Was Slavery Dying in 1860?

[wausaubob]

As noted above, the intrinsic rate of population increase of the enslaved people was about 22% per decade. Once new enslaved people could not be introduced into the US through the acquisition of new territory in Louisiana, Florida and Texas, its demographic weakness was exposed. Disease conditions in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas make the situation worse.
Both northern parties were pro immigration by 1860, which meant the relative power of slavery was going to decline in the US.

 

[major bill]

Both northern parties were pro immigration by 1860, which meant the relative power of slavery was going to decline in the US.

But how fast would the power of slavery going to decline and when might the power of slavery reach the point where slavery would end? As I have said in many posts, I believe slavery would be reaching this point some time in the 1950s to 1960s. This does not mean I believe that slavery would remain a major influence or major power on a national lever up until the 1960s. Even in the 1960s I see a government program o pay slave owners to free thier slaves and give them some kind of grace period to do so. In the end I see slavery in the United States ending in the 1970s or perhaps 1980s.

 

[archieclement]

True, but they were both niche markets. The main US economy in 1860 functioned on Indian corn, which had diverse uses, and pork, which could smoked or salted. On both sides of the Ohio River farmers could compete in those markets with slaves or without slaves.
Slavery was a very useful way to control underemployed labor, which was critical during harvest season for cotton. Without slavery, that labor would start drifting north and west looking for full time employment and higher wages.

Yet slavery seemed more then competive in Indian corn as well..........despite an emphasis on cotton, tobacco, sugar, rice ect, over half the indian corn was being produced in slave states as well. Though it stands to reason a larger labor force would allow one to diverisify more. Agricultural labor would be capable of adopting to most crops easily. My GGGF was growing corn/wheat/sorghum with aid of slaves.

 

[wausaubob]

Yet slavery seemed more then competive in Indian corn as well..........despite an emphasis on cotton, tobacco, sugar, rice ect, over half the indian corn was being produced in slave states as well. Though it stands to reason a larger labor force would allow one to diverisify more. Agricultural labor would be capable of adopting to most crops easily. My GGGF was growing corn/wheat/sorghum with aid of slaves.

The institution of slavery had many uses. But waves of white immigration were coming to Missouri. By 1880 only about a 1:20 people in Missouri was black. The number would have been higher without the Civil War, but slavery would have disappeared by state action in Missouri and Maryland, by 1880.
The critical number was probably 11 slave states. Once the number of slave states fell to 11, slavery could be abolished by amendment.

 

[archieclement]

The institution of slavery had many uses. But waves of white immigration were coming to Missouri. By 1880 only about a 1:20 people in Missouri was black. The number would have been higher without the Civil War, but slavery would have disappeared by state action in Missouri and Maryland, by 1880.
The critical number was probably 11 slave states. Once the number of slave states fell to 11, slavery could be abolished by amendment.

Without ACW am doubtful slavery in Missouri would have disappeared by 1880, I havent seen any signs of much an abolition movement within the state outside St Louis prewar, and movement from outside the state seems to have just increased resentment and entrenched it further.

And in 1880 StL was only 350k out of over 2 million, not yet influential enough to dominate state politics, as the agricultural areas were still dominate.

 

[wausaubob]

This was the actual demographics of slavery:

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-02.pdf?# p. vii.
If the population of enslaved people grew at on 22% per decade, and it only counted at a 3/5ths rate for apportionment purposes, while the paid labor population grew at 41% per decade, the deep south was going to lose influence in both the House and the Electoral College. Virginia in particular had fallen several positions in both population and wealth.
The Republicans were unconcerned about the eventual fate of slavery. As long as slavery was excluded from the western territories, sooner or later the two northern parties would be competing for votes in the east coast states, the midwest, the far west, and sometimes in the border states. The deep south 7 states would become rapidly irrelevant after 1870.

 

[wausaubob]

The Wiki article on apportionment is a simple explanation of how apportionment worked in that era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment