Reopen the African save trade?

[major bill]

If the United States had reopened the African slave trade in the 1850s could have that avoided the Civil War?

 

[Carronade]

I don't see how. Most of the country thought there were already too many slaves/Africans here. Bringing more in, on top of natural reproduction, would likely increase the pressure for expansion of slavery, which was the most immediate issue.

As I understand it, even among slaveowners only a minority wanted the trade reestablished. The Confederate constitution specifically prohibited importation of slaves from overseas.

 

[Barnesville Blues]

No, the war would have still happened. As Carronade pointed out, the Confederate Constitution outlawed the importation of slaves from overseas.

 

[Sid J.]

I don't see how it could have happened. This was explicitly a Federal Issue, where would a majority in the Congress have come from?

A few data points to consider.

Even with Secession the CSA maintained the ban, with an exception:

"The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden ... "

There was discussion of African Slave trade at the secession conventions, MS and AL in particular. Mississippi passed this resolution by a vote of 67-13:

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, it is not the purpose or policy of the people of the State of Mississippi to re-open the African slave trade."

 

[Rebforever]

So, the impending threat was slavery was going to disappear on it's own?

 

[major bill]

If slaves were cheep enough, Notherners would find a way to use slave labor economically. The more slaves in Northern states the more secure slavery would be.

We are told very few Northerners had few if any moral issues with slavery, they simple found it uneconomical. If the US Government helped to greatly increase the number of slaves, the cost of slaves would drop to the point that slavery could be used in Northern states.

Slaves would become much more disposable and this more attractive in dangerous jobs. Also slaves would be less costly so slaves running off would not overly harm Northern owners.

 

[wausaubob]

Not the least important among the changes which are taking place in the current of national policy and public opinion is evidenced by the fact that on Friday, 21st February, in this city, Nathaniel Gordon was hung for being engaged in the slave-trade. For forty years the slave-trade has been pronounced piracy by law, and to engage in it has been a capital offense. But the sympathy of the Government and its officials has been so often on the side of the criminal, and it seemed so absurd to hang a man for doing at sea that which, in half the Union, is done daily without censure on land, that no one has ever been punished under the Act. The Administration of Mr. Lincoln has turned over a new leaf in this respect. Henceforth the slave-trade will be abandoned to the British and their friends. The hanging of Gordon is an event in the history of our country.

http://blackhistory.harpweek.com/7Illustrations/Slavery/ExecutionOfSlavetrader.htm

Thus, by the time Slidell and Mason got to London, just a bit after that point, it would have been news in London that the United States had executed a slave trader. So the slave trade was not going to be renewed under any Republican administration headed by Lincoln.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

It wasn't going to happen. The South Carolinians floated the idea of reopening the slave trade and they were kind of trying to do it with picking up slaves in Cuba, after they had been dropped off there. However the British were adamant that the slave trade was not going to be reopened and were after the American government to enforce the blockade off the west coast of Africa.

I can post sources tomorrow on this. I'm fighting a cold and getting ready for the book club tonight.

 

[Dedej]

I don't think so. If that would have happened they would have bit off more than they could chew - in regards of enslaving people who were not born or meant to be enslaved.

I think at one point both the North and South would had to be even more a police state with enhanced slave patrols -- living in even more fear of those they chose to enslave.

Native Africans coming over from all over the Continent and areas like Brazil or the Caribbean -- who were not mentally enslaved and indoctrinated with fear and Christianity - the more slave revolts and uprising would have happened. If native Africans outnumbered Whites in the North and/or South - it would have been a different environment and ending.

Slave revolts were most likely when slaves outnumbered whites, when masters were absent, during periods of economic distress, and when there was a split within the ruling elite. They were also most common when large numbers of native-born Africans had been brought into an area at one time.

