• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Who could the southerners used instead of slaves?

Cainkane1

Philosopher
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
9,011
Location
The great American southeast
This is a what if question. What if slavery had been forbidden in the USA from the very beginning? Who could they have used instead of forced African slaves? Could they have hired someone to work the land and avoided the civil war altogether?
 
This is a what if question. What if slavery had been forbidden in the USA from the very beginning? Who could they have used instead of forced African slaves? Could they have hired someone to work the land and avoided the civil war altogether?

Or simply used voluntarily-indentured servants and/or criminals. I believe there's still a practice in much of the South of using convicted criminals for field work (see Cool Hand Luke).

Reconstruction probably provides a good model. Poor but free blacks were largely sharecroppers, working the fields for a share of the crops. This model lasted until the 1930s with the development (by John Rust) of a mechanical cotton picker.
 
This is a what if question. What if slavery had been forbidden in the USA from the very beginning? Who could they have used instead of forced African slaves? Could they have hired someone to work the land and avoided the civil war altogether?

Really a strange question...

If slavery was not allowed, then all endeavors would have proceeded without it; for better or worse, by whatever legal means were available ..

... And a civil war, based on the right to own slaves, would certainly have been avoided ..
 
Yes, the US may not have become as wealthy as it did. But we'd also be a very different nation if we hadn't killed off so many Native Americans with smallpox blankets and stolen their land.

Who knows what other pressures their might have been though? Without such a profitable cotton and tobacco industry in the south, it may have been much more sparsely populated by Americans and have been given over to Mexico without much fuss.
 
Or simply used voluntarily-indentured servants and/or criminals. I believe there's still a practice in much of the South of using convicted criminals for field work (see Cool Hand Luke).

Reconstruction probably provides a good model. Poor but free blacks were largely sharecroppers, working the fields for a share of the crops. This model lasted until the 1930s with the development (by John Rust) of a mechanical cotton picker.

The widespread use of convict labor stopped in the civilized southern states in the 1970s or 1980s. Many were not what you might think of as criminals but were "vagrants", i.e., people who could not show proof of financial solvency (I forget the exact amount). So, Blacks were not allowed to work most places. If they didn't have a job, they were vagrants. If they were vagrants, they were sent to jail. If they went to jail, they were assigned work on farms. So they had jobs, but weren't let out of jail. Voluntary?

My dad was one of the last old-time chain gang guards, ala "Cool Hand Luke". It almost broke his heart when they had to start obeying the law in treatment of prisoners.

I think LA and Mississippi still use prison farms (Angola and Parchman).
 
This is a what if question. What if slavery had been forbidden in the USA from the very beginning? Who could they have used instead of forced African slaves? Could they have hired someone to work the land and avoided the civil war altogether?
There is some evidence that suggests industry and yeoman agriculture might have fared better without slavery. Plantations would not have been possible. Imagine Thomas Jefferson having to hook up a team of horses and farm that poor soil on Monticello.
 
Really a strange question...

If slavery was not allowed, then all endeavors would have proceeded without it; for better or worse, by whatever legal means were available ..

... And a civil war, based on the right to own slaves, would certainly have been