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.
I don't think that question is whether or not slavery would have ended, on that point I feel fairly certain that it would have indeed come to an end. The only real question is not if, but when. Some believe that slavery was dying and would have come to a natural death in a few years to a decade. I find that view to be specious on so many levels. If we are to accept that view, we must dismiss the fact that slave populations were steadily increasing up to 1860, as was the production of slave intense agriculture. That being the case one has to ask why would the South risk an all out war against the Federal government for an economic system that was in decline?
Then there is the argument that poor whites would have revolted over the loss of jobs to slaves, but the fact is that for the next 100 years following the Civil War poor and working class whites tolerated a two tier labor system that effectively kept overall wages low for blacks and white a like. Finally we have the argument that automation would have replaced slave labor. Theoretically that would be a sound economic argument except for the fact that despite many attempts, a machine capable of harvesting cotton wasn't developed until the 1940's and wasn't commercially viable until after the second world war. I raise these points because over the last 270 some odd post, no one has adequately addressed these points, if they were addressed at all.
My last point and perhaps the most salient is that absent the Civil War, the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments would have been impossible in either a unified American much less the Confederate States of America. And considering that even with their passage it would take another 100 years of social and political upheaval, often violent, to bring the 14th and 15th Amendments into full enforcement, I am left with a very skeptical opinion regarding those who express an more optimistic view of slavery's early demise. Either way, regardless of our collective counterfactual speculation, the fact is that the Civil War did in fact bring this countries ignominious history of slavery to a end and I don't see how it would have come to an early death without it.
Good points. I'm also not very optimistic that slavery in the US would have been abolished without violence, specifically civil war. IMO, the only way that slavery could have ended peaceably would have been a sudden collapse of the Southern economy that made slaves almost worthless in a matter of months, bankrupting the wealthy planter class. The only thing that I think could possibly have accomplished that would have been for Britain to bar the importation of all commodities produced in states that allowed slavery, and that didn't seem likely to happen.
Otherwise, the Southerners would have tried to secede at some point before they became a minority in all branches of the federal government, and the Northerners and Westerners would have tried to prevent that.
The only thing that I think could possibly have accomplished that would have been for Britain to bar the importation of all commodities produced in states that allowed slavery, and that didn't seem likely to happen.
Now that's an angle that I hadn't considered. Would essentially a boycott of slave grown cotton grown in England. Well the threat of an embargo of southern cotton to England didn't work out as the south had hoped but the sale did. England traded as much cotton for arms and supplies as was possible, and New England mills did their damnedest to circumvent trade with the Confederacy. Would greed overcome morality? That is an interesting question.
It started so slowly with the indentured servants who were freed after seven years. Soon after 1619 twelve Africans landing in Jamestown and the thirst for a permanent labor force began. The legislation of Slavery was incremental and by the 1840's even the largest planters knew to call it a problem. It wasn't a problem for them but they knew it was for the south, blacks, and non-slave holding people but the legislation continued.
After the civil war the legislation started to dismantle slavery but I would argue that although much of the immorally was legislated out of the labor system much of what made it so successful is still was in place. Even today as I listen to agricultural industry workers tell stories about their working conditions I think it’s still here.
It started so slowly with the indentured servants who were freed after seven years. Soon after 1619 twelve Africans landing in Jamestown and the thirst for a permanent labor force began. The legislation of Slavery was incremental and by the 1840's even the largest planters knew to call it a problem. It wasn't a problem for them but they knew it was for the south, blacks, and non-slave holding people but the legislation continued.
After the civil war the legislation started to dismantle slavery but I would argue that although much of the immorally was legislated out of the labor system much of what made it so successful is still was in place. Even today as I listen to agricultural industry workers tell stories about their working conditions I think it’s still here.
Farming is hard work, often in miserable conditions, and often not for a lot of recompense -- and that's when it's your own farm. Growing up on a farm, I know that first hand. For renters, croppers or "hired hands", it's even worse. There's a reason why people have been leaving farming for "work in town" for 150 years or more, and why most farm workers today are immigrants (legal and illegal).
The Southern practice of sharecropping was a partial solution for keeping poor workers on the land. Peonage (where workers were paid so little that they could never get out of debt to their employers) was practiced primarily in the South, but also practiced in migrant labor camps and in company towns in various parts of the country where employers needed laborers for agriculture and coal mining.
