In a nation that was growing into a depopulated territory slavery was not keeping up.

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Denver, CO
Category 1840 Growth rate 1850 Growth R 1860 Growth R 1870 Growth R 1880
US Total 17063353 35.92% 23191876 36% 31443321 23% 8558371 30% 50158783
US Slave 2487355 28.82% 3204313 29% 3953760
Totalfree 14575998 37.13% 19987563 37% 27489561

Due to white immigration, and due a higher rate of natural increase of the free population, slavery was not keeping up. The slave population was growing at 29% per ten years, and the free population at about 37% per ten years.
If you want to say slavery was a living, thriving system, that is OK. "Dying" is an unimportant word. In a system in which the votes of white people counted, and wealth of small towns and small cities was driving the economy, the slave system was not producing votes or wealth in sufficient numbers.
However most of that growth in the free population was contained in five states, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. And the pattern was set, that Iowa, southern Wisconsin, eastern Kansas and eastern Nebraska, would be settled in the same way. The pattern was actually more biased towards the old Northwest. Illinois was the key, growing from 467,183 people in 1840 to 1,711,951 people by 1860.
The temporary boom in cotton production and cotton wealth obscured the events somewhat.
However people, towns and cities are much more important than commodity prices.
If you looked at the cash value of the annual cotton production, the picture would look different. The problem with that picture is would not show what the relation of that money to the whole economy.
If cotton was so valuable, where the cities, sewer systems, railroads, and ship building facilities?
If slavery was so adaptable and flexible, why weren't sewing machines and carriages, shoes and plows made in the South?
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

mobile_96

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,528
Location
Ill.
Still trying to prove slavery was dying out??

Due to white immigration, and due a higher rate of natural increase of the free population, slavery was not keeping up. The slave population was growing at 29% per ten years, and the free population at about 37% per ten years.
The growth of the Slave population was actually a natural increase due to births. the white population growth shown is due to a growth by births, And immigration, so this comparison is invalid. Try again, dropping the immigrants this time and lets see what the real Natural growth would be.
the slave system was not producing votes or wealth in sufficient numbers.
At a 29% growth, it appears there was enough wealth created to keep people interested in Keeping slaves around.
If cotton was so valuable, where the cities, sewer systems, railroads, and ship building facilities?
If slavery was so adaptable and flexible, why weren't sewing machines and carriages, shoes and plows made in the South?
We did cover the reason for slow growth in industry. Mainly, but not restricted to, capital. Capital was short because too many, with Money, put their money into .... Slaves and land. Buying a passel of slaves means you don't have money left to build factories, etc.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,869
Location
District of Columbia
What does the expression "slavery was not keeping up" mean?

If certain cities didn't want to invest in sewer systems, railroads, and ship building facilities, how does that establish that "slavery was not keeping up"?

- Alan
 

Mike Griffith

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
902
Category 1840 Growth rate 1850 Growth R 1860 Growth R 1870 Growth R 1880
US Total 17063353 35.92% 23191876 36% 31443321 23% 8558371 30% 50158783
US Slave 2487355 28.82% 3204313 29% 3953760
Totalfree 14575998 37.13% 19987563 37% 27489561

Due to white immigration, and due a higher rate of natural increase of the free population, slavery was not keeping up. The slave population was growing at 29% per ten years, and the free population at about 37% per ten years.
If you want to say slavery was a living, thriving system, that is OK. "Dying" is an unimportant word. In a system in which the votes of white people counted, and wealth of small towns and small cities was driving the economy, the slave system was not producing votes or wealth in sufficient numbers.
However most of that growth in the free population was contained in five states, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. And the pattern was set, that Iowa, southern Wisconsin, eastern Kansas and eastern Nebraska, would be settled in the same way. The pattern was actually more biased towards the old Northwest. Illinois was the key, growing from 467,183 people in 1840 to 1,711,951 people by 1860.
The temporary boom in cotton production and cotton wealth obscured the events somewhat.
However people, towns and cities are much more important than commodity prices.
If you looked at the cash value of the annual cotton production, the picture would look different. The problem with that picture is would not show what the relation of that money to the whole economy.
If cotton was so valuable, where the cities, sewer systems, railroads, and ship building facilities?
If slavery was so adaptable and flexible, why weren't sewing machines and carriages, shoes and plows made in the South?
One reason that slavery was starting to implode was that the number of slaveholders was dropping slowly but steadily but the number of slaves was increasing. The number of slaveholders dropped by 5% from 1850 to 1860, but the number of slaves rose during that same period. And, contrary to abolitionist propaganda, slave labor was not "free." Slaveholders provided room and board for their slaves, and some slaveholders paid their slaves a portion of the plantation's profits.

