Was the treatment of slaves getting better or worse?

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
If the Southern states had not seceded would the treatment of slaves improved over the next 50 to 75 years?

We hear of that slaves were whipped, beaten, burned, branded, tortured, and sexually abused but was the treatment of slaves improving in the years leading up to the Civil War? One could assume if the treatment of slaves was improving prior to the Civil War, then over the next 50 to 75 years the treatment of slaves would continue to improve. However if the reserve was true then over the next 50 to 75 years slaves would have been subject to increased brutality.

If so would have the increasingly brutal treatment of slaves have had an impact on the abolitionist movement?
 
I highly doubt that slavery would have rapidly changed on it own merits. There was no incentive for things to change on their own. Thus the Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation provided the catalyst to start things going the correct way. Even then a long slow road ahead.
 
While I would like to believe slavery would have ended around the turn of the century, if the nation never had a civil war it's likely that there might not have been any reason to end the institution, as The United States would have massive agricultural output via slave labor, and an equally powerful industrial economy. Other nations that were more centralised didn't have that kind of versatility. Slavery easily could have made it up to the WW1 era without foreign intervention or pressure to and it. Whether or not it would have gotten better, I would think so as it seems to me to be the trend. I can't think of anything specifically, but there was legislation that had to do with treatment of slaves in certain states wasn't there? I would think this would expand naturally but who's to say
 
Skilled slaves already were getting better treatment.
If one believes in passive resistance, then there is every reason to believe that treatment would have gotten better. How much is definitely an unknown?
There was a tendency for slaves to become lighter skinned to the point where the difference between white and slave was diminishing. In addition, slaves were already taking over formerly white occupations such as slave overseer on plantations, blacksmiths, and other skilled jobs.
The slave labor ideology would become more and more stressed with the possible result that better treatment of slaves could result.
 
Part of the reasoning for me asking this is if slavery could have remained well into the 20th Century or even to the end of the 20th Century. This relates back to trying to see if slavery could have ended without the Civil War.

If slavery would have becoming increasingly brutal is could have resulted in increasing numbers of Americans seeing slavery as wrong. On the other hand if the treatment of the slaves had improved it is possible that the number of people seeing slavery as acceptable would have increased. This could have resulted with slavery existing up to nearly the end of the 20th Century.

When I try to justify the cost of the Civil War I have to address the negative impact of slavery lasting until the 1970s or even 1980s. Also how brutally the slaves were treated for the next 50 to 100 years could change how I feel about the cost of the Civil War being worth expending.
 
IMHO the problem is that slavery is a dynamic system with unpredictable inputs and results.
Iterate unpredictable for 30 years and you have a real mess. 100 years of iteration goes from gas balloons to aircraft carriers, jets and men in space.

  • Variables include
  • Cotton prices.
  • boll weevil
  • Industrialization effect on Southern Society.
  • Southerners are already on the defensive on the morality of slavery and the social good of slavery. What happens when the international community says thanks for the Cotton, but keep your slavery ideology.
  • More Free States both from territories and formally slave states flipping to free.
  • Economic crashes.
  • Religous revivals
  • Social changes.
  • White labor issues.
 
I am listening to Edward Baptist's The Half Has Never Been Told. He describes cotton production as much worse than the tobacco and wheat farming done by slaves in Virginia and Maryland in the 18th century and early 19th century. Slaves were forced to work longer, harder and punished more ruthlessly, as owners attempted to produce as much cotton as possible.

Enslaved people who had skills had their status decline under the new cotton regime.

The legal restrictions on the enslaved became more onerous as well, with the system growing more rigid.

In short there is little evidence of improvements in the conditions or status of enslaved Americans before the Civil War.
 
IMHO the problem is that slavery is a dynamic system with unpredictable inputs and results.
Iterate unpredictable for 30 years and you have a real mess. 100 years of iteration goes from gas balloons to aircraft carriers, jets and men in space.

  • Variables include
  • Cotton prices.
  • boll weevil
  • Industrialization effect on Southern Society.
  • Southerners are already on the defensive on the morality of slavery and the social good of slavery. What happens when the international community says thanks for the Cotton, but keep your slavery ideology.
  • More Free States both from territories and formally slave states flipping to free.
  • Economic crashes.
  • Religous revivals
  • Social changes.
  • White labor issues.
These points are well taken. But I would say that slavery had existed by 1860, for over 200 years in North America, and over three hundred years in the New World generally. It had experienced and adapted to economic crashes, changing conditions, social and political changes, and general rejection of enslavement by peer societies in western Europe and the Americas, already.

Since we are using our imaginations, I can imagine slavery adapted to industrial work as well. Should it ever end?
 
