Initially, slaves gave better labour on rice, indigo and tobacco plantations than white indentured servants did, making the growth of slavery valuable for plantation owners looking for maximum profit with the minimum input. Due to soil depletion in the upper South towards the end of the eighteenth century necessitating the change from labour-intensive tobacco production to crops like fruit, vegetables and grain, it became economically sound for the planters to free their slaves. It was just at this time, however, that cotton production - requiring a large amount of unskilled labour - in the lower South began to rise, greatly increasing the demand for slaves. As demand for cotton grew, the plantations moved westwards, the migrating planters often buying excess slaves from the upper South. Slaveholding enabled the plantation owners to increase their cotton acreage and consequently their profits. As the demand for slaves continued in the 1850s, slave prices rose, suggesting they were a good investment to make. It has been argued that the South would have benefited from investing in manufacturing and transport since they had to rely on importing manufactured articles, but it cannot be denied that at the time the cotton industry was booming, making slaves a valuable investment. It has also been argued that slavery caused the South to become static, since the institution as a whole was not adaptable to large towns and cities – where slaves would become exposed to ideas of freedom and much harder to supervise – causing Southerners to remain dependent on the demand for cotton while repelling any move to a more industrial society. However, slaves were used in factories and in coal mining in other areas of America - slavery was adaptable - but while the demand for cotton continued; and the Southern economy continued to grow; there was simply no need for the South to consider moving from agriculture to industry. The other criticism made of slavery as a profitable institution was that lit did not utilise the skills of the labour force, but the counter argument was that if slaves were freed they would want to work for themselves, not a planter, just as the slaves in the British sugar islands had once they were freed in 1833.
The criticism of slavery as not utilising the skills of its work force can also be used in a discussion of slavery as a benign institution. While slaves were described as having a primitive, even savage, background, in reality it stemmed from diverse and often sophisticated tribal cultures. The horrific journey of the ‘Middle Passage’ and the further shock of then being sold into slavery is said to have left Africans newly arrived to America uprooted and without culture. Although the slave trade was made illegal in 1808, the slave population in America continued to grow and the initial restriction of culture later changed into a restriction of personality. In most states it was illegal for slaves to learn to read and write, and they were left untrained to ensure that they remained as slaves. As was written in ‘De Bow’s Review’ at the time, it was believed that “whenever a slave is made a mechanic, he is more than half-freed”. Supporters of slavery have argued that there was variety and organisation in the work of slaves, with possibilities of promotion or rewards – such as extra clothing, better food or even garden plots - for hard working slaves. To counter this argument, however, it has been said that it was possible to subvert the system; for example by working slowly or pretending to be ill; so that less hard-working slaves could still gain the benefits intended for others.
It has been said that slaves worked no harder than the majority of 19th Century Americans, and were generally allowed Sundays off, as well as some holidays. In reality, slaves worked longer days – “from day clear to nightfall” – and in harsher conditions. Most planters ruled by a combination of fear and discipline, for example slaves could be flogged, although often planters avoided this as their slaves were, after all, their property, and needed to be maintained. For slaves one of the greatest indignities of their condition was probably that they were classified as property – the only exception being when it was of benefit to their white owners for them to be considered people. So slaves could be found guilty of crimes although they had little hope of prosecuting someone themselves, especially if they were trying to bring a case against their owner; and they were counted for taxation and representation purposes, although even then only as 3/5 of a free man, and they were not permitted to vote. Still, it has been argued, slaves had security; they were provided with clothing, food and lodging, and cared for by their owners. The reality was that most slaves felt very insecure. They were completely reliant on their owners, who could punish them, separate them from their families, even kill them with few, if any, repercussions.
One of the main arguments used in support for slavery is that few slaves ran away, and there were very few attempts at a slave rebellion. This evidence can be used to support the claim that slaves were happy with, and accepted, their position in the society of 19th Century America. To counter this, however, it has been shown that slaves, when offered the chance of freedom during the Civil War, generally took it. It has been suggested that the majority of slaves did not attempt to escape because it was almost impossible for them to do so. Since the vast majority of African-Americans were slaves, it was very difficult for escaped slaves to conceal themselves, since black people at that time were always assumed to be slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law, passed in 1793, gave slave owners permission to follow their escaped slaves over state lines in order to recapture them, even if slavery was illegal in that state, meaning that escaped slaves were never safe. While the ‘Underground Railway’ existed, it was not as efficient or successful as its supporters claimed. Since there was little chance for a whole family to escape together, slaves often chose to stay where they were, with their families. Towards the middle of the 1800s, restrictions on slaves tightened as their owners became more frightened of rebellion after the Nat Turner rebellion in Virginia, in 1831. White patrols were undertaken and any slave suspected of plotting a rebellion faced death, resulting in the death of many innocents. By the 1850s manumission had become much less common, as laws had been passed which severely restricted the rights of Southern planters to free their slaves. Even if slaves were freed, they were generally required to leave the state, separating them from their families. For this reason slaves could decide not to take freedom.
For the above reasons, it can be concluded that slavery in mid 19th Century America was certainly not, as the South claimed, a benign institution. Perhaps the most important comment that can be made with regards to this fact is that the racist views held by Southern planters at the time were carried through American society, causing segregation and prejudice for much of the next century. What is harder to determine is whether slavery was a profitable institution, since to some extent it was. For the Southern planters, and the Southern economy at the time, it was profitable. Slaves were a good investment and their labour was invaluable for supplying cotton. However, for the slaves themselves, slavery was completely unprofitable. They worked hard for very little, or no, gain to themselves. So, in conclusion, there was some truth in the Southern claim that slavery was a profitable institution – for the people who were making the claim – but as one slave mistress observed, for the slaves themselves, “They’d just as life clean the mud after themselves as [do] anything else – their time isn’t any value to themselves.”
Sources:
‘The Penguin History of the USA’ – Hugh Brogan
‘The Origins of the American Civil War 1846-1861’ – Alan Farmer
‘The Debate on the American Civil War Era’ – Hugh Tulloch
