Value Of Slavery To The Southern Economy example essay topic

How Important Was Slavery to the Economy of the Southern States? Advanced Higher History Dissertation Whether slavery was profitable is one of the key questions that over time, historians have tried to answer. The relevance of this question to our field of study is that slavery was an issue that played an essential role in causing the American Civil war in the 19th Century. The issue is whether it made economic sense for Southern landowners to keep slaves. People have debated this fact since the end of the Civil War in 1865, the general view of slavery was that conditions were poor, treatment cruel and the slave life was very harsh. Economists and politicians throughout the mid-nineteenth century have debated whether slavery was economically profitable.

Historians have simply added to the debate. Much depends on defining who slavery was profitable for, the slave, the slave owner or the South as a whole. Much of the debate about whether slavery was profitable for the slave has already been defined, as to whether slavery benefited individual slave owners; this will be outlined later. However, a far more interesting debate is that of which this dissertation will discuss, to what extent did the Southern economy gain or lose out due to slavery. It is possible to say that slavery was a good business proposition for the Southern slave owner but for the South on a whole, this is debatable, this was most definitely the view of most ante-bellum Northerners. Since the Civil war a number of historians like Farmer and Phillips have argued against the Southern apologists that slavery was economically valuable.

They state that slavery slowed down the economic growth of the South and that it did not fully utilize the potential skills of the labour force that the slave owners had available to them. Arguably though, it can be said that it helped bring manual labour into disrepute amongst Southern Whites, this in turn helped to undermine the work ethic. In continuation of this debate, it can be said that slavery did not benefit the non-slave holders either. It is also possible to claim that slaves were a poor capital investment and that the Southern economy would have benefited more from money being invested in manufacturing and transport. Slavery may have imposed a certain rigidity upon the Southern economy, ensuring the South opposed Industrialisation and remained solely dependent on staple crop agriculture, primarily cotton.

The first slaves arrived in America in 1619, these twenty black West Africans were sold to farmers in Virginia, the Slave Trade had begun. In the colonial period America suffered from sectionalism which divided the country economically, socially and politically. In 1787 George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton masterminded the United States Constitution. Although Uniting the majority of American people it did not heal the sectional differences. By this time, the Slave Trade had developed extensively in the South.

The climate and farming land was more suited to Plantation farming here and saw large trade farms build up with the hard and tedious labour being carried out by native Africans stolen from their homeland and sold to wealthy American landowners. By 1660 it was clear that African slaves were being brought to America to be used as cheap labour on large Plantation farms, harvesting, cotton, tobacco, sugar and rice. By the early nineteenth century the slave trade was flourishing, there were roughly 800,000 slaves in North America working in the flourishing colonies. However, the import of slaves from Africa ceased in 1808 when the Slave Trade was banned. This only made the import of slaves from foreign continents illegal, not the continuation of slavery within the United States, hence, Virginia became the chief exporter of slaves to the Deep South. Although by the mid nineteenth century slavery was flourishing, the numbers of slaves in the North had greatly decreased, 90% of slaves were now held on small Plantations in the American South with between five to fifty other slaves.

The first state to abolish slavery was Vermont in 1777, other Northern states followed until America was divided equally with 11 slave states and 11 non-slave states. It is believed that by 1860, the number of slaves in America had tripled due to inter-breeding from 1.2 million to 4 million. Despite the popular vision of Southern agricultural life, the large majority of the white population held no slaves. In fact by 1860, of the 1.6 million white families only 384,000 owned the slave population of 4,000,000. At this time 88% of slave-owners owned fewer than twenty slaves and 50% owned no more than five. By the nature of the topic, writing about slavery is both partisan and contentious.

The pre-civil war debate between supporters and opponents of slavery can be said to have continued long after the war was over. The supporters were still the Southern apologists and fire-eaters. The opposition were still mainly the Abolitionists, with the leading figures still Frederick Douglas the former slave and William Lloyd Garrison. A further example would be John Brown the Northern abolitionist who was infamous across America at this time after his famous raid at Harper's Ferry and his murder of five young pro-slavers in Kansas. Slavery played a dominating and critical role in much of Southern life, in the struggle for control in the United States, slavery was the Southern offence and the hidden motive behind many political actions and economic statistics. Whilst dominating aspects of Southern life, slavery also developed an overwhelming hold on the Southern economy and politics from 1840 to 1860.

