Was Slavery On the Way Out?

[elektratig]

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.

[cash]

Elektratig,

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.

Regards,
Cash

[ole]

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.

Let the games begin.
Ole

[sockknitter]

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.

[cedarstripper]

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.

[johan_steele]

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.

[ole]

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.

But it could happen.
Ole

[elektratig]

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!

[johan_steele]

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.

[elektratig]

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)

Sad.

[cash]

The south had huge labor shortages all through the 19th Century and into the 20th Century. There is no way slavery would have died out on its own prior to the mid-20th Century unless there were some cataclysmic event that took it out of the hands of the slaveholders.

Regards,
Cash

[MobileBoy]

Morning Fellas,
I think to assume that slavery would last until the mid 20th century is completly unrealistic.On the other hand,I also think it's irrational to conclude that slavery was on the way out in 1860.If the Confederacy had won the war I believe it would have expanded its territory and slavery.I don't think the South would've reopened the slave trade across the Atlantic because of one major reason.Why in the world would slaveowners support a policy that would make their property have less value.It just wouldn't make sense.Also the Confederate constitution expressly forbid the slave trade.Lets remember that the South wasn't the only place in the world that practiced slavery.It was practiced in Brazil,parts of Asia,and in Africa that I know of.Did slavery last until the mid 20th century in any of these places?We know it didn't so that seems very improbable that the Confederacy would be so drastically different.Blacks weren't allowed to vote in New York in 1860, but to assume that New York would stay that way until the mid 20th century would be ridiculous.My point is that the views of a society change with time and aren't necessarily destined to remain the same.While a slave-owning Confederacy would've strenghthened slavery everywhere around the world when did slavery cease in these other places in the world and for what reasons.Please don't take this as a shot at the working conditions of Northern immigrants but what would be the advantages versus disadvantages of using slavery in factories.After all slaves had to be guarded,housed,fed,treated for health issues, etch...They were also very expensive.If the slaves were emancipated most would have had few employment options.They would have to eat just like the immigrants up North and they would have been in no position to dictate salary demands.So the South still could've taken advantage of the African-Americans for financial benefit without dealing with pressures from the outside world about slavery.Think about how so many things are made in China today because of the paltry pay required to hire Chinese laborers.Just some food for thought.There are also companies moving to Mexico for that same reason.

Some Southerners did quote the Bible to support slavery.Do I think that's crazy?He-- yes I do.The Bible really doesn't outright condemn the institution though.I personally think Jesus would've condemned slavery harshly as well as condemned the exploitation of immigrants in Northern factories,sex outside of marriage, and on and on and on etch....In my mind slavery was worse than exploitating immigrant labor ,but to God taking advantage of anyone is wrong.

[cedarstripper]

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.

And inbreeding.

[cedarstripper]

I don't think the South would've reopened the slave trade across the Atlantic because of one major reason.Why in the world would slaveowners support a policy that would make their property have less value.

Because it would make the purchase of new slaves cheaper? Would farmers object to the going price for tractors being cut in half because it would make their existing tractors worth less on the used market? Not when it comes time to buy a new tractor - which explains the many sales of imported tractors from China. YanMar, anyone?

Also the Confederate constitution expressly forbid the slave trade.

Yeah....there was far less chance of bringing Virginia on board if the African slave trade was reopened, and no chance of ever being recognized by Britian and France. Its not hard to tell why the Confederacy had to give in and prohibit the African slave trade to all its states.

Lets remember that the South wasn't the only place in the world that practiced slavery.It was practiced in Brazil,parts of Asia,and in Africa that I know of.Did slavery last until the mid 20th century in any of these places?We know it didn't so that seems very improbable that the Confederacy would be so drastically different.

Had it (the natural condition of subordination of the negro) lasted in the Confederacy, it might have lasted longer in those other places you mention. It was prohibited in Mexico and its re-establishment was partially responsible for the Republic of Texas, demonstrating that it can even gain headway in a region that had outlawed it.

[cash]

Morning Fellas,

Top of the morning to you, too.

I think to assume that slavery would last until the mid 20th century is completly unrealistic.

What would have ended it? The technology to reduce the dependence on labor in agriculture didn't exist until the mid-20th Century, plus slaves could be used in any number of industrial settings. Add to that it was a system of racial control in addition to an economic system and you have a highly entrenched system that would not be rooted out for generations. Mid-20th Century may even be an optimistic estimate.