Anyway, the issue of slavery extension into the territories was a red herring used by both sides for political purposes. Less than 1% of slaveholders moved into the territories after the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision, and there was zero prospect that any territory was going to enter the Union as a slave state. Popular sovereignty was actually working to destroy any hope the South had of seeing any territories enter the Union as slave states.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Denver, CO
What does the expression "slavery was not keeping up" mean?

If certain cities didn't want to invest in sewer systems, railroads, and ship building facilities, how does that establish that "slavery was not keeping up"?

- Alan
The combined city of New York/Brooklyn contained approximately as many people as any Southern state. Keeping 1 million clean and supplied with non-contaminated water was a major engineering accomplishment. No Southern city had the wealth to conquer sanitation problems on that scale.
If the economy is generating wealth, it will generate more that bulk non-perishable agricultural products.
But the South was buying virtually all its manufactured goods outside the region.
If there was wealth in south the shops and craftsmen would have followed.
 
Last edited:

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Denver, CO
The situation in Texas illustrates the problem. It was a huge state, but in 1860 had a population smaller than Iowa's.
And 1/3 of that population was enslaved.
There was not enough population pressure coming from the South to fill up the state. Too many insects along the coast. Not enough rainfall westward, and too many free native peoples. These were all problems that could be solved, but it took people to solve them.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Denver, CO
When the war started, these demographic trends manifested themselves in the results in the west.
It did not matter what temporary tactical success the Confederates achieved, the U.S. would re-organize in a day, or a few weeks and win the strategic victory.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,869
Location
District of Columbia
The combined city of New York/Brooklyn contained approximately as many people as any Southern state. Keeping 1 million clean and supplied with non-contaminated water was a major engineering accomplishment. No Southern city had the wealth to conquer sanitation problems on that scale.
If the economy is generating wealth, it will generate more that bulk non-perishable agricultural products.
But the South was buying virtually all its manufactured goods outside the region.
If there was wealth in south the shops and craftsmen would have followed.
OK, but what does the expression "slavery was not keeping up" mean?

As an aside: the goal of slavery was to make slave owners wealthy, not to build infrastructure or cause cities to be populated, for example.

- Alan
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Denver, CO
OK, but what does the expression "slavery was not keeping up" mean?

As an aside: the goal of slavery was to make slave owners wealthy, not to build infrastructure or cause cities to be populated, for example.

- Alan
It was generating wealth for a few. But the greater number of people, both slave and free, lived hard lives. It was a difficult disease environment and nutritional standards were lower than in the small towns of the North. That meant it was not generating human beings, and widely distributed disposable income. It wasn't attracting new adherents. In fact, it was probably losing a small number of white families to southern Indiana, and Illinois and to Missouri.
There were observers, like Frederick Law Olmsted that noted the significant widespread poverty in the South.
Some of this was the system, but a lot of it was just based on poverty and higher mortality rates in the South. Some of it was climate, and some of it was that plantations were highly competitive commercial enterprises focused on the wealth of just one family. People who lost out in the South tended to leave.
There was still a lot of work to be done in the South to build a diverse, stable economy. The people in New England and the mid-Atlantic states had been forced to make this transition earlier. Their states had grown slower at first, but once they made that transition they concentrated on commerce and banking.
The climate, and the Dutch influence, may have created the difference.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,641
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
It was generating wealth for a few. But the greater number of people, both slave and free, lived hard lives. It was a difficult disease environment and nutritional standards were lower than in the small towns of the North. That meant it was not generating human beings, and widely distributed disposable income. It wasn't attracting new adherents. In fact, it was probably losing a small number of white families to southern Indiana, and Illinois and to Missouri.
There were observers, like Frederick Law Olmsted that noted the significant widespread poverty in the South.
Some of this was the system, but a lot of it was just based on poverty and higher mortality rates in the South. Some of it was climate, and some of it was that plantations were highly competitive commercial enterprises focused on the wealth of just one family. People who lost out in the South tended to leave.
There was still a lot of work to be done in the South to build a diverse, stable economy. The people in New England and the mid-Atlantic states had been forced to make this transition earlier. Their states had grown slower at first, but once they made that transition they concentrated on commerce and banking.
The climate, and the Dutch influence, may have created the difference.
Wrong.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,641
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The situation in Texas illustrates the problem. It was a huge state, but in 1860 had a population smaller than Iowa's.
And 1/3 of that population was enslaved.
There was not enough population pressure coming from the South to fill up the state. Too many insects along the coast. Not enough rainfall westward, and too many free native peoples. These were all problems that could be solved, but it took people to solve them.
Unsupported opinion.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,641
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The combined city of New York/Brooklyn contained approximately as many people as any Southern state. Keeping 1 million clean and supplied with non-contaminated water was a major engineering accomplishment. No Southern city had the wealth to conquer sanitation problems on that scale.
If the economy is generating wealth, it will generate more that bulk non-perishable agricultural products.
But the South was buying virtually all its manufactured goods outside the region.
If there was wealth in south the shops and craftsmen would have followed.
So?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,641
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
One reason that slavery was starting to implode was that the number of slaveholders was dropping slowly but steadily but the number of slaves was increasing. The number of slaveholders dropped by 5% from 1850 to 1860, but the number of slaves rose during that same period. And, contrary to abolitionist propaganda, slave labor was not "free." Slaveholders provided room and board for their slaves, and some slaveholders paid their slaves a portion of the plantation's profits.