At this point in time, the Southern economy had become more or less solely dependent on Plantation grown cash crops. Therefore, without slaves, farmers would be landless and penniless. Even by the 1830's slavery had become central to all aspects of Southern life, land distribution and ownership was even dictated by slave owners. Despite the economic advantages and disadvantages of slavery there was another reason for white land owners keeping slaves, in his book, "Slavery", Stanley Elkins states that, 1 "A mans social and political position in the South was influenced by the number of slaves he had in captivity". Therefore it is plain to see that the small class of slave owners and it was small, dominated the economic, political and intellectual life of the whole white Southern population. However, although slavery may have dominated the Southern economy and been an over-riding policy in American Politics, only two thirds of the population were in fact slaves, the dominance came from the high demand for the products of the fields slaves worked in.

With the high demand from Europe and North America for Sugar, Tobacco and mostly, Cotton, the slave industry simply grew and grew. 75% of these slaves were involved in agricultural work with the remaining 25% involved in domestic service and other industries. It is clear to say that Slavery was a huge economic necessity in the South, one Georgian editor stated that Negro slavery is the South and the South is Negro Slavery. Another example of how profitable slavery was to the South is the huge value the slaves were given at the numerous slave auctions. A young male or female with a particular trade in good health could fetch anything upwards of $1500. Particularly prime young men and women who were experienced in the cotton trade.

These slaves were named by their owner and were priced according to their details. At a slave auction, leaflets with slave details, in particular, age, price and remarks from the wonder, wer handed round the potential buyers. There was an obvious divide in Northern and Southern rural land usage, the North favouring wheat and corn whereas almost every state in the South had Cotton plantations, continues this idea of slavery being so important to the Southern economy. It is thought by most historians that slavery could only ever have dominated in the South as conditions and dependency were more suited to its 'Peculiar Institution'. Some historians felt that to answer the question of whether slavery was profitable to the South, they have to answer the question, if slavery was profitable, who to.

The controversial historians Fogel and Engerman, stated in their book, "Time on the Cross" (1974), that slaves were permitted to keep 90% of their own labour. However like most of their wild claims, this too has been dismissed. As to the issue of whether slavery was profitable to the slave owners, this answers itself, it must have been or why would they have owned slaves. Owning slaves managed to increase the prosperity of the Southern Cotton industry, by owning slaves the amount of cotton grown increased and hence profits grew. The Landowners, on average would not have many costs for their slaves.

They would provide basic food and shelter, some of course would be treated better than others, but unfortunately these were more often than not an exception to the norm. Slaves were treated cruelly throughout their life, their were harsh injustices carried out against the blacks, rape, murder, assault and racism were carried out without hesitation. Alan Farmer, however states that often, slaves who worked hard, (stuck to their strong work ethic) were rewarded with holidays, clothing, food and sometimes their own garden plot or allotment. The social side to slavery was that, to be prosperous and to become prominent in the ante-bellum South, one needed to be a slave owner. Slavery had an effect on all members of the Southern population, labour organisations though were so clearly backward in comparison to the North.

The rising price of slaves as mentioned previously proved that slaves were considered a good investment; a well-trained slave in your possession was a valuable asset. However, some historians feel that although the slave owner benefited from slavery, perhaps the Southern economy on a whole did not. In 1857, a Southerner called Hilton Rowan Helper, "The Impending Crisis", argued that slavery was, 2 "responsible for the economic decline of the South". The North in the late 1700's had gone through a period of economic depression but in the 19th century had peaked again, 80% of Industrial factories in America were in the North with the majority being in the North Eastern state of New England. Although the South had factories, in fact, the 4th largest Iron Works in America existed in Virginia. Helper also said that slavery had, 3 "retarded the progress and prosperity of our part of the union".

Helper was a poor white Southerner, who although opposed slavery, was a racist and despised the black slaves. U.B. Phillips a 20th century historian supports Helper's view stating that slavery was a heavy burden for the Southern economy and its people to bear. Eugene Genovese an American historian refers to slavery as a liability to the South. He like the others claim that slavery undermined the strong Protestant work ethic that existed so strongly in the North but appeared to be lacking in the South. However, historians like Stampp, "Peculiar Institution", Conrad and Meyer who all argue that, slavery was an efficient and vibrant economic organisation.

Cotton prices like that of slaves were rising across Europe and so the export of Cotton crops to other continents was extremely profitable to the South. Fogel and Engerman, although dismissed by most modern day historians stated in their book, "Time on the Cross", that, 4 "slavery was both efficient and profitable". They also say that slavery contributed to the to the rapid rate of economic growth and progress in the South. However, high regional expansion rates, the apparent value of slavery all relied on the continuing worldwide desire for cotton. By the late 1830's it was the common opinion that slavery was no longer a necessary evil, in fact slavery was no longer considered wrong at all, they began to defend the Institution valiantly and in new ways. Thomas R. Dew a Southern Priest stated that, 5 "slavery was a necessary stage in human development".

