Would Slavery Have Ended Without the Civil War?

The Civil War ushered in a new era of freed slaves and economic expansion for the United States. During the mid 1800's slavery was a profitable investment but becoming less and less profitable. Plantation owners were trying to maximize their profits which caused a lot of morality issues as well as economic issues. The advent of new technology and factories caused a lot of room for expansion and investment, which was more profitable than, the agriculture businesses of the South. Due to increasing public pressure and the beginning of highly efficient factories, slavery would not have been viable for much longer than the 1920's had the Civil War not been fought.

If the civil war had not been fought is it possible to conclude that slavery would have persisted until at least the 1900's. Slavery was barbaric and immoral at almost all levels; the economics of slavery have to be looked at from an economic perspective and also a moral perspective. The popular opinion of slavery was dwindling around the world; England for instance looked down upon slavery, and often would require its satellite colonies to discontinue slavery. Slavery would not have continued as America evolved into an industrial nation. Slavery was labor intensive and often not as efficient as creating new technology and expanding production to multiple crops. It's not to say that the boom in technology would have happened if not for the Civil War but it is safe to say it was inevitable as businesses grew.

Psychology of the American people is something that cannot be ignored when looking at slavery economically. Starting in the 1820-1830's the Southerners were looking for excuses to justify slavery; often using quotations from the bible and bending them to fit their views of the necessary evil as they called it. "They found citations in the Bible that were interpreted to sanction and command slaves to obey their masters" (Heilbroner, Singer 135). The South was getting desperate to justify slavery to themselves and the rest of the world. The Dutch and English were now against slavery thus making the South in a bad public position in the world.

The cotton industry was expanding in the 1850s substantially however the North was still leading in making more profit. The reason the North was making more profit is because they controlled trade and used tariffs to make sure they were getting the best deals. Farming equipment, because of tariffs, had to be purchased from the North to the South instead of from England. Products were cheaper abroad, however the North made sure they were getting the best deal by charging huge taxes on the imports. By the 1860's the cotton industry was reaching its peak and its eventual decline had the Civil War not taken place; the South would have started to modernize and diversify which would have required somewhat skilled labor. Slaves had to be constantly monitored which means that the more complicated the tasks become, the harder it is to use slaves.

Slavery during the 1860's was becoming less of a profitable investment for the investors of the time. Agricultural slavery profit maximizes when the labor concentrates on one crop and the job is simple. Technology makes slavery very inefficient when the overseers' of the slaves have to monitor their activities. Simple tasks make profit maximization easy, however when skills have to start being used or there are multiple crops being produced it is hard to monitor the slaves activities. Slavery is argued to slow down technology growth because instead of increasing the inefficiency of labor the owners of slaves would just purchase more slaves. America however was not slowing down its technological advancements thus creating less of a need for slaves with new technology.

New Technology and economic expansion would have made slavery obsolete in an evolving economy. The south was dominated by large plantation owners who owned the vast majority of the land and the market. Diversification of land was starting to become an issue in the late 1800's; the less affluent people of the south wanted their fair share. Henry Grady was a man who was vying for economic expansion and northern capital flow into the South, he describes the "New South" as a place for economic expansion without slavery, "The Old South rested everything on slavery and agriculture unconscious that these could neither give nor maintain healthy growth. The New South on the other hand, would be characterized by a hundred farms for every plantation, fifty homes for every palace and a diversified industry that meets the complex need of this complex age" (Heilbroner, Singer 145-146).

During the mid to late 1800's another producer of cotton rose up, thus making the need for slaves decline. India was growing in the cotton business fast, exporting, 102 metric tons in 1850, 250 in 1863 and 326 in 1905. India was a less expensive exporter for England, thus causing the cotton industry of the South to die naturally due competition. The opportunity cost was becoming too high for most investors of the southern plantations; they put their money into railroads, steel and many other industries; most turning a very high profit from their new investments. The use of slavery was no longer efficient as it once was; the country was growing at a considerable rate, and demand now shifted to railroads and other expansion. Robber Baron's started to dominate the landscape of American investors; they often worked as bankers or business men.

