A few thoughts on all this now that I am at a computer.
1: Was slavery enormously profitable, Yes, Would it have remained profitable if it had continued? Surely. Were machines antithetical to slavery. Of course not. Slaves worked in mines, factories, on railroad and steamboats all over the South.
2: Does southern agriculture mechanize after the War? No, not until after WWII and then some. Even if it had, why would that make slavery unprofitable? Mechanization might have lowered the need for slaves in some sectors, but that would only mean that more southerners could afford them, and that would have only strengthened slavery.
3: Was there any movement to end slavery in the South? We know there was not.
So, when might slavery have become and economic burden? Hard to imagine. It seems perfectly reasonable to think of slaves in Birmingham's steel mills in the 20th century.
Also, all these questions ignore two others.
First, there is the issue of life style. Southern masters had a wonderful lifestyle (if you did not worry about the moral issues). Slaves at the beck and call; women available for any man who wants one with no questions ever asked -- which was something the non-slaveholding white men could also take advantage of. To give up slavery was to give up a level of service that no one else in the world had. No diapers to change -- ever -- no nanny to hire or fire; never have to cook a meal or wash a dish; you don't even have to nurse your own babies -- there is a slave wet nurse for that.
Second, there is race. The Confederate States were quite open about their racism. Consider Vice President Stephens's position: "Our new government is founded upon . . . its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. " It is racial subordination as much as slavery that motivates secession. Remember, the South will not give up segregation until the 1960s and then only when forced to do so. It is hard to imagine any southern white leaders -- or voters -- moving to end slavery.
One post suggested that "hundreds of thousands of blacks" might have gone to Liberia? On what boats? How many ships were around to move them? Who would pay for it?
A quarter of a million southern men were willing to die (or were conscripted to die) to preserve a nation whose "cornerstone" was slavery and racism. Does anyone think the South would have voluntarily rid itself of slavery?
*************************************************
Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208
518-445-3386 (p)
518-445-3363 (f)
[log in to unmask]
www.paulfinkelman.com
*************************************************
________________________________________
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Craig Kilby [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 4:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] The Peculiar Institution's End Without The Intervention Of The Civil War
Lyle,
I think there is little doubt slavery would have come to end. The more interesting question is how is how and when. Wold the American Colonization Society have deported hundreds of thousands of former slaves to Liberia? How would that have impacted Liberia? (They were jubilantly expecting an infusion of 100,000 former slaves based on Mr. Lincoln's first proposals in this regard....but then again that is not the question).
How would this have affected American social dynamics? Civil Rights? Desegregation?
Fascinating to play "What If"
Craig Kilby
P.S. You should have known this thread would have been hijacked when you hit the send button!
On May 7, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Lyle E. Browning wrote:
> ALRIGHT YOU LOT,
>
> Stop hijacking my original post's intent;) I'm not concerned with why people fought. That they did is evident.
>
> What I am concerned with is whether the mechanization of farming would have resulted in the destruction of slavery. If you look at the census figs, some 70-90% of the population at any given time were on farms until the 20th century. Now it's about 3%. If that trajectory had followed WITHOUT the intervention of the Civil War, slavery would, in my view, have become superfluous. Slaveowners bought and used people because until the second agricultural revolution that brought animal power and towed equipment into the picture, they were all that they had. And due to the peculiarities of some of the southern crops, intensive hand labor was needed. But if you progressively add equipment that paid for itself quickly, did more per day and did it more efficiently and with less cost than slaves could do it, it seems to me that even the dimmest person would at some point see that keeping all those folks housed, fed and supervised, not to mention the social issues raised by bondage, would make no economic sense.
>
> So can you please respond to that thesis and turn your considerable guns upon it rather than the usual arguments;)
>
> Lyle Browning
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