However, this argument fell apart as if true, why didn't whites endure a period of enslavement. The famous Southern Senator, John C. Calhoun, backed up Dew's ideal arguing that slavery was a positive good. The main argument put forward by the South was the idea of 'Southern Paternalism', where the blacks benefited from captivity, they would be looked after by their master and in turn would become more 'human'. In reality the argument is laughable, as the blacks were already men and women Many argue that the South did not lag behind the North, instead, the South saw no great need to Industrialism as Slavery kept the economy prosperous enough. As previously mentioned though, Richmond, Virginia was the home to Tredegar Iron Works, the 4th biggest Iron Works in America. It is stated by Farmer that slaves also worked in Industry as well as Agriculture so the Southern economy may have seen slavery develop extensively in Industry also.

The role played by slave labour in the economy helped increase the effect of slavery on Southern life, although the blacks were a minority in the work force and the plantations only 18% of the Southern agricultural units, the slaves did produce a large bulk of the section's marketable surplus. From the plantations came the money which helped fuel the economy, this paid for necessary imports and maintained the service sector. Surely then, slavery in the ante-bellum South was a profitable practise, the period of the 1850's had been one providing massive profits for slave owners as the demand for raw cotton had been high. Thomas Govan said in relation to the Southern economy that, 6 "real and personal estate value soared from $2.8 billion to $6.2 billion in 1860". This again helps us come to the conclusion that slavery did indeed benefit the Southern economy, but there may have been other factors influencing this. In particular slavery became most profitable in the late 1850's when the worldwide desire for cotton was at its highest, it was estimated that between 1830-1860, the global demand for cotton grew at 5% per annum.

However, the growth rate from 1866-1895 was less than 1.5%. U.B. Phillips conceded that by the end of the Civil war the high prices of slaves and the high value of Cotton would have dropped, 7 "slave prices had risen to immoderate heights, but in the mid 1860's a crash was bound to come". Phillips also stated when talking about slavery that it was only profitable solely in relation to the relative prices of cotton and slaves. Since the ratio of slave prices to cotton prices was much higher in 1860 than in 1815, he drew the conclusion that, 8 "by the eve of the civil war slavery would have become unprofitable". It was true that the textile Industry was facing a cyclical downturn by the mid 1850's and there was a great drop in worldwide need for cotton, henceforth the profitability of slavery would drop. Henry Commager, another American historian gives an accurate account of profitability of slaves, firstly he states that the profits received by the South from slavery helped change public opinion towards it. The High price of slaves hence shows that slavery was profitable, it doubled between 1850 and 1860, slave children were also seen to be on average more popular than more mature slaves.

Another example of the potential profitability of slavery was the fact that a Southerner would make more from slave investments than a Northerner would make on rail track bonds each year. Finally, Commager concludes by saying that by 1861 the Southern economy had expanded extensively due to profits from cash crops being invested into slaves. By 1800 slavery had been thoroughly adopted into the Southern way of life, this was mainly due to the Industrial Revolution In America and the introduction of the Cotton Gin by Whitney in 1793.50% of Cotton came from three main Southern States at this time, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, this Cotton was primarily harvested by black slaves. However, the main 'Cotton Kingdoms' developed in West Georgia and South Carolina.

The best profits were made through the extended Plantation system along with Negro slavery. King Cotton came 'hand-in-hand' hence by 1830, slavery had become the economic back-bone of the South. Because slavery differed from plantation top plantation and state to state it is difficult to describe the Institution, as there are so many differing viewpoints towards it. The ante bellum South was primarily an agrarian way of life, slavery had long since taken root and the anti-slavery opinions were only at their strongest in areas of the North. The Southern people were regularly harassed by native Indians and threatened with the possibility of slave rebellions. The territories in the South were scarcely populated and their communities were centered primarily around the teeming Plantations.

However, with the news of Gabriel Prosser's plot for a revolt in 1800 and the success of Toussaint L'Overture's Haitian slave revolt caused great concern for the Southern population, they began to set up local militias and arm themselves. One Southern politician said, "the only men without one weapon are those with two". This is the first real example of a major negative effect of slavery on the Southern economy. The cost of large scale armaments to the Southern population and the creation of militias would set back the economy. This also caused crime rates to soar and repression against Americans of African descent to rise too, Harriet Beecher Stowe summed up the feelings of a slave living in America at this time perfectly in her book, 'Uncle Tom's Cabin'. 9 "There never was a slave who did not feel it.

