Slavery in the United States - Essay Example

Slavery in the United s: To what extent was it a harsh but profitable Historians have long discussed the role of slavery in the agricultural boom of the 1700-1800s in the southern United States. In terms of national history, few disputes have been as hotly contended as the utilization of slavery for economic prosperity and the justifications that utilization entails. Although historians discuss the institution of slavery in terms of human rights and race issues, slavery in the United States has primarily been interpreted by historians as the economic issue that it was. Influential thinkers of the field, such as Peter J. Parish, Ulrich B. Phillips, Gavin Wright, Fogel and Engerman, have concluded their theses as proponents or challengers of slavery as an institution, not on moral grounds, but mainly on principles of economy. The discussion, however, whether slavery was economically profitable, has not concluded in agreement. Historians have argued over the relative profitability of slavery and the economic factors which must be analysed in order to prove that profitability. It is generally agreed that cotton production propelled the economic growth of the southern United States, which simultaneously spurred the growth of capitalism within the United States.1 But the relative degree of profit the slaveholders themselves gained through the process is questioned. Moreover, the severity of slavery itself, within cotton plantations during the 1700s and 1800s, is an issue where historians have equally not been harmonic. The harshness of the institution is the specific issue whereby historians have debated whether blacks were better off as slaves than freemen. Simply put, the relative profitability of slavery and the harshness of it are intertwined. Featured within profitability is analysis of who profited from the institution of slavery and what their profit was. Slavery developed for plantation holders to be a profitable tool in the production of cotton, involving the planting, tilling, harvesting, in short, getting the crop to market. As an institution within agriculture, specifically cotton production, slavery became as profitable as it was because of the particular time and place wherein it occurred: cotton plantations in the southern United States during the cotton boom. Slavery would not have been a profitable activity under other circumstances, and minus the lucrative potential of owning slaves, the practise of slaveholding could only be explained as a ruthless, indefensible act of tyranny. Phillips delineates upon the existence of slavery within civilization in terms of economics: In barbaric society slavery is a normal means of conquering the isolation of workers and assembling them in more productive coordination. Where population is scant and money little used it is almost a necessity in the conduct of large undertakings, and therefore more or less essential for the advancement of civilization.2 Slavery served a definite purpose. The South, with its fertile soils, ideal climate, and long growing season, was the ideal environment to profit within.3 In order to develop that opportunity, large numbers of workers were necessary. In Slavery: History and Historians, Parish expands on Southern agriculture in order to prove that cotton and slavery went hand in hand. Corn was a staple crop of small farmers. However, it did not lead to much profit. Cotton, on the other hand, was profitable, but costly, and ran more risk. Cotton plantation owners, as slaveholders, countered the risk by keeping large numbers of slaves and thereby controlling the allocation of labour according to market activity.4 Gavin Wright calculates that "when output is valued at market prices, cotton comprised about one-quarter of the output of typical slaveless farms, but three-fifths or more for the largest slaveholding cotton plantations." A large quantity of labourers and efficient cotton production went hand in hand to insure market profit. Slavery was profitable because of the demand for cotton. The supply and demand of slaves, as goods in themselves, were inextricably linked with the market fluctuations of cotton.5 In the middle of the nineteenth century, slave prices were at an all time high.6 Fearing that the market would burst, periodicals printed advertisements while editors warned that "The old rule of pricing a negro by the price of cotton by the pound-that is to say, if cotton is worth twelve cents a negro man is worth $1,200.00, if at fifteen cents then $1,5000.00-does not seem to be regarded."7 Head-prices on slaves were defined by cotton because workforce was integral to production. Slavery worked under the auspices of agriculture, where manual labour was necessary. Here enter those historians who argue slavery was not economically profitable. Plantation owners had to maintain a workforce. They needed insurance on their crops, and that was the physical presence of labourers. For this reason, slaveholders were forced to invest huge amounts of their capital in order to maintain their workforce. Dr. Thomas Cooper referred to the cost of rearing a slave, in argument that slave labour was costlier than paid labour, and maintained that slave labour could not be defended in a point of economy.8 Other historians, including James H. Hammond, likewise agreed that "as a general rule, free labor is cheaper than slave labor."9 Another motivation for utilization of slave labour was that the Southern population in itself was hardly sufficient for cotton production. Hammond maintained that in order to achieve the ideal workforce, and in order to reach the full-potential profit of a cotton crop; logistics necessitated the continuation of slavery.10 Although slaves were slaves, some historians maintain that the ownership system assured blacks a high quality of