The United States went through some very rough patches after the Civil War, recessions and low paying jobs often left the lower classes with very little. Robber Barons (businessmen and or bankers who made a lot of money in the nineteenth century), were men who used their wealth in fair and unfair business practices during the middle to late 1800's. The Robber Barons' led us into the boom of the 1920's and the great depression. The reason Robber Barons' are important with the ending of slavery is simple, these people wanted to maximize their profit while putting very little of their own capital on the line, which is exactly what slavery was accomplishing during its early stages in the Americas. There was now a new way to make lots of money fast, slavery would have peaked out, and now there were new more profitable investments. While America was concerned about slavery, the Robber Barons made fortunes in new industries. Investments shifts and mindset changes would have caused slavery to be taken over by a new line of highly profitable investments.

The New South was indeed growing, slowly following reconstruction. The large plantations were not at a loss for their recently freed slaves; as the slaves had little to no money to move. Some slaves went north, however a vast majority of them could not afford to leave as they had families, so, the result was sharecropping. Sharecropping is a practice when a man would work a piece of land for the owner and then at harvest the owner would get one half to two thirds of the crop leaving the worker with little. This practice of sharecropping left a lot of blacks unable to pay off their land fast as they had other debts, thus keeping them tied to the South for many years to come. Sharecroppers unlike slaves did not require upkeep from the owners of the land; sharecroppers were dispensable especially with the amount of freed slaves with nowhere to go.

Slaves were considered property which meant that their upkeep was important to the slave masters. Slaves had to be treated relatively well with a good diet so that they would be able to work as hard as they could without dying or getting sick. Slaves were treated on comparable conditions to the working class of the North; they both did not have much and often toiled for long hours with no pay or almost no pay. The importance of looking at the working/poor class of the North is to realize that if the morality of slavery is an issue, then, what about the working "slaves" of the North? Northern workers were often put into harsh working environments in factories that required long hours, dangerous work settings, and no help when the work day was over. The managers of these factories did not care about their workers well being very much, because there were plenty of immigrants coming in to take their place. Slavery would not have died out until the conditions of the North improved; slaves were often treated better than these workers.

Slavery was looked down on since colonial times; it was becoming unpopular in the North and occasionally in the South. Abolitionist movements caused a sway of public opinion to change and also demonstrated that slavery was not a liked institution. The abolitionists' used religion to sway their opinion, "Slavery was a visible blemish on the republican complexion of the nation. It was sinful they argued, to stand by idly while a disease like slavery poisoned the body politic. Americans could atone for their sins only by immediate repentance: the instantaneous and uncompensated emancipation of all slaves. Abolitionists punctuated their arguments by quoting the Declaration of Independence and by advancing religious views" (Heilbroner, Singer 135). The rising abolitionist movement started to sway public opinion against slavery by conversing on their core values as Americans, democracy and religion. The changing psychology could have led to boycotts of the South's' products that used slave labor, and or exports from the North. A conflict against the South was inevitable due to public opinion of their slave labor, and the North's over bearing taxes and tariffs.

Slavery was becoming an outdated institution since industry and factories started to maximize profits for investors. Supply and demand would have eventually discontinued slavery; new technology would have made the supply of cotton or another crop increase while the demand for labor would have gone down. Diversification could have been achieved thus maximizing profits. Agriculture was becoming another institution of the past in America. Less than half the country was involved in agriculture during the 1900's thus would have lessened the need for slave labor. Slaves were a necessary tool in building America in its early stages, however when technology evolved so didn't the need for slaves. The psychology of Americans in general would have eventually pressured the South in freeing their slaves. The slaves would eventually become sharecroppers which would have served the same purpose, since, sharecroppers would not have made enough money to move let alone pay their own debts. Slavery became outdated resembling a lot of technology that we have seen in our lifetime such as typewriters, landline phones and gasoline powered vehicles. The latter is in the process of being replaced. Slavery if looked at from a view of property was just another necessary tool in building the country, but is not needed forever and would eventually be replaced; such as the previous inventions that we relied on so much, but, then were replaced by something better. The same would have happened to the slave industry. Slavery was replaced by technology thus eliminating the cost benefits of slavery.

Bibliography

Jung, Jewon. Industrialization in India from the late 1800s to 1947 . November 2008. 2008 .

Lagerlöf, Nils-Petter. Slavery and other property rights. 2009 .

MERRITT, RAYMOND H. "Technology." History Channel , 2008.

Robert L. Heilbroner, Alan Singer. The Economic Transformation of America: 1600 to the Present. n.d.