Deep, deep down in the dark still waters of his soul is the conviction, heavier, bitterer than all others, that he is not regarded as a man". Beecher Stowe met Lincoln at the beginning of the Civil War and Lincoln was heard to say, 10 "so you " re the little lady who wrote that book that made this great war". These two sources are another example of slaverie's hold on the South and the extent to which it altered events all over America. An example of this was the increasingly commonplace practice of dueling, a wife told her husband as he left to duel, "she would rather be the widow of a brave man than the wife of a coward". Aaron Burr challenged Alexander Hamilton, (a man of African ancestry) to a duel. Hamilton shot in the air not wishing to harm Burr but was mortally wounded in return.

Another effect on the economy would be the lack of educated individuals able to work in particular fields, slavery again played apart in the poor education in the South. There were already three times as many illiterate Southern children as there were in the North, however, due to the development of military academies in the South to combat the threat of slave revolts, less children were receiving a proper education. This was extenuated by the arrogant and often rebellious nature of the "Southern Genteel", the Southerners often felt the inclination not to sponsor the United States' government tax program. The considerations for new lands after the Mexican war increased most planters' determination to expand their slave holdings. The South had made it perfectly clear before the war that their particular desire for the lands of Texas was to develop it as a slave state and extend the Cotton Industry, as the farming land was excellent. After the war however when the Wilmot Proviso failed the South began to become more aggressive in their expansionist activities, slogans promoting, 'manifest destiny' became more common, the South now had its sights on Mexico, Cuba, Central America, the Northern areas of South America and the Caribbean.

Simultaneously, the gap between the North and South was widening with both public and political opinions becoming increasingly polarised. Thus, the Southerners began to seriously consider Secession, this was a clear result of slavery, again this goes back to effects on the economy of the South. Leaving the Union would have huge economic costs and damages on the Southern economy, firstly the actual cost of officially seceding from the United States and setting up a new government, constitution and carrying out all the necessary conventions and meetings necessary to achieve the poling results to reach a state of an Independent South, however, in a way the concentration on Secession after 1850 did halt the majority of the Southern expansionist schemes. In relation to Secession, it shows how and why various states seceded, South Carolina had a population with 57.2% being slaves, in turn they were the first state to secede on December 20th 1860 and had a 100% majority vote in favour of secession. The next state to secede was Mississippi on January 8th 1961, they had a population with 55% being slaves. So this proves that the Southern states with a large number of slaves in their population valued slavery so highly that they were prepared to secede if the Institution was threatened.

The Deep South on average had a state population comprised of roughly 45% slaves. Another interesting fact is the small number of slaves owned by farmers, 66% owned less than twenty slaves and 99% less than a hundred. Population of more than five hundred was very rare, only 14 so called millionaires enjoyed this luxury, therefore, it was more the simple yeoman farmers rather than the plantation owner who owned blacks. They worked the arid land unaided, this was typical of the ante-bellum southerner, the small yeoman farms made up 82% of the Southern agricultural units, this hints that slavery was of paramount importance in the economy of the South. In conclusion, it is fair to say that slavery was a moral evil in the eyes of the North and a necessary economic industry in the eyes of the South. However, the un-biased view point in my opinion is that slavery was far more than simply an economic matter.

The Institution had an overall effect on all aspects of Southern and in part Northern life. Slavery was maintained in the South because it had become central in Southern life. Slavery had begun by 1860 to shape the way Southern politicians and in a new way the Southern public felt. The slave Institution was at the core of the Southern existence and was required to keep the Southern economy afloat. The abolition of slavery would mean the social upheaval and destruction of a way of life. Slavery could be described as invaluable to the South, many like Phillips, Stampp and Elkins felt that the South would have not managed without Slavery not necessarily due to its value but because Slavery had become such an essential part of Southern life and was intertwined throughout their society.

Slaves themselves throughout the ante-bellum period proved to be a good investment and were profitable to their slave owner. The various arguments put forward by the South and the extent the South went to, to protect slavery proved the value of slavery to the Southern economy. Rory Bris by 6 C 1 3808 words

Bibliography

Books Farmer A. - The Origins of the American Civil War Helper H.R. - The Impending Crisis Phillips U.B. - Stowe H.B. - Uncle Tom's Cabin (Primary Source).