life. In Phillips' chapter on Business, the prudent economics of slave health are amplified, in unapologetic defence for slaves being treated as machinery: "The maintenance of the slave at the full rate required for the preservation of lusty physique was essential. The master could not reduce it below that standard without impairing his property as well as lessening its immediate return." Phillips explains the slaveholders' outlook on the investment, that "In his teens the slave's earning would gradually increase until they covered all his current charges, including the cost of supervision; and shortly before the age of twenty he would perhaps begin to yield a return to the owner." Other historians perceive Phillips' straight economic outlook as deplorable.11 N.A. Ware, a Southern writer, offers succinct and poignant words over the relative 'profitability' of such the detestable practise of slavery: When slavery shall have run itself out or yielded to the changes and ameliorations of the times, the owners and all dependent upon it will stand appalled and prostate, as the sot whose liquor has been withheld, and nothing but the bad and worthless habit left to remind the country of its ruinous effects. The political economist, as well as al wise statesmen in this country, cannot think of any measure going to discharge slavery that would not be a worse state than its existence.12 Since the antebellum period, historians have discussed the economy of slave labour. Some argue that blacks were better off as slaves than as free men, under the philosophy that a worker needed to be cared for and his ability to labour assured. This assertion, made most notably in Time on the Cross by Fogel and Engerman has been a point of serious contention. Black historians find offence at their ideas. John D. Smith, a historian on slavery, explains that "Although some black historians did refer to slavery as a school, most found the analogy repulsive. That Negros were content as slaves, they said, was a white man's myth."13 The debate here is the obvious misalignment to argue that slavery was at once slavery and a simultaneously munificent relationship. Slaveholders are far from benefactors to the African people. As Parish writes, "Any benefit to the slave, indeed, was purely incidental."14 Still others chime in when discussing the profitability of slavery. Why only blacks as slaves, if the institution was so lucrative All southern white men were not rich plantation owners. There were poor white men to work the soil. George Frederickson, a Southern historian, pointed out that "If white slavery had been profitable, it would have been introduced."15 Slavery did not thrive because of its profitability, but due to the ability of many men to become apathetic to morals in view of market efficiency. Racism aside, what were the effects of overworking blacks for hours upon hours Was slavery profitable for the South Jesse Burton Harrison relays that "it causes exhaustion of the soil by reason of the negligence it promotes in the workmen and discourages all forms of industry but plantation tillage."16 On the other hand, Harrison also alluded to the wide held belief of the era that the plantation slave system was advantageous to the slaves, for their incapacity to succeed in any other labour markets, like industry. Without involvement of a staple portion of the southern states' population, the south was unable to enter into industry. While the northern states enjoyed the industrial boom of the period, the South lagged behind. Parish explained the paradox, that "On one hand, there is a strong presumption that slavery imposed a certain rigidity and inflexibility upon the Southern economy, that the dead weight of the slave system prevented the South from seizing new opportunities."17 The southern states developed a dependence on slavery as the only means to make a marketable profit on their land. The profitability of slavery in the southern United States during the 1700s and 1800s has been questioned extensively. Cotton production, which thrived during this period, necessitated an enormous workforce, as the majority of cotton crops were held by plantations and not small farmers. In order to assure that their agricultural investments would be taken care of, plantation owners desired to control labour. The practise of owning slaves grew with the increased production of cotton, and perpetuated amplification of the other as complimentary tools: labour times land, to make a profit. To take care of their land, slave owners needed to also heed the care of their workforce. The capital that they invested back into the slaves is a main point of argument whereby historians and economists discuss the use of slave labour as a replacement for of free labour. Although the slave labour system seemed to guarantee workers adequate clothing, food, housing, and medical care, it is difficult to argue that slaves were 'better off' as slaves than free men, because economically speaking, they had no independence whatsoever. In fact, the contrite way in which economic historians have defended the use of slavery as an institution by which to achieve profit has often offended other historians. Other than the food and housing benefits to slaves or the economic profits of slaveholders, slavery has also been discussed in terms of the profitability it lent to the South. Most agree that the South, although its economy propelled for its ability to produce cotton at the right time and place, created problems for itself. The South's economic dependence upon the cotton crop, and the practise of utilizing slaves in order to complete the cycle, hindered their progression to industry. Although profits were gained for certain plantation owners, in the long run the South pigeonholed itself into an economic way of life that it could not maintain. Read More