I don't think the South would've reopened the slave trade across the Atlantic because of one major reason.Why in the world would slaveowners support a policy that would make their property have less value.It just wouldn't make sense.

Because it gives more middle-class and lower middle-class citizens access to slaves, bringing them into the slaveholding class and expanding the scope and reach of slavery even more. What they feared most about slave states like Delaware and Maryland was that with relatively few slaveholders in the population slavery's existence in those states was tenuous. The felt that if enough slaveholders gave up their slaves then those states would actually abolish slavery. Make it easier for people to become slaveholders and to gain the wealth that came with that and you strengthen slavery within each state.

Also the Confederate constitution expressly forbid the slave trade.

That was done to lure Virginia, which had a surplus of slaves, into the confederacy. The confederate constitution could always be amended to remove that restriction.

Lets remember that the South wasn't the only place in the world that practiced slavery.It was practiced in Brazil,parts of Asia,and in Africa that I know of.Did slavery last until the mid 20th century in any of these places?

Slavery exists today in Africa and the Middle East.

Slavery as practiced in the United States was different from slavery as practiced anywhere else. Brazil was the last nation in the Western Hemisphere to give up slavery. The reason it was done peacefully was there was a tremendous amount of sexual mixing between the slaves and the masters, leading to a very large number of offspring of the slaveholders, much more than in the United States. This eventually broke down the racial barriers and allowed a peaceful emancipation. See Thomas Sowell, The Economics of Politics and Race.

We know it didn't so that seems very improbable that the Confederacy would be so drastically different.

We know it exists today. Prior to this point we haven't been postulating the existence of the confederacy, merely that absent a war the United States wasn't on the verge of losing slavery. If you want to bring the confederacy into the mix, there was an additional very strong motivation for keeping slavery. It was the cornerstone on which the confederacy was built. Take away slavery and you take away what the founding fathers of the confederacy built their revolution on. Would the United States ever amend the US Constitution to allow for taxation without representation?

Blacks weren't allowed to vote in New York in 1860, but to assume that New York would stay that way until the mid 20th century would be ridiculous.

Absent a war and a Reconstruction which allowed the 15th Amendment, how does it happen that blacks get the vote? Sure, blacks were allowed to vote in New England in the 1860s, and New York could certainly vote to allow blacks to vote, but what is their motivation? Just claiming it's ridiculous to assume they would stay that way is even more ridiculous, because it assumes a change in attitude with no evidence that such change would come about.

My point is that the views of a society change with time and aren't necessarily destined to remain the same.

The basic views of the United States on its political structure haven't changed much in over 200 years. Absent some type of cataclysm, how does slavery end in the United States?

While a slave-owning Confederacy would've strenghthened slavery everywhere around the world when did slavery cease in these other places in the world and for what reasons.

In some places it hasn't ceased yet.

Please don't take this as a shot at the working conditions of Northern immigrants but what would be the advantages versus disadvantages of using slavery in factories.After all slaves had to be guarded,housed,fed,treated for health issues, etch...

In 1860, the average slaveholder paid an average of $20 per slave per year to keep them alive. The cost of keeping a slave was fairly low. Slaves could perform any labor, including factory labor. Slavery as a labor system was a more efficient system than free labor. You don't pay slaves, whereas you have to pay a free worker not only enough for him to be able to live but also enough for his family to be able to live.

They were also very expensive.

Not if you had female slaves who were having babies, thus increasing your number of slaves automatically. And if they reinstituted the slave trade, the price of new slaves bought on the market would fall as well with the increase in supply.

If the slaves were emancipated most would have had few employment options.

Not at all. There was always a labor shortage in the south. They would have had plenty of employment options. The question is would the former slaveholders have wanted to pay them for their work or would they have done what was done during Reconstruction and instituted what amounted to almost a return to slavery?

They would have to eat just like the immigrants up North and they would have been in no position to dictate salary demands.So the South still could've taken advantage of the African-Americans for financial benefit without dealing with pressures from the outside world about slavery.

But there is still the element of racial control. In some counties blacks actually outnumbered whites, unlike in the North. In the North, white supremacy could be easily maintained through numbers alone. In the south, however, white supremacy would have to be maintained by a system of institutionalized oppression, which was what slavery was. With the memory of the Haiti slave insurrection, the motivation is to keep the system that is working for you rather than take a chance on some other type of system. They were forced to do without slavery after the Civil War, but absent that war there is nothing to force them to do so.