Violent rebellion was rarer and smaller in scale in the American South than in Brazil or the Caribbean, reflecting the relatively small proportion of blacks in the southern population, the low proportion of recent migrants from Africa, and the relatively small size of southern plantations. Compared to the Caribbean, prospects for successful sustained rebellions in the American South were bleak. In Jamaica, slaves outnumbered whites by ten or eleven to one; in the South, a much larger white population was committed to suppressing rebellion. In general, Africans were more likely than slaves born in the New World to participate in outright revolts. Not only did many Africans have combat experience prior to enslavement, but they also had fewer family and community ties that might inhibit violent insurrection. Source​

In researching Maroons (runaways/fugitive slaves) communities and revolts -- they usually were Africans who were new to America with no ties in terms of family here. They were also either Muslim or practiced traditional African religions like Vodou/Vodun, IFA, Santeria, etc -- meaning most would have chosen to fight to their death or committed suicide instead of enslavement.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

At the Montgomery Commercial Convention held by local and state Southern politicians during 1857, L.W. Spratt and William Yancey called for a renewal of the African slave trade based on previous discussion at the earlier Knoxville Commercial Convention. Excerpt taken from DeBow's Review Vol. XXIV, Issue 6,:

"ART. I. -REPORT ON THE SLAVE TRADE, MADE TO THE SOUTHERN CONVENTION AT MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, BY L. W. SPRATT, ESQ., CHAIRMAN OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

WE present this able report to our readers entire, and will, in our next, furnish the views of the minority as exhibited by one of the committee, and in the discussions of the Convention.-EDITOR.

At the last meeting of this convention, which was held at Knoxville, in the State of Tennessee, there were several communications submitted with a view to elicit an expression of feeling upon the subject of the foreign slave trade, which was then attracting some attention; and that body, uniwilling to ignore the question, and unwilling also to act in haste upon a matter of so much importance, appointed a committee to take that subject into consideration. They were charged to inquire into the condition of the natives of Africa; to examine into the wants of the South in respect to population and labor, and report upon the same to this convention; and that committee having had these several subjects under consideration, during the recess, now beg leave to offer their report... Under the influence of these considerations your committee are constrained to favor the re-opening of the foreign slave trade, and they propose, for the adoption of this Convention, the following resolutions: 1. Resolved, That slavery is right, and that being right, there can be no wrong in the natural means to its formation. 2. Resolved, That it is expedient and proper the foreign slave trade should be re-opened, and that this Convention will lend its influence to any legitimate measure to that end. 3. Resolved, That a committee, consisting of one from each slave State, be appointed to consider of the means, consistent with the duty and obligations of these States, for re-opening the foreign slave-trade, and that they report their plan to the next meeting of this Convention."

Yancey was unable to attend the next convention which was held in Vicksburg during 1859, so DeBow and Edmund Ruffin presented most of the arguments for the proposed re-opening of the slave trade. The Vicksburg Convention ended with a resolution vote of 44 to 19 to urge the repeal of all laws that prohibited the African slave trade. When the convention delegates reported back to constituents in their respective states, the people were less than enthusiastic in support of the Vicksburg resolution.

 

[mofederal]

It would have been a bad mistake. Why revisit a nightmare. We were shed of it for a reason. It was just wrong, and I suspect there would have been a fair amount of opposition to the trade in any form. We stopped it for a very good reason, never to be revisited again.

 

[matthew mckeon]

[QU
OTE="major bill, post: 1672585, member: 7251"]If slaves were cheep enough, Notherners would find a way to use slave labor economically. The more slaves in Northern states the more secure slavery would be.

We are told very few Northerners had few if any moral issues with slavery, they simple found it uneconomical. If the US Government helped to greatly increase the number of slaves, the cost of slaves would drop to the point that slavery could be used in Northern states.

Slaves would become much more disposable and this more attractive in dangerous jobs. Also slaves would be less costly so slaves running off would not overly harm Northern owners.[/QUOTE]
If this is serious, it is unlikely that the whites living in the free states would vote to open the slave trade and extend slavery into the free states, since the political position of the free soil, free labor people is restricting slavery from the West because they didn't want to compete with slave labor.

 

[steve59p]

"major bill, post: 1672585, member: 7251"]If slaves were cheep enough, Notherners would find a way to use slave labor economically. The more slaves in Northern states the more secure slavery would be.

We are told very few Northerners had few if any moral issues with slavery, they simple found it uneconomical. If the US Government helped to greatly increase the number of slaves, the cost of slaves would drop to the point that slavery could be used in Northern states.