Yes, that is consistent with the history I have read as well. We have been conditioned to equate slavery with giant plantation because of media like Gone with the Wind, but historically it seems that most slave-owners only owned a handful of slaves at most.
Well, with the cost of a single healthy young adult male slave being in the $1,000 range and that same amount could also buy roughly 500 acres of land, it's no surprise that the vast majority did not own many slaves. I agree though that the image of the giant plantation is the one most people have and that was simply not the case for the vast majority.
It also makes for an interesting dynamic when people are talking of slave revolts. With most of the slave population spread out in small clusters and the smaller groups being of even more importance to their owners do to the investment in them, what would that dynamic have been like? I could see slave revolts on large plantations, but would the majority of slaves been caught up in such a thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994
I agree, as far as the United States is concerned. The Industrial Revolution and the rise of an activist brand of Christianity would have led to the eventual death of slavery.
I think there is room for argument that the Industrial Revolution could have actually extended the life of slavery. The machines required large pools of labor. The work was dangerous and arduous. Immigrants fueled northern industry, but I could see a world where a South untouched by the Civil War saw it's large slave plantations begin moving towards industrial production. What nascent industry there was in the south already incorporated a degree of slave labor.
Quote:
Around the same time as the Civil War, slavery was being abolished in other Western countries. The influence of the European Powers also "officially" ended slavery in Africa and the Middle East by the beginning of the 20th Century.
I know you put "officially" in quotes and while that is true to an extent, what they did was simply find ways to "unofficially" use slave labor or virtual slave labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
I don't think that question is whether or not slavery would have ended, on that point I feel fairly certain that it would have indeed come to an end. The only real question is not if, but when. Some believe that slavery was dying and would have come to a natural death in a few years to a decade. I find that view to be specious on so many levels. If we are to accept that view, we must dismiss the fact that slave populations were steadily increasing up to 1860, as was the production of slave intense agriculture. That being the case one has to ask why would the South risk an all out war against the Federal government for an economic system that was in decline?
Most of the sources I have read would say that the industry/institution of slavery was anything but in the decline in 1860. The slave population was as large as it had ever been, the price of slaves was solid and the primary slave crops were robust and selling well.
Quote:
Then there is the argument that poor whites would have revolted over the loss of jobs to slaves, but the fact is that for the next 100 years following the Civil War poor and working class whites tolerated a two tier labor system that effectively kept overall wages low for blacks and white a like. Finally we have the argument that automation would have replaced slave labor. Theoretically that would be a sound economic argument except for the fact that despite many attempts, a machine capable of harvesting cotton wasn't developed until the 1940's and wasn't commercially viable until after the second world war. I raise these points because over the last 270 some odd post, no one has adequately addressed these points, if they were addressed at all.
I think you make very good points here. To back up some of what you are saying, automation wasn't exactly all that automated in the early days. Look at a car factory. In 1913 Ford employed 130,000 people in the Model T assembly factory and turned out roughly 1 million cars a year. In 1965 GM employed around 30,000 workers to assemble 1 million Impala's. Today around 7,500 workers can turn out a million cars. Moral of the story, "automation" while capable of drastically reducing labor, is not instant in its application and still requires large labor input at first. Additionally, automation is now preferred versus employing unionized labor do to the fact it is cheaper. It is theoretically possible that slave labor would be cheaper than extreme automation.
The one "wild card" here is that cotton may not have been in as much demand as it was in 1860. The British were the primary buyers of Southern cotton. The British cultivated cotton strains in Egypt and India during this time and by 1863 had virtually replaced their reliance on American cotton via their huge plantations in India and Egypt which they controlled. Now, the impetus for the rapid expansion was the supply disruptions do to the Civil War, but Southern cotton never regained the market position it had. Could foreign competition for the key slave crop be what ultimately ended slavery. Were Indian and Egyptian plantations cost competitive with US slave cotton?