Think about how so many things are made in China today because of the paltry pay required to hire Chinese laborers.

China uses slave labor as well.

Regards,
Cash

[ole]

Yes, sad.

Historians seem to *****foot around the idea of slaves-as-a-cash-crop with the excuse that there is no compelling evidence. They will hint at it, and retreat behind the lack of evidence. One ventured so far as to say that the number of slave children born in Virginia during a certain period bore more than a casual relationship to the number of slaves sold out of Virginia during that same period.

So we can only speculate. If I were the owner of 100 slaves watching my ground go sour and raising only marginally profitable hay and cereal grains, I would certainly look to the possibility of raising slaves as a profit center. No proof. Common sense.

Seems we've gotten to the point where we recognize that the usefulness of a slave would diminish in this area and increase in others. I will maintain that This see-saw usefulness would also diminish, leading to a sharp slowdown in the use of slaves, and its eventual expiration.
Ole

[FSPowers]

Let me put the question like this;

How could a society that was becoming increasingly industrialized ever expected to maintain that growth on the backs of slave labor?

Even the South would have become industrialized eventually.

[bill_torrens]

Interesting thread, with several valid points made.

A couple of aspects have perhaps been overlooked. Firstly, it is a fundamental mistake to assume that slaveholders would be concerned with nothing more than making a profit and ensuring that the local Negroes remained subordinate. This is based on the lazy assumption that they were, collectively, "bad people". They were actually as diverse a group of human beings as we are: some "good", some "bad" and the vast majority somewhere in between. Once freed from the potential meddling of Northern abolitionists, it is by no means certain that they would have remained permanently committed to the intellectual defence of chattel slavery.

Secondly, no account has been taken of an independent Confederacy's place in the larger world. A world which was in the process of turning its face decisively against slavery. With whom would they have been able to secure a defensive alliance, without which they would have been permanently vulnerable to their powerful Northern neighbour? Great Britain could never have made an alliance with a "slave power"; public opinion would never have stood for it. It may appeal to Northern sensibilities to imagine the C.S.A. as a kind of Albania, entirely isolated and cocooned in its ideological purity. But no nation rooted in British stock has ever taken that path.

[cash]

Let me put the question like this;

How could a society that was becoming increasingly industrialized ever expected to maintain that growth on the backs of slave labor?

Even the South would have become industrialized eventually.

------
Nothing says an industrialized society cannot have slave labor. A slave can perform any kind of labor that needs to be performed. Slaves can even be managers.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Interesting thread, with several valid points made.

A couple of aspects have perhaps been overlooked. Firstly, it is a fundamental mistake to assume that slaveholders would be concerned with nothing more than making a profit and ensuring that the local Negroes remained subordinate. This is based on the lazy assumption that they were, collectively, "bad people". They were actually as diverse a group of human beings as we are: some "good", some "bad" and the vast majority somewhere in between. Once freed from the potential meddling of Northern abolitionists, it is by no means certain that they would have remained permanently committed to the intellectual defence of chattel slavery.

Again, this had been concerned with the United States remaining intact and a slave society, but I'm willing to venture forward again with the assumption the slave states secede and gain their independence. In that case, the new nation, built on the cornerstone of slavery, would have even more reason to be committed to the intellectual defense of chattel slavery, since it was the position and driving force of their Founding Fathers, much as it is unthinkable today that the United States would abandon its founding principle of taxation based on representation.

Secondly, no account has been taken of an independent Confederacy's place in the larger world. A world which was in the process of turning its face decisively against slavery. With whom would they have been able to secure a defensive alliance, without which they would have been permanently vulnerable to their powerful Northern neighbour? Great Britain could never have made an alliance with a "slave power"; public opinion would never have stood for it. It may appeal to Northern sensibilities to imagine the C.S.A. as a kind of Albania, entirely isolated and cocooned in its ideological purity. But no nation rooted in British stock has ever taken that path.

China uses slave labor and seems to get along quite well in the world. You have the obligatory moral outrage duly enunciated, but at the end of the day they still have Most Favored Nation status with the United States and are on good relations with the rest of the world. At the end of the day, the availability of cotton without worrying about antagonizing the United States and getting embroiled in a slavery vs. freedom conflict would rule.