Slaves would become much more disposable and this more attractive in dangerous jobs. Also slaves would be less costly so slaves running off would not overly harm Northern owners.

If this is serious, it is unlikely that the whites living in the free states would vote to open the slave trade and extend slavery into the free states, since the political position of the free soil, free labor people is restricting slavery from the West because they didn't want to compete with slave labor.

Very true. You would have the bulk of the population up in arms at such a proposal. Quite possibly literally if somehow it actually passed Congress.

Also, ignoring opposition from Britain and the rest of Europe for the moment, how cheap would importing masses of slave be? The traditional trade relied on buying slaves from coastal rulers in Africa and in the 18thC seems to have caused a lot of disruption and depopulation. Even if they were willing to bleed their neighbours dry and capable of doing it, there is a limit to how many slaves the region could supply. Especially since during this period the east coast Arab slave raiders are going much deeper into the continent and causing massive amount of chaos themselves.

Then there is the question of shipping such numbers across the Atlantic, especially if their large enough your talking about numbers so large it causes a major drop in slave prices. Even apart from the moral question and the opposition of Britain especially I think the idea would fall apart on logistical and economic problems.

 

[wausaubob]

And the British knew this was being advocated in South Carolina. When the Civil War began, after about 1 year the British put tremendous pressure on the United States to cooperate in suppressing the slave trade. Despite all the posturing and hiding of their true intent, and the display of hostility to the United States to satisfy the Queen, the British were hammering on Lincoln and Seward to take a stand against the slave trade and slavery, so that they did not have to intervene in the Civil War.

 

[OpnCoronet]

If slaves were cheep enough, Notherners would find a way to use slave labor economically. The more slaves in Northern states the more secure slavery would be.
We are told very few Northerners had few if any moral issues with slavery, they simple found it uneconomical. If the US Government helped to greatly increase the number of slaves, the cost of slaves would drop to the point that slavery could be used in Northern states.
Slaves would become much more disposable and this more attractive in dangerous jobs. Also slaves would be less costly so slaves running off would not overly harm Northern owners.

Devaluing slaves as property, would cut very deeply into the pocket books of slave owners in general and large plantation owners in particular. I think you would find just as much opposition to opening the slave trade in the South as in the North, in the 1850's.

Ardent secessionists in the South, who believed slavery was the cornerstone of the confederacy, made the argument for reopening the slave trade, as a means of guaranteeing slavery would not be eliminated, by making it easy for every confederate citizen to become slaveholders.. But, as noted above that did not suit the interests of the ruling oligarchs of the South.

Opposition to slavery in the North, was mostly based upon the belief that slavery was wrong. It was essentially a matter of conscience, not law.

 

[uaskme]

Majority of the South thought the Slave Trade was wrong also. The States that wanted it were the few Deep South Cotton States. Upper and Border States were against. That's the Majority of the South.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Majority of the South thought the Slave Trade was wrong also. The States that wanted it were the few Deep South Cotton States. Upper and Border States were against. That's the Majority of the South.

I believe that even most in the Deep South Cotton States did not want the slave trade to start back up. By controlling the influx of new Slaves, it kept prices on existing slaves, high.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

You've been doing fine without my sources! But it was more about Maryland and Virginia not wanting the slave trade to start up again. They sold slaves to the Deep South and were in the business of breeding, as crude as that is, and it would have dropped their prices precipitously. The lower Mississippi had slaves smuggled in. The Deep South cotton states wanted more slaves, cheaper.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

You've been doing fine without my sources! But it was more about Maryland and Virginia not wanting the slave trade to start up again. They sold slaves to the Deep South and were in the business of breeding, as crude as that is, and it would have dropped their prices precipitously. The lower Mississippi had slaves smuggled in. The Deep South cotton states wanted more slaves, cheaper.

That makes sense. I'm wondering if that was still the case in the late 1850s?

 

[major bill]

I believe that even most in the Deep South Cotton States did not want the slave trade to start back up. By controlling the influx of new Slaves, it kept prices on existing slaves, high.

But would not inexpensive slaves help insure more people, even people in the North and West would use slave labor? The more people who used slave labor the more secure the future of slavery would be.