Quote:
My last point and perhaps the most salient is that absent the Civil War, the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments would have been impossible in either a unified American much less the Confederate States of America. And considering that even with their passage it would take another 100 years of social and political upheaval, often violent, to bring the 14th and 15th Amendments into full enforcement, I am left with a very skeptical opinion regarding those who express an more optimistic view of slavery's early demise. Either way, regardless of our collective counterfactual speculation, the fact is that the Civil War did in fact bring this countries ignominious history of slavery to a end and I don't see how it would have come to an early death without it.
The 14th Amendment is important as well as that is the Amendment that made national identity and citizenship supreme to all others and forced the states to recognize all guaranteed rights. Essentially the 14th Amendment enhanced the national character of the nation. The Civil War changed a lot more than just the official status of slaves and the US would be a very different nation today, even if slavery had ended, if the Civil War had never occurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
No. "When I was A Slave" is a collection of first person accounts of slave experiences. It is not a study of slavery.
I've read excerpts from the book, so am familiar with what it is. I just wasn't sure if there was perhaps a foreword or chapter that discussed some of the statistics. I think it's pretty obvious that a slaves experience would be heavily shaped by the situation they found themselves in; large plantation vs. small farm, only slave vs. one of hundreds, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Now that's an angle that I hadn't considered. Would essentially a boycott of slave grown cotton grown in England. Well the threat of an embargo of southern cotton to England didn't work out as the south had hoped but the sale did. England traded as much cotton for arms and supplies as was possible, and New England mills did their damnedest to circumvent trade with the Confederacy. Would greed overcome morality? That is an interesting question.
Well, as I mentioned above, the expansion of cotton plantations to Egypt and India to fuel the British factories meant that the British may have indeed had the luxury of abiding by their morals with zero impact to their greed.
Farming is hard work, often in miserable conditions, and often not for a lot of recompense -- and that's when it's your own farm. Growing up on a farm, I know that first hand. For renters, croppers or "hired hands", it's even worse. There's a reason why people have been leaving farming for "work in town" for 150 years or more, and why most farm workers today are immigrants (legal and illegal).
The Southern practice of sharecropping was a partial solution for keeping poor workers on the land. Peonage (where workers were paid so little that they could never get out of debt to their employers) was practiced primarily in the South, but also practiced in migrant labor camps and in company towns in various parts of the country where employers needed laborers for agriculture and coal mining.
After listening to a program on NPR (The Story?), I am convinced that just like Americans who looked the other way during the colonial period, we too are looking the other way. A woman was describing her recent experience in the poultry industry and you would have thought that it was a slave narrative. I guess what believe is we don't call it slavery any more.
Last edited by thriftylefty; 10-08-2013 at 11:29 AM..
Yes, that is consistent with the history I have read as well. We have been conditioned to equate slavery with giant plantation because of media like Gone with the Wind, but historically it seems that most slave-owners only owned a handful of slaves at most.
The other factor here was the old south was a very well defined heirarch socially. They chose to emulate the English model, with a very advantaged upper class to a virtual slave class. In England this would be the poor who worked in factories or went to the poor house. Neither was desirable or held any power. There was a trade class who had respect but were clearly less important than the planters. Not only did the end of slavery and the war change the lives of slaves, it also changed the lives of the trade class and the white skilled worker. When it came back together, there were people with money and large estates, but they got their by commerce, not inheritance. The poor, black and white. dissapeared into serfdom. They rewrote the levels but in very different ways.
After listening to a program on NPR (The Story?), I am convinced that just like Americans who looked the other way during the colonial period, we too are looking the other way. A woman was describing her recent experience in the poultry industry and you would have thought that it was a slave narrative. I guess what believe is we don't call it slavery any more.
The difference today is these kind of jobs can made the rules and if you don't want to follow them there is the door. But if its the only way to make money to feed your kids, then what do you do?
There are many ways of corecion, holding people as slaves, holding their little house on a bribe if they don't work, or showing them the road if they choose to complain. No matter how many laws we pass, there will always be a way those without resources for more can be willingly 'owned'.
The difference today is these kind of jobs can made the rules and if you don't want to follow them there is the door. But if its the only way to make money to feed your kids, then what do you do?
There are many ways of corecion, holding people as slaves, holding their little house on a bribe if they don't work, or showing them the road if they choose to complain. No matter how many laws we pass, there will always be a way those without resources for more can be willingly 'owned'.
Sad but true.
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.
