Some Difficulties of Abolishing American Slavery

Our nation holds a unique place among the countries that ended slavery in the 19th century, as it was the only one in which the institution of slavery was defeated as a consequence of warfare rather than of enforced diplomacy. Why did America dawdle so much longer than Britain (and many other places) on the question of slavery? The social, economic, and political circumstances of America prevented the slave trade from ending there until the civil war came about and followed its course.

The main reason slavery went on so long in America was simple - economic prosperity in the southern states also meant prosperity in the northern ones. Economy is an amazing thing; its effect on the socio-political topography is tremendous, and this period of history is no exception. The southern states' plantation-driven economy afforded the slave owner a kind of aristocracy built not of blood, but of money. It is no wonder that they would wield so much political power in their day. "Plantations based upon the profit motive fostered mutual dependency between slaves and slaveholders, as well as natural antagonism"(1) This was an important, if ironic hurdle to be overcome: the slave had, over time, become part of the organic chemistry of the economic sector in America, and so no one could bear to lose the money and power this chemistry afforded them. For example, The South produced four million bales of cotton in the year 1860, and had 60 percent of the nation's pigs and half of its cattle.(2) So this condition made any indirect pursuit of abolition impossible, because the most indirect yet sure way to control any group of people is through their pocket-books. Partly because of Britain's economic habits of gathering in raw materials from outside herself and turning them into refined goods, the plantation economy did not prosper as it did in America. Also, America had much more agricultural space than Great Britain, and it was fully taken advantage of. Not to mention the fact that this British mercantilism contributed to the American export economy, which in turn supported many slave programs.

Economic situations exert great control over public opinion, but political institutions weather and change public opinion. As the issues regarding the civil war came to a head, the pursuit of the unification of North and South in America became the most important political issue, and abolition diffused somewhat from American thought. In other countries, such as Brazil, revolution and warring took place after the freeing of slaves and sometimes because of it.(3) The important thing to note about this is that the political leaders in other places were allowed to deal with slavery on its own terms; President Lincoln would not have that particular benefit in his decision-making: "If all earthly power was given to me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution."(4) Slavery was something Lincoln had to use in a counterbalancing way for the preservation of the union - as leverage- and until the war got moving along, he was pro-slavery, though that changed somewhat whenever he heard or read reports of black soldiers' victories in the field after he decided to allow them to fight for the union. "[When] Lincoln presented his plan for gradual compensated emancipation in border states, he did not defend it on humanitarian grounds... the plan as an indispensable means of preserving the union as 'One of the most efficient means of self-preservation.'"(5) America was in a perilous position as a nation, and every decision was made in fear of loosing border-states and causing more damage to the Union. This was yet another factor which prevented the United States from abolishing slavery as quickly as other countries, and hinged on the difference between state-sanctioned abolition, and federally-imposed abolition.(6) This is a factor that no other country had to contend with, as most other countries were monarchies without a strong checks/balances system of government, and so were not on the verge of collapse because of public opinion as so often happens with democracies. In Britain, slavery was settled primarily on a legal precedent. A clerk who taught himself law was defending blacks and involved himself in a trial concerning "the question of Steuart's right to sell Somerset into the West Indies. Lord Mansfield ruled in favor of Somerset on the grounds that slavery 'is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law.' There being no such law in England, 'the black must be discharged.' This decision freed an estimated 15,000 Africans..."(7) This was a very strong precedent, and helped pave the way for Britain's decision to end slavery the world over, which was implemented with abandon. American lawmaking had slavery drawn into it, and so this made a precedent which was difficult to overcome. As Roger Teney wrote, "...there are two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically... one of these clauses reserves to each of the thirteen states the right to import slaves until the year 1808..." (Opposing viewpoints, pg.151) He was of the opinion that since it was stipulated (never mind the time limit) in the constitution that this trend should continue.(8) It could be said that the American abolitionist started out on bad footing.

Politics and social attitudes interact in a marvelous way, with one feeding off of the other. The difference between them is that public opinion is not an institution unto itself in the way that laws and lawmaking are, and so once laws are established, public opinion generally begins to build toward what is legal as a consequence of acceptance. Partially ecause of legal precedent, Americans felt there was a strong distance between blacks and whites and that in all ways whites were superior. Of course, this was exacerbated by prohibiting the black person from reading or writing or learning arithmetic and these are fundamental things for abolition to take place - if there are millions in a group, and they can all write letters to this or that representative, chances are, they will be heard eventually. And so, with only whites to do their reading and writing for them, many black folks were not only hindered intellectually, but even cut off from their primary benefactors! In other parts of the world at the time, it was not uncommon for the slave to be illiterate, but the gulf between well-educated whites and slave blacks was very deep.(9) The social prejudices inherent in the American system began to be dispelled (this appears to be a most important factor) as Lincoln allowed blacks to join the union army. "...evidence suggests that the use of black troops and their credible performance breached the high wall of race prejudice and visibly affected Lincoln's attitude toward the blacks in America."(10) This made America rather unique, because in a way, these particular slaves were given a chance to prove themselves (to the federal government), while in other places freedom came about as a consequence of things arranged beyond the scope of the ordinary slave. The depth of this topic is quite substantial, and so it is difficult to give full and just treatment of it here. In every way, sociological, economic, and political problems hindered the freedom of the slave. Regardless, it is quite unfortunate that American abolition occurred as a product of war rather than of diplomacy or sound reasoning.

Sources:(1),(2): G.B. Tindall & D.E. Shi, America, A Narrative History, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2007)

(3): BBC News, "Timeline: Brazil", Country profiles and timelines, available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1231075.stm

(4),(5),(6): George Sinkler, The Racial Attitudes of American Presidents, (New York, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971)

(7): Marjie Bloy, Ph.D. "The Anti-Slavery Campaign in Britain", The Victorian Web, literature, history, and culture in the age of Victoria, [documents on-line]; available from http://www.victorianweb.org/history/antislavery.html

(8): W. Dudley, Opposing Viewpoints in American History, (New York: Greenhaven Press, 2007), 151, Roger Taney, Constitutional Rights Do Not Extend to Blacks (Previously unpublished)

(9): Tindal, G.B. & Shi, D.E.. America, A Narrative History. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2007

(10): Sinkler, George. Racial Attitudes of American Presidents. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971.