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 read a book recently that got me thinking. The discussion of slavery was a very small part of the book, but the author's premise was that slavery was a dying institution and would have ended fairly soon had the civil war not been fought. Initially (1600s era) (according to him) slaves weren't brought over to be "cheap labor", there was simply no labor to be had and slaves were the only "production option" available. By the mid 1800s, slaves were not cheap (purchase costs were several thousand dollars, in 1850 era dollars), the owner had to pay for their food and shelter, provide for them when they were too young or too old to work, etc. As such, there was a considerable cost. Once a good supply of "free" manual labor (primarily immigrants) was available, they could be hired for a cost lower than what the actual cost of slaves were. There was no need for the business owner to pay for their food, shelter, the raising of their kids or care for them in old age. As such, employees were less expensive than slaves in the long run, and the institution had pretty well "run it's course". The premise was that slavery would have ended because it wasn't economically viable by the mid-late 1800s.
Is there any truth to this premise? And if so, when would slavery have "died out" on it's own, without the slaughter of the civil war, and the decades of harm it did?
None of the above is a justification for slavery, it's abhorent. I'm simply interested with the historical implications.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 09-26-2013 at 10:11 AM..
Slave owners were very powerful people. The reason so much is known about the institution of slavery is so many high profile men depended of the slave economy. I suspect slavery would have endured long past its economic feasabilty artificially due to the fact that up until the civil war the slaves were the most reliable place to put your money, which is why some blacks and Indians held slaves.
IMO the Civil War disrupted the slave econmy to such an exstent that it devalued slaves. The economics were ruined but wealthy and powerful people in the North and the South still have a taste for the social system that lasted so long.
IMO, slavery in the US would NOT have ended without the Civil War because slavery wasn't just an economic system, it was a system of social control. Whites in the antebellum South lived in fear of slave rebellions, with the successful slave revolt in Haiti a recurring nightmare for Southern whites that was worsened by the discovery of the Vescy conspiracy in 1822 and later by Nat Turner's actual rebellion in 1831.
That Southern states very quickly established "black codes" that were essentially the old slave codes with references to "slaves" removed almost immediately after the Civil War speaks to the social control aspect of slavery. These new codes were one of the reasons that Congress implemented the much harsher "Congressional Reconstruction" in 1866. De jure segregation, peonage, poll taxes, literacy tests, lynchings, and other forms of terrorism against blacks that were intended to keep "blacks in their place" were only ended in the South in the 1960s with the intervention of the federal government again.
Thinking that the South would have willingly given up slavery at some point because that made economic sense is being naive. Most people won't do what's in their economic self-interest when it wars with their view of the world and the social order.
BTW, at the time of the Civil War, it was illegal in most states that allowed slavery to free slaves.
Thinking that the South would have willingly given up slavery at some point because that made economic sense is being naive.
It isn't naive, it is revisionist. The issue for the slave holding powers in the south wasn't the abolition of slavery but was the Republican opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories. Slavery in 1860 was still a growing proposition with the slave population growing at a steady rate. In Texas the slave population grew from 58,161 in 1850 to 182,566 in 1860. More telling in Missouri the population grew during the same time period from 87,422 to 114,931. From an economic standpoint, by 1860 production from slave labor amounted to 75% of all U.S. exports. There is no evidence that slavery would have ended absent federal abolition.
Why would you need slaves if you had a tractor? Slavery would've ended because it would no longer be economically feasible to house and board an obsolete labor force once 20th century technology came along.
of course it would have ended without war.....the civil war wasn't just fought over slavery.
If Portugal and Spain who by far owned most of the slaves brought to their colonies in the New World from Africa ended it without a war and those countries depended on slavery for their economies especially with their sugar crops far more than the U.S. then why not the U.S.? but our civil war was more about than just slavery.
The U.S. only owned 5% of the 12 million slaves brought from Africa to the New World.......the majority went to Portugal, Spanish and British colonies in the new world like Brazil and the Caribbean islands.
I have recently read a book, oral history from slaves, written in the 30's. There were no stories about horrific abuse, most of the slaves talked about being well cared for, having new clothing, food prepared, holidays.
Oen talked about how he felt it was easier, he always had food, a place to live, money for extras. Some of the former slaves almost seemed nostalgic.
It was a different perspective than we usually see or hear about. I was really prepared for a book about abuse. It was obvious the writers were asking the elders about abuse, trying to find the 'evil' we all hear about, but in the book, the elders usually said, 'sure, that happened if you were bad', and they skipped it.
I don't know if slavery would have ended. It seems like some slaves were content.
Slaves were treated way better in the U.S. than any part of the New World colonies and way better than in Africa. That's why Portugal and Spain had to bring millions of slaves from Africa to their colonies because they were dying fast and slaves didn't last long under those conditions.
The U.S only had 5% of all the slaves brought from Africa to the New World. Life expectancy was much higher in the U.S. (because of generally better food, less disease, lighter workloads, and better medical care) so the numbers grew rapidly by excesses of births over deaths, reaching 4 million by the 1860 Census. From 1770 until 1860, the rate of natural growth of North American slaves was much greater than for the population of any nation in Europe, and was nearly twice as rapid as that of England.
Of all the slaves from Africa brought to the New World here is the breakdown:
Destination of African imports (1519–1867) est. 12 million African slaves Destination Percentage Portuguese America 38.5% British America (minus North America) 18.4% Spanish Empire 17.5% French Americas 13.6% British North America 6.45% English Americas (United States)
3.25% Dutch West Indies 2.0% Danish West Indies 0.3%
One might think that the United States was the worst country in the world when it comes to slavery during the building of the NEW WORLD by watching Hollywood exploit slavery with white guilt and the political correctness police of our country..... But the fact is the U.S. had a minimal part in slavery during that time compare to what went on in the rest of the Americas.
Brazil and the Caribbean islands were the last place you would want to be if you were an African Slave during those times.
Slaves were treated way better in the U.S. than any part of the New World colonies and way better than in Africa.
Wow, sort of like being in Flossenbürg was so much better than being at Dachau
Quote:
One might think that the United States was the worst country in the world when it comes to slavery during the building of the NEW WORLD by watching Hollywood exploit slavery with white guilt and the political correctness police of our country.....
Simply ineffable... considering Hollywoods copious catalogue of titles from Birth of a Nation up to and past Gone with the Wind.
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.