Regards,
Cash

[Alabaman]

Whether or not slavery would have continued indefinitely or ended abruptly would include much presumtion of our 'modern' perspective.The political/economic isolation of the Southland from all other civilized & democratic nations due to any long-term continuence of the institution, would surely play heavily upon that decision. There is some documented evidence, as per several 'prominent' Southern leaders, military and/or political that lend credence to slavery being abolished. Last but not least, is the 'potential voice' of the vast majority of Southern whites not possessing a single slave.

The following individuals, publicly/privately or both, stated their position to end slavery in some manner:
Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, Gen. John H. Kelly, Gen. Daniel Govan, Gen. Mark P. Lowrey, Governor Wlliam Smith of Virginia, CS Sec. of State Judah P. Benjamin and CS President Jefferson Davis. (see__Patrick, Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet)

To the 'common' class Southerner, a full 3/4's did not own slaves. Votes on this issue from these people may have settled the decision, combined with the 'leadership roles' of the forementioned.

Southern whites who owned a small number of slaves decreased 5% in the period betwen 1850-1860. (Robt. Devine, T.H. Bren, Gorge Fredrickson and R. Hal Williams__America Past and Present, 5th ed. 1999.)

Jan. 11, 1865, Gen R.E. Lee wrote President Davis to (the) enlistment of slaves as soldiers with the "immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who dischage their duties faithfully." (The Civil War and Reconsruction, pg. 522) Gen. R.E. Lee called the institution of slavery "a moral and political evil" years before the war ended. (McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom) Certainly, serious students of the subject to hand must consider such documention and apply them with un-biased consideration.

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. A 'post-war' Communistic Confederate society with hidden, leglized slavery would have been met with a second rebellion given the known stance of Southern people's rejecting 'too much' governmental interference in their private affairs. And the Southern people were very well armed...

Rob Adams

[MobileBoy]

Roll Tide Alabaman,

You made some very valid points.It seems like many poeple on the Northern side of the Civil War argument always overlook that 70 percent of Southerners owned no slaves.If they looked into that then they're erroneous argument that they invaded the South to free the slaves is seen as it is a total lie.They also seem to overlook that the majority of Northerners were very racist in the 1860s as well.But the citizens of the North could change their racial views, but not the backward South.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.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.

My point on the immigrant labor issue was that with the paltry pay they received how would that not be just as profitable as slavery.I mean 7 to ten member family's living in one room shacks which by the way they paid for.Many slaves lived under better conditions than that.If you look it up the slaves even appear to have lived longer.

Bill thanks for your contribution as well.I agree with your post whole-heartedly.

[ole]

An excellent, thoughtful post, Bama. Will be factoring your reasoning into my further speculation.
Thanks.
Ole

[bill_torrens]

…the new nation, built on the cornerstone of slavery, would have even more reason to be committed to the intellectual defense of chattel slavery, since it was the position and driving force of their Founding Fathers, much as it is unthinkable today that the United States would abandon its founding principle of taxation based on representation.

I’m not at all sure that comparing devotion to taxation based upon representation with an alleged devotion to slavery is reasonable. The former is clearly in the interests of all citizens and is hardly likely to be tampered with. But your constitution has undergone quite a number of amendments over the years, suggesting that what seemed right and proper to a bunch of 18th century farmers and merchants did not always strike subsequent generations as what they wanted. Which is the natural way of things, is it not?

The fact that many of the founders of the Confederacy were committed to the preservation of slavery does not, in any sense, guarantee that subsequent generations of Confederate citizens would have seen things in the same way.

China uses slave labor and seems to get along quite well in the world.

Regardless of China’s status in 2005, the fact remains that British public opinion in the 1860s and afterwards would not have tolerated close links to a slave-based society. That is a matter of historical record. I have read the anti-slavery pamphlets and the newspaper editorials on the subject (at both local and national level) in some depth. I think I can reasonably claim a better acquaintance with the primary source material in this country than that enjoyed by any of my American friends on CWT.

[cash]

Whether or not slavery would have continued indefinitely or ended abruptly would include much presumtion of our 'modern' perspective.The political/economic isolation of the Southland from all other civilized & democratic nations due to any long-term continuence of the institution, would surely play heavily upon that decision.

