Slavery: Economics or Politics?
Here's the post I promised 
SilverLightStar.
Two related but contradictory threads have woven themselves into the discussions of slavery:
1) Slavery was not the cause of the war -- states' rights and/or economics was.
or
2) Slavery was the main cause of the war, but this was only because of economics.
Associated with this is the contention that slavery was about to disappear for economic reasons. There's a curious reversal -- slavery existed because it was economically necessary, and slavery could not exist for long because it was economically unprofitable. What a curious world in which both could be true at once!
But if there were some other factor -- something that held slavery in place despite economic considerations, than this conundrum can be resolved. I submit to you that this is true -- that the political and social issues at the time had more to do with slavery as it existed in 1860 than economics did. And thus, without a dramatic political change, slavery would be difficult indeed to get shut of.
The Civil War was dramatic indeed, and horrifically costly in our most valuable resource, our people. But it did achieve the result of making slavery no longer politically possible.
It's been argued by people with greater research than we here -- though perhaps not with more feeling. Here's a research paper (a PDF) that puts forward the view that slavery in the US at the time was, for the most part, a creature greatly of politics, and comparatively little of economics. I don't agree with all of its points, but it is in the main correct, I think.
Note that the research they're quoting doesn't suggest that slavery was about to disappear:They found that the percentage of free blacks in the population was shrinking and that there was nothing in the statistical record "to encourage the view that southern slavery was on the brink of its own dissolution."
And they discuss the difference between the free market system and the "peculiar institution" of slavery:First of all, it should be understood that slavery is a political institution that is based on the use of force, not contract." Unfortunately, it is not obvious enough that there is a world of difference between making contracts involving the exchange of labor for money and the institution of slavery where the individual is completely and perpetually subordinated to an owner or master. Market exchanges are voluntary with wages accepted demonstrating the highest valued option.
On Africa:The African slave trade is often thought to have been introduced
by Europeans as an instrument of capitalistic aggression. However, Robin Law has clearly shown that slavery existed in Africa long before contact with European traders.32 In fact, slavery was a central, indeed prominent, institution of African statecraft.
And here, they address whether slavery was about to come to an end before the Civil War:Despite all the supposed natural advantages of slave labor in the Southern antebellum economy, slavery was fleeing from both the competition of free labor and urbanization towards the isolated virgin lands of the Southwest. More importantly, the character of antebellum slavery had changed to reflect the "loosening of bonds." Slaves were given increasing responsibility, receiving professional training, and beginning to possess a good deal of independence and property within the plantation. Indeed, the slave was moving off the plantation, becoming in effect, free labor for hire. As Clement Eaton described:Behind the facade of increasing values of slave property there had been ceaselessly at work for at least two decades a slow and subtle erosion of the base of the institution. The disintegrating forces were strongest and most noticeable in the Upper South and in the towns and cities, where the growing practice of obtaining the service of slave labor by hire instead of by purchase was invisibly loosening the bonds of an archaic system
Despite the change in the character of slavery and the material economic improvement in antebellum slave life relative to other slave economies, very little progress had been made towards slavery's legal abolition. Although they were discussed, no emancipation or compensation schemes were seriously considered before the Civil Things also appeared bleak in terms of market-based emancipation. As Fogel and Engerman noted, the percentage of the free black population in the South actually fell from 1830 to 1860. Kenneth Stampp also concluded that "[There was no evidence in 1860 that bondage was a 'decrepit institution tottering towards a decline'" and that there was no "reason to assume that masters would have found it economically desirable to emancipate their slaves in the foreseeable future."
Slavery, according to these authors and in my view as well, was changing but not on the brink of disappearing. The politics of the day were keeping it alive. Unfortunately.
===|==============/ Level Head
SilverLightStar.
Two related but contradictory threads have woven themselves into the discussions of slavery:
1) Slavery was not the cause of the war -- states' rights and/or economics was.
or
2) Slavery was the main cause of the war, but this was only because of economics.
Associated with this is the contention that slavery was about to disappear for economic reasons. There's a curious reversal -- slavery existed because it was economically necessary, and slavery could not exist for long because it was economically unprofitable. What a curious world in which both could be true at once!
But if there were some other factor -- something that held slavery in place despite economic considerations, than this conundrum can be resolved. I submit to you that this is true -- that the political and social issues at the time had more to do with slavery as it existed in 1860 than economics did. And thus, without a dramatic political change, slavery would be difficult indeed to get shut of.
The Civil War was dramatic indeed, and horrifically costly in our most valuable resource, our people. But it did achieve the result of making slavery no longer politically possible.
It's been argued by people with greater research than we here -- though perhaps not with more feeling. Here's a research paper (a PDF) that puts forward the view that slavery in the US at the time was, for the most part, a creature greatly of politics, and comparatively little of economics. I don't agree with all of its points, but it is in the main correct, I think.
Note that the research they're quoting doesn't suggest that slavery was about to disappear:They found that the percentage of free blacks in the population was shrinking and that there was nothing in the statistical record "to encourage the view that southern slavery was on the brink of its own dissolution."
And they discuss the difference between the free market system and the "peculiar institution" of slavery:First of all, it should be understood that slavery is a political institution that is based on the use of force, not contract." Unfortunately, it is not obvious enough that there is a world of difference between making contracts involving the exchange of labor for money and the institution of slavery where the individual is completely and perpetually subordinated to an owner or master. Market exchanges are voluntary with wages accepted demonstrating the highest valued option.
On Africa:The African slave trade is often thought to have been introduced
by Europeans as an instrument of capitalistic aggression. However, Robin Law has clearly shown that slavery existed in Africa long before contact with European traders.32 In fact, slavery was a central, indeed prominent, institution of African statecraft.
And here, they address whether slavery was about to come to an end before the Civil War:Despite all the supposed natural advantages of slave labor in the Southern antebellum economy, slavery was fleeing from both the competition of free labor and urbanization towards the isolated virgin lands of the Southwest. More importantly, the character of antebellum slavery had changed to reflect the "loosening of bonds." Slaves were given increasing responsibility, receiving professional training, and beginning to possess a good deal of independence and property within the plantation. Indeed, the slave was moving off the plantation, becoming in effect, free labor for hire. As Clement Eaton described:Behind the facade of increasing values of slave property there had been ceaselessly at work for at least two decades a slow and subtle erosion of the base of the institution. The disintegrating forces were strongest and most noticeable in the Upper South and in the towns and cities, where the growing practice of obtaining the service of slave labor by hire instead of by purchase was invisibly loosening the bonds of an archaic system
Despite the change in the character of slavery and the material economic improvement in antebellum slave life relative to other slave economies, very little progress had been made towards slavery's legal abolition. Although they were discussed, no emancipation or compensation schemes were seriously considered before the Civil Things also appeared bleak in terms of market-based emancipation. As Fogel and Engerman noted, the percentage of the free black population in the South actually fell from 1830 to 1860. Kenneth Stampp also concluded that "[There was no evidence in 1860 that bondage was a 'decrepit institution tottering towards a decline'" and that there was no "reason to assume that masters would have found it economically desirable to emancipate their slaves in the foreseeable future."
Slavery, according to these authors and in my view as well, was changing but not on the brink of disappearing. The politics of the day were keeping it alive. Unfortunately.
===|==============/ Level Head