- This topic has 4 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
…..and what would the result have been? Had slavery been prohibited within the entire British kingdom, or had the triangular slave trade not been feasible for some reason – or whatever reason – how would this have changed American society? Who would have filled the role of slaves in agrarian development, especially in the South? I'm interested in hearing what people have to say.
? Who would have filled the role of slaves in agrarian development, especially in the South?? I'm interested in hearing what people have to say.
Just like today there are those who fill such jobs. I like to refer to them as the 'Tom Joads' of the world. Poor uneducated folks who are looking for what ever work they can to feed there families. There are no slaves now, but the rich build their wealth on the backs of the poor, I believe thats what they would have done then if slavery hadnt existed. Of course I am mainly refering to the south because the north was already doing it.
I think you're right about this one. Simple supply and demand suggests that the agrarian roles that slaves unwillingly played would have been filled by others. Perhaps this would have led to a greater population of indentured servants. Whichever the case, as demand for cotton went, plantations would have offered wages to workers to man the fields, and the workers would have migrated to those areas where work was offered.Something that would have resulted from this, though, would have been that the price of cotton would have been higher than it was, since the cost of production (including wages paid to workers) would have been higher. This in turn would have made the price of clothes and other cotton-based products costlier. I'm not sure how much exportation the South was engaged in, but if memory serves me correctly it traded with Europe. This might have been reduced as Southern cotton plantations couldn't produce at a rock-bottom price. Then again, with a lack of essentially "free" slave labor (notwithstanding the price paid to purchase slaves), Southern plantations might have looked for alternative means for cutting costs, resulting in greater innovation and technological advancements. This might have offset the cost of paying cotton worker wages. It's an interesting "what if?" scenario.
Then again, with a lack of essentially "free" slave labor (notwithstanding the price paid to purchase slaves), Southern plantations might have looked for alternative means for cutting costs, resulting in greater innovation and technological advancements.? This might have offset the cost of paying cotton worker wages.? It's an interesting "what if?" scenario.
I think it would have equaled out in the end. The money spent buying and caring for slaves (and I use the term caring loosely) probably would have equaled what they would have paid the workers in the end. All they would have had to do was pay them. With slaves they had to feed them, provide shelter, medical attention, pay someone to watch them (and punish if needed). Granted this would be those who owned the big plantations and many slaves but still who knows, it might have even been cheaper to hire then to own slaves. We all know picking cotten dont pay much, I've heard all the stories from my grandparents. Even I when growing up spent some time in the orchards with my parents and I can assure you they never got rich, they earned just enough to get us to the next orchard.
If there had never been slavery in the South the South would have probably ended up looking much like the North – an area of small farmers and entreprenuers. The biggest change would have been the lack of a planter aristocracy that made the concept of physical work and making money anathema to most white male Southerners. The literature about the antebellum South written by outsiders is replete with accounts of the complete unwillingness of the white male population to do anything that could be consider labor because that was something that slaves did. If you have ever read de Touqueville's “Democracy in America” you should remember his comparison of the two banks of the Ohio River – on the north bank there were neat, well-kept farms where the buildings were solid and well maintained while the south bank was covered with ramshackle hovels, a real “Tobacco Road” scene. People forget that it was commonly accepted that slavery was not a viable economic system – and it wasn't – until the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 which increased productivity by such a huge amount that it suddenly became not only profitable, but immensely profitable. But not only did it destroy the motivation of most southern white males to work, it also resulted in the plantation owners being in virtual indentured servitude to the factors who bought their cotton on credit and then used that credit to purchase the luxuries that supported the planters' lavish life style. Read the letters of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and other large slave owners. They knew that slavery was not only morally wrong but that it was destroying the South, but at the same time they were afraid to end it because they didn't know any other way and, this is the really scary part, what to do with all the slaves? They couldn't send them back to Africa – it cost too much. They couldn't replace them with free labor – the work was too physically demanding. That was why they resorted to slavery in the first place. They tried to raise cotton, rice, and indigo with indentured servants – kind of a time-limited slavery – but the climate made the labor-intensive work too man-killing. They couldn't just free the slaves – slave rebellion was a constant fear that makes the current fear of terrorists seem ridiculously trivial. There only option was to stay the course and try to force the North to join them by opening up the whole country to slavery. The end result was the Civil War because, once again, trying to force your social or political structure on somebody else never works.
If there had been no slave trade in the South, the South would have urbanized more quickly because the romanticism of the land would not have been as great and unlanded jobs such as manufacturing would have been seen as more honorable. Part of the reason the South lagged behind the North economically was the fact that so many folks in the South aspired to own a large plantation with slaves so to be a part of the gentry class. Southerners were more class conscience than Northerners were seeking symbols of status and the notion of performing backbreaking manual labor was repugnant to them (though most Southerners owned no slaves and had to work exceedingly hard). Still the average Southern man imagined himself owning a large plantation farm and counting the heads of his slave “herd.” Also, had the South never adopted chattel slavery, it would not have been as expansionist as it was during the early years of the 19th-century. The misperception of the slavers was that if slavery did not expand geographically, it would be hemmed in by the free states and strangled out. This was not the case, but in the slave holders' minds, it was very much a real threat. Furthermore, had there been no slavery, the South would have developed more economic diversity allowing Southerners to remain independent of Northern textile manufactured goods or from British imports. The South probably would have been able to compete with the North on a more level footing which would have made the American economy more robust and threatening to Continental Europe much earlier than it was. Finally, had there been no slavery, the South would have been a more open society willing to adopt social and technological changes more readily since the paranoia and fear associated with protecting the peculiar institution would not have been present to impede progress. 🙂
So lets turn the question a bit, say it had been abolished during the countrys struggle for independence or shortly there after, how would the legacy and the bigotry effected the south? would the civil rights movment had come along earlier, if at all?
So lets turn the question a bit, say it had been abolished during the countrys struggle for independence or shortly there after, how would the legacy and the bigotry effected the south? would the civil rights movment had come along earlier, if at all?
In this case I think that any "Civil Rights Movement" would have been of much lighter scope than it was. First, blacks would have had more rights to work, own property, and so forth for many more years in the U.S. than they did (about 70 to 75 years earlier than it actually happened). Second, you wouldn't have had such deeply-rooted antagonism or ideology towards blacks. Think about it - the South's drive to protect its institutional slavery seems to have gone hand in hand with its drive to protect its internal affairs from federal influence. The longer these were under attack, the deeper these views became. If slavery had been abolished in the 1790s, ingrained feelings of bias and racism would not have been as widespread or as strong as they became by the 1850s. I'm not sure if blacks in England went through a similar "Civil Rights Movement" in the U.S., but slavery was eventually outlawed there and there seems to be much better race relations in that country.
I'm not sure if blacks in England went through a similar "Civil Rights Movement" in the U.S., but slavery was eventually outlawed there and there seems to be much better race relations in that country.
That would be an intresting thing to look into. It might give us a good parallel to look at. Maybe Hobilar can give us some insight.
Now that I consider it I wonder – if some pestilence had hit cotton crops in the early 19th Century, would slavery have remained as popular as it was, dwindled down in popularity, or ceased altogether? From what I understand cotton crops were really the driving force behind the use of slaves.