Anyway, the issue of slavery extension into the territories was a red herring used by both sides for political purposes. Less than 1% of slaveholders moved into the territories after the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision, and there was zero prospect that any territory was going to enter the Union as a slave state. Popular sovereignty was actually working to destroy any hope the South had of seeing any territories enter the Union as slave states.
More opinion, no supporting evidence.

Consistent, though.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Denver, CO
Immigrants had the ability to move South and buy slaves. They were avoiding that option.
Slavery was not growing fast enough to fill up its own region. It was heavily concentrated on those acreages that had the best soil and the cheapest transportation.
How did the other sections of the economy generate capital? The businesses generated profit and they invested their savings. If an economic system is working, it generates its own capital and investors are eager to be involved.
 

mobile_96

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,528
Location
Ill.
Immigrants had the ability to move South and buy slaves. They were avoiding that option.
Wasn't it true that most of the immigrants thought slavery morally wrong, thus avoiding moving into the Southern Slave States
Slavery was not growing fast enough to fill up its own region. It was heavily concentrated on those acreages that had the best soil and the cheapest transportation
As would be expected. As soil became less able to support cotton and tobacco, many of the slaves in those areas were moved to better soil. Now, I'm not a think tank mathematician, but it seems to me that if we have, as you pointed out, a 29% growth rate of slavery, and states are moving slaves to other states thus giving them a negative growth rate, then other areas are actually growing at a higher rate, which is reflected in Some states , like Mississippi and SC having more slaves than Whites. Therefor, some states were growing fast enough to fill up their region.
How did the other sections of the economy generate capital? The businesses generated profit and they invested their savings. If an economic system is working, it generates its own capital and investors are eager to be involved.
Exactly. And this shows why so many non-slaveholders in the South aspired to become slave owners.
And we know that the actual number of slave owners can become smaller as wealth becomes concentrated in fewer hands and slaves become too expensive for many to purchase.
Just a few thoughts.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,869
Location
District of Columbia
The situation in Texas illustrates the problem. It was a huge state, but in 1860 had a population smaller than Iowa's.
And 1/3 of that population was enslaved.
There was not enough population pressure coming from the South to fill up the state. Too many insects along the coast. Not enough rainfall westward, and too many free native peoples. These were all problems that could be solved, but it took people to solve them.
See, here's the thing. You interpret the relative lack of growth in the South as a problem. Southerners did not.

This is from the book The Confederate States of America: What Might Have Been by Roger L Ransom, p41-43:

Southerners had an almost paranoid fear that slave revolts might violently overthrow their entire social system. This paranoia did more than just create an atmosphere that repressed slaves; it produced a fear throughout the South that bound together all the classes of the free population in a xenaphobic reaction to any outside intrusion into their society.

One important manifestation of this xenophobia was the absence of either immigrants or settlers from the northern states to the slave South. In 1860 there were 4.4 million foreign-born residents in the United States, yet fewer than 400,000 of them lived in the South ...the South did not share in the enormous influx of immigrants from Europe. Apart from a few regions in the lower Mississippi Valley, there were no concentrations of foreign-born residents within the slave states.

Native born migrants from other regions of the United States were hardly more welcome. Examining the place of birth of nativeborn residents in the western areas of the slave states, we find it almost all of them reported their birthplaces as some other area of the self. In the non-slave areas of the west by contrast nativeborn settlers came from all parts of the United States, including the South.

While the free states wrestled with the challenge of cultural diversity, the South remained largely isolated from the tide of immigration that came to the United States in the 1850s...

So what was the vision of the future as seen through Southern eyes?… the salient feature of Southern society in the late antebellum period was a fierce resistance to change and particularly to suggestions of change that came from outside the South. The social structure of the South and the values that underlay that social structure had remained essentially unchanged since the time of Jefferson.

Southerners saw their society as a place where the status quo offered ample opportunities for economic growth without having to endure the adjustments that accompanied economic and social change.​

Understand that the South was an insular and insulated place and its residents (white residents, at least) preferred it that way. They did not want the social upset that came with immigration, and they frequently pointed out the dangers of urbanization.

From a social and cultural standpoint, it did not bother the white South that they were not growing like the North - northern growth had a lot of baggage the South didn't want.

It did bother the South that Northern demographic growth fueled greater political power in Congress for the Northern section. That is what made secession so attractive: it offered to politically insulate the South from the larger North, and allow Southerners to be the only agents of their own future.

- Alan
 
Last edited:


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top