I am listening to Edward Baptist's The Half Has Never Been Told. He describes cotton production as much worse than the tobacco and wheat farming done by slaves in Virginia and Maryland in the 18th century and early 19th century. Slaves were forced to work longer, harder and punished more ruthlessly, as owners attempted to produce as much cotton as possible.

Enslaved people who had skills had their status decline under the new cotton regime.

The legal restrictions on the enslaved became more onerous as well, with the system growing more rigid.

In short there is little evidence of improvements in the conditions or status of enslaved Americans before the Civil War.

I have read that the treatment of slaves got worse over the years leading to the Civil War. One of the questions I have is if the cotton market had experienced economic difficulties, the price of slaves would drop. This could well lead to a grim situation where slaves become very expendable. What happens when feeding slaves becomes more expensive than purchasing new slaves?
 
I have read that the treatment of slaves got worse over the years leading to the Civil War. One of the questions I have is if the cotton market had experienced economic difficulties, the price of slaves would drop. This could well lead to a grim situation where slaves become very expendable. What happens when feeding slaves becomes more expensive than purchasing new slaves?
I don't imagine slaves would be deliberately starved to death. They would decline in value. If past history is any guide, they might be exploited even more ruthlessly, or put to non cotton tasks. After all, slavery had survived any number of economic upheavals in the two hundred years of its existence in North America.
 
These points are well taken. But I would say that slavery had existed by 1860, for over 200 years in North America, and over three hundred years in the New World generally. It had experienced and adapted to economic crashes, changing conditions, social and political changes, and general rejection of enslavement by peer societies in western Europe and the Americas, already.

Since we are using our imaginations, I can imagine slavery adapted to industrial work as well. Should it ever end?
I can imagine the 1918 influenza epidemic ending slavery because it mutated to affect whites in a hot environment.

Something changed because nations and States outlawed slavery, something that was unique to the 19th century. Suddenly almost out of the blue, slavery was no longer acceptable to large numbers of persons.
Going into the age of revolutions in the 18th century, slavery was in the best shape it had ever been, better than the 1860s, then something unique in the history of man happened.

The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823
By David Brion Davis
link


p0.jpg

p1.jpg


Going forward from the 1860s slavery has an implacable enemy.
 
One feature of slavery that existed in 1860 that did not exist in 1800 was the mass transportation of slaves from depleted agricultural sections of Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky to the newer cotton lands of Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. It meant uprooting slaves from their homes and families and forcing them to labor under harsher conditions in frontier lands. In that sense, slavery was worse in 1860 than it had been sixty years earlier.
 
I can imagine the 1918 influenza epidemic ending slavery because it mutated to affect whites in a hot environment.

Something changed because nations and States outlawed slavery, something that was unique to the 19th century. Suddenly almost out of the blue, slavery was no longer acceptable to large numbers of persons.
Going into the age of revolutions in the 18th century, slavery was in the best shape it had ever been, better than the 1860s, then something unique in the history of man happened.

The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823
By David Brion Davis
link


View attachment 179140
View attachment 179142

Going forward from the 1860s slavery has an implacable enemy.
Yet slavery weathered the Revolution and the Enlightenment. In fact it grew and grew, in numbers, in territory and in wealth.
 
For every reason someone can come up with for slavery to end, someone else can come up with a reason it would continue. I do wonder if slavery would have became increasingly brutal in the next 50 to 75 years after the Civil War. I can see reasons slavery would have became increasingly brutal and other reasons slavery would have became less brutal.

There are so many variables that might impact the treatment of slaves that I do not believe I can do much more than guess about the possibility of slavery getting more brutal. Has anyone seen an good study on this subject?
 
Yet slavery weathered the Revolution and the Enlightenment. In fact it grew and grew, in numbers, in territory and in wealth.
Yet by 1860 it had retreated to the Deep South on the North American continent, retreated to just Cuba in the Carribean and Brazil on South America continent.
 
Part of the reasoning for me asking this is if slavery could have remained well into the 20th Century or even to the end of the 20th Century. This relates back to trying to see if slavery could have ended without the Civil War.

If slavery would have becoming increasingly brutal is could have resulted in increasing numbers of Americans seeing slavery as wrong. On the other hand if the treatment of the slaves had improved it is possible that the number of people seeing slavery as acceptable would have increased. This could have resulted with slavery existing up to nearly the end of the 20th Century.

When I try to justify the cost of the Civil War I have to address the negative impact of slavery lasting until the 1970s or even 1980s. Also how brutally the slaves were treated for the next 50 to 100 years could change how I feel about the cost of the Civil War being worth expending.

Slavery still exists today. Many estimates eclipse the total of world wide slaves in 1860.

These points are well taken. But I would say that slavery had existed by 1860, for over 200 years in North America, and over three hundred years in the New World generally. It had experienced and adapted to economic crashes, changing conditions, social and political changes, and general rejection of enslavement by peer societies in western Europe and the Americas, already.

Since we are using our imaginations, I can imagine slavery adapted to industrial work as well. Should it ever end?

I think the obvious answer to your question is yes. However, it does still exist today in many places, & enslaving millions worldwide.

There are tens of millions of people trapped in various forms of slavery throughout the world today. Researchers estimate that 40 million are enslaved worldwide, generating $150 billion each year in illicit profits for traffickers.

https://www.freetheslaves.net/about-slavery/slavery-today/

https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/



The following link shows a pretty good map of slavery in the world today.

From the article:

We think of slavery as a practice of the past, an image from Roman colonies or 18th-century American plantations, but the practice of enslaving human beings as property still exists. There are 29.8 million people living as slaves right now, according to a comprehensive new report issued by the Australia-based Walk Free Foundation.

This is not some softened, by-modern-standards definition of slavery. These 30 million people are living as forced laborers, forced prostitutes, child soldiers, child brides in forced marriages and, in all ways that matter, as pieces of property, chattel in the servitude of absolute ownership. Walk Free investigated 162 countries and found slaves in every single one. But the practice is far worse in some countries than others.

The country where you are most likely to be enslaved is Mauritania. Although this vast West African nation has tried three times to outlaw slavery within its borders, it remains so common that it is nearly normal. The report estimates that four percent of Mauritania is enslaved – one out of every 25 people. (The aid group SOS Slavery, using a broader definition of slavery, estimated several years ago that as many as 20 percent of Mauritanians might be enslaved.)

The map at the top of this page shows almost every country in the world colored according to the share of its population that is enslaved. The rate of slavery is also alarmingly high in Haiti, in Pakistan and in India, the world's second-most populous country. In all three, more than 1 percent of the population is estimated to live in slavery.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-are-60000-in-the-u-s/?utm_term=.0fea91cb2219



Looking at the west coast of Africa, it doesn't appear much has changed there in the last 200+ yrs as far as the practice of slavery goes...
 
Other Countries had Slavery that ended without a Civil War. There were Sectional differences before 1860 and even when the North had Slavery back at the Founding.

Slavery didn’t exist where cheap labor competed with it. West Texas and the West Coast had cheap Mexican American Labor. Also had Native Americans who were treated worse than any Blacks were. Areas that had cheap Immigrant Labor had no Slavery. Irish Labor supplanted Slave Labor in St Louis and was doing the same even in Charleston.

If the North and South had Split without the CW, that would of greatly diminished Slavery. No FSL, a Slave could of crossed the Ohio and he would be free. He would not of had to go to Canada. It would of made the Border South a difficult place to keep Slave which was losing Slavery as it was.

How could the US of kept Slavery beyond the time period of which Brazil and Cuba ended theirs? It is Folly. 3/5th clause recognized that Slave Labor was much less efficient than Free Labor. Industrialization and Increased Economics of scales would of make Slave Labor obsolete.
 
Last edited:
Conditions for the enslaved were splitting. The enslaved population of the middle eight slave states was more American, more acculturated.
Conditions in Louisiana and Mississippi, perhaps in So. Arkansas were getting worse for both whites and blacks.
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-02.pdf?#
See page xli.
The possibility was that the middle population would become so blended, that it large numbers of people would pass for white.
While conditions in the deep south would gradually diminish the slave population relative to the national white population.
 
The future of slavery had been protected by the textile boom, by the opening of the extremely valuable lands in the lower south, and by slow immigration up until 1844.
With the 3/5ths penalty in place, and with slaves constituting about 40% of the south's population, the south was surrendering about 16% of its political growth. Considering that the slave population was the slowest growing part of the US population, slavery was fading political element in the US. In order for it to survive it had to suppress democracy or separate from the paid labor areas.
The crisis of 1860-61 was premature. The real crisis would have come in 1864 when the two northern parties could have more or less disregarded the south, because the electoral votes were in the corn belt and Great Lakes region.
If the slave states had not seceded, the Republicans would have gained additional power after every decennial census.
 
Perhaps, but when would the Republicans gained enough political power to end slavery? By my count the slave states could have blocked a Constitutional Ammemdment until well into the late 20th Century.

I do feel that the polictical power of the slave owners would demolished over the next 100 years without some form of compromise on the theory of democracy. I can not know what compromises would have needed to be made to insure that slave owners in 1960 would have maintained political advantage. For example, slave states could be given 4 or 5 US Senators each instead of 2 Senators.
 
Back
Top