What isolation? Has China been isolated today because of its use of slave labor? What evidence is there they would be in any way isolated, especially since they had the cotton the world wanted to use?

The following individuals, publicly/privately or both, stated their position to end slavery in some manner:
Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, Gen. John H. Kelly, Gen. Daniel Govan, Gen. Mark P. Lowrey, Governor Wlliam Smith of Virginia, CS Sec. of State Judah P. Benjamin and CS President Jefferson Davis. (see__Patrick, Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet)

They were willing to do so if it helped them gain their independence. There is no evidence they would have done so if it were not needed to gain their independence. Davis and Johnston quashed Cleburne's plan to emancipate slaves to get them to fight for the confederacy, then later when the situation was far more desperate Davis came around. Remember that this thread is really talking about whether slavery was on its way out or not. You've shifted the argument a great deal. Absent a war, there is no evidence slavery was on its way out. Absent the war, I don't see any of these folks coming forward to propose the end of slavery.

To the 'common' class Southerner, a full 3/4's did not own slaves. Votes on this issue from these people may have settled the decision, combined with the 'leadership roles' of the forementioned.

It's not that simple, Rob. 1/3 of the families were slaveowning families. That's a large chunk of population. Then we have to consider all those who didn't own slaves themselves but rented them. You can't assume all of them would vote to end slavery. It seems more likely the majority would keep slavery. Finally, there's the issue of racial subjugation. In many counties in the south blacks outnumbered whites. Whites were not going to vote to free blacks and take the system of social control off them and possibly risk another Haiti.

Southern whites who owned a small number of slaves decreased 5% in the period betwen 1850-1860. (Robt. Devine, T.H. Bren, Gorge Fredrickson and R. Hal Williams__America Past and Present, 5th ed. 1999.)

That statistic tells us nothing by itself. What about the total number of slaveholders in the population?

Jan. 11, 1865, Gen R.E. Lee wrote President Davis to (the) enlistment of slaves as soldiers with the "immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who dischage their duties faithfully." (The Civil War and Reconsruction, pg. 522)

It was not to Davis. It was to Andrew Hunter.

Again, driven by the desperate need for manpower at the end of the war, not an indication that slavery was on its way out.

Gen. R.E. Lee called the institution of slavery "a moral and political evil" years before the war ended. (McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom) Certainly, serious students of the subject to hand must consider such documention and apply them with un-biased consideration.

Serious students have to use the entire letter in context and not just a small snippet.

"The steamer also brought the President's message to Cong; & the reports of the various heads of Depts; the proceedings of Cong: &c &c. So that we are now assured, that the Govt: is in operation, & the Union in existence, not that we had any fears to the Contrary, but it is Satisfactory always to have facts to go on. They restrain Supposition & Conjecture, Confirm faith, & bring Contentment: I was much pleased with the President's message & the report of the Secy of War, the only two documents that have reached us entire. Of the others synopsis [sic] have only arrived. The views of the Pres: of the Systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The Consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them & their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; & Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a Civil & Servile war. In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?" [R. E. Lee to Mary Custis Lee, 27 Dec 1856]


Lee was not arguing for an emancipation. He was saying that at some point, in God's time, blacks would eventually be freed, but he was leaving it all in God's hands and would not take a hand in bringing about any emancipation. In fact, he agreed that slavery was best for blacks because they were better off here than in Africa and they were undergoing a discipline that would make them more civilized, in his view. He views slavery as necessary. Lee himself was a slaveholder, having inherited slaves from his mother. He rented one of these slaves, Billy Gardener, to his cousin, Hill Carter. To claim Lee was in favor of abolilition of slavery based on that one snippet is a prime example of a biased consideration.

In his 11 Jan letter to Andrew Hunter, Lee said, "Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe." [R. E. Lee to Andrew Hunter, 11 Jan 1865, OR, Series IV, Vol 3, p. 1012]

Lee is clearly saying he believes the relation of master and slave to be the best that can exist between white and black races intermingled in this country. That is not a man who would support abolition unless it were forced on him.

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. A 'post-war' Communistic Confederate society with hidden, leglized slavery would have been met with a second rebellion given the known stance of Southern people's rejecting 'too much' governmental interference in their private affairs. And the Southern people were very well armed...

Rob Adams

----------
Sorry, Rob, but I find that all wishful thinking and not in accordance with the evidence at all.

Regards,
Cash