Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There might have been states where if not a majority, Afro-Americans were a large minority.
There was a lot of chaos after the Civil War & the Freed Men's Bureau were shuffling a lot of people around, not to mention the battles around citizenships before the Amendments were Amendments.
Then with industrialization during the Great Wars came the migrations up north.
The 1860 U.S. Census recorded 488,070 Free People of Color living in the United States, about 10 percent of the total black population. Many descended from enslaved ancestors who had attained their freedom by fulfilling a term of indentured servitude, purchasing their freedom, being freed by a slaveholder during the slaveholder’s life, or being freed at the slaveholder’s death, as specified in a will.
I am a descendant of free people of color and enslaved black Americans.
The estimates of 1860 for FPOC do not include those who moved to Canada. Many of my "free" ancestors moves to Canada between 1840-1860 due to slave traders kidnapping some black people (primarily children) and selling them into slavery being a constant media story in various "border" states, which caused a huge movement of black people from the Mid Atlantic and the Great Lakes states (many of whom had ancestry in VA and the Carolinas and who fled those states due to discriminatory laws passed after Nat Turner's Rebellion) to Canada. There were many free black activists.
IMO in regards to the question of the OP from last year - I think a substantial amount of slaves would have freed themselves if the Civil War had not gone on. Many estimate that about 30-100k more black people lived in Canada in 1860 and a large percentage of those (about 75-85%) were either escaped slaves or children of escaped slaves. They fled due to the passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law that required even white abolitionists to assist in the capture of black people and have them re-enslaved. Those who were "self emancipated" as many runaways considered themselves, packed up and left America.
I think a substantial amount of black people would have started to "self emancipate" themselves. Many historians overlook the fact that one of the main reasons for the Civil War jumping off in the first place was that during the 1850s there were quite a few incidents where black people who were "self emancipated" protected themselves and other black people from re-capture by white slavemasters. They were willing to kill white people and the northern states, southern ones felt "protected" the black people too much, which made them "rebel" with secession.
Free blacks between 1830 and 1860 are an amazing historic group that people know little about. I call them my favorite historical bad a$$es because they knew the value of freedom and the need for industry and intellect. Also many of them would freaking kill you to protect their freedom since to many of them, and their documentation asserts this, they'd rather die than be a slave or have their children or family be slaves. Southerners were afraid of the "influence" of free negroes on their enslaved property. Which is why they attempted to expel free people of color from those states. Southern states also passed laws that prevented white owners from freeing their slaves because they didn't want to increase the free black population since free blacks were seen as very dangerous. So the main way they could have freed themselves was to continue to flee the south and seek refuge in other states or countries to assert their freedom and then work to end slavery in America with the assistance of other Americans who were against the institution.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,037 times
Reputation: 5697
As somebody mentioned, slave based societies tend to hamper innovation and technology. If the South had won, and thereby prevented its own innovation, then as its wealth relative to other countries dropped, its military power would decrease. This is especially true with sanctions on this Confederacy that would inevitably follow. Other non-slave nations easily could have taken up the slack, especially Brazil, Egypt, India, and the -stan nations. The international pariah status this CSA would have suffered would be much worse than what South Africa suffered. And the South can't count on being an oil exporter either - The Persian Gulf and Venezuela were already well-developed.
In fact, bordering on the USA, social pressure on the US government just might be such that the USA would have reconquered the CSA anyway. This is especially true when other European nations would have condemned slavery just as vigorously as anybody else. Hell, I'm sure Mexico, Cuba, Canada, and the UK would have joined in on the "fun".
This is especially true when other European nations would have condemned slavery just as vigorously as anybody else. Hell, I'm sure Mexico, Cuba, Canada, and the UK would have joined in on the "fun".
The European countries of France and UK only condemned direct slavery.
Both nations tolerated various forms of "permanent sharecropping" in their Carribean colonies. This was especially so of the French Carribean colonies where enforcement against illegal slavery / and continued importation of slaves was more lax and the local version permanent sharecropping had a closer resemblance to slavery.
Likewise, Mexican permanent share cropping in the Yucatan was little different from slavery and Cuba was only gradually emancipating its slaves in stages by 1860. So, my guess is that the European powers of France and UK would be willing to cooperate with the CSA if it fit their interests (no doubt, they would prefer that the CSA end slavery- well at least the direct form of it). Mexico and Cuba would do likewise.
Well, in order to be free, wouldn't one need to be able to do business with the people who have some money to do business with? What markets - other than being someone's property - would the majority of slaves who were without reading, writing, or any other valued skills be essential?
The success of this country was built on the backs of the slaves: Cotton was King and made us a valuable partner to GB. They imported our cotton and made cloth for the rest of the world.
Raising cotton, particularly the harvesting & cleaning of the cotton ball, was very labor intensive. The cotton gin solved the one problem early on, but the other wasn't mechanized for quite awhile.
Did we have to actually fight the War of Rebellion? If Lincoln had simply withdrawn the garrison from Ft.Sumter it would have been delayed and maybe negotiations could have come to some compromise. Remember that telling The South they couldn't have slaves would be like telling IA today they can't grow corn or raise hogs-- it would destroy the economy....It may have been a moral issue for The North, but it was an economic issue for The South. (Reminds me a little of the judge in CT telling the people in the Northwoods of WI that they can't shoot wolves.)
In regards a slave-led freedom movement-- what would they do if they won? In 1863 Lincoln freed the slaves, and The Czar also freed the serfs the same year. The Czar was smart enough to provide each serf with 40 acres and a mule. Did Lincoln really do the slaves a favor?
No it was much worse than that! Slaves were EXTREMELY valuable leading up to civil war the average slave including women, and children was worth in today's equivalent of $50k. A young male with a skill easily worth over $100k. Looking at these Price's we can understand just why the south fought so hard to protect slavery, as slavery made more multi millionaires than the country had ever seen. Slaves were so valuable that plantation owners in the south loved the Irish because they'd do the dangerous jobs that the slaveowners didn't want their slaves doing potentially putting their lives in danger.
The first Africans brought to America were indentured servants as the concept of owning a slave for life didn't exist in British society.
Many serfs were technically "free" & released from being bonded to the land, especially when the Atlantic plantation system kicked off, but in actuality they jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.
I am a descendant of free people of color and enslaved black Americans.
The estimates of 1860 for FPOC do not include those who moved to Canada. Many of my "free" ancestors moves to Canada between 1840-1860 due to slave traders kidnapping some black people (primarily children) and selling them into slavery being a constant media story in various "border" states, which caused a huge movement of black people from the Mid Atlantic and the Great Lakes states (many of whom had ancestry in VA and the Carolinas and who fled those states due to discriminatory laws passed after Nat Turner's Rebellion) to Canada. There were many free black activists.
IMO in regards to the question of the OP from last year - I think a substantial amount of slaves would have freed themselves if the Civil War had not gone on. Many estimate that about 30-100k more black people lived in Canada in 1860 and a large percentage of those (about 75-85%) were either escaped slaves or children of escaped slaves. They fled due to the passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law that required even white abolitionists to assist in the capture of black people and have them re-enslaved. Those who were "self emancipated" as many runaways considered themselves, packed up and left America.
I think a substantial amount of black people would have started to "self emancipate" themselves. Many historians overlook the fact that one of the main reasons for the Civil War jumping off in the first place was that during the 1850s there were quite a few incidents where black people who were "self emancipated" protected themselves and other black people from re-capture by white slavemasters. They were willing to kill white people and the northern states, southern ones felt "protected" the black people too much, which made them "rebel" with secession.
Free blacks between 1830 and 1860 are an amazing historic group that people know little about. I call them my favorite historical bad a$$es because they knew the value of freedom and the need for industry and intellect. Also many of them would freaking kill you to protect their freedom since to many of them, and their documentation asserts this, they'd rather die than be a slave or have their children or family be slaves. Southerners were afraid of the "influence" of free negroes on their enslaved property. Which is why they attempted to expel free people of color from those states. Southern states also passed laws that prevented white owners from freeing their slaves because they didn't want to increase the free black population since free blacks were seen as very dangerous. So the main way they could have freed themselves was to continue to flee the south and seek refuge in other states or countries to assert their freedom and then work to end slavery in America with the assistance of other Americans who were against the institution.
Many of the self emancipated Blacks remained in the South.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
