments by 1862. Incidently he had purchased only women and would often invite friends and investors over to "contribute to the investment." In short a novel and disgusting approach to dealing w/ the ban on slave imports.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Professor Stampp discusses "slave breeding", which he defines as "raising slaves for the specific purpose of marketing them." (Peculiar Institution, pp. 245-51. He concludes that the evidence of systematic slave breeding as a separate enterprise is scarce, although he cites some examples, as well as instances in which owners in the upper south "maintained an amazing imbalance of the sexes in their holdings."
On the other hand, he notes that it is clear "that slaves were reared with an eye to their marketability -- that the domestic slave trade was not 'purely casual.'" Even owners dedicated primarily to planting took steps to encourage procreation through "favorable conditions and attractive incentives", recognizing that every child raised was (in the words of a Georgia overseer) "part of the crop."
"Many masters counted the fecundity of Negro women as an economic asset and encouraged them to bear children as rapidly as possible. In the exporting states these masters knew that the resulting surpluses would be placed on the market. Though few held slaves merely to harvest the increase or overtly interfered with their normal sexual activity, it nevertheless seems proper to say that they were engaged in slave breeding."
The slaves understood:
"'This was perfectly evident to me from the meritorious air with which the women always made haste to inform me of the number of children they had borne, and the frequent occasions on which the older slaves would direct my attention to their children, exclaiming, "Look missis! little n****s for you and massa; plenty little n****s for you and little missis."'" (pp. 248-49, quoting a slaveowner's wife's journal)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Was Slavery On the Way Out? 
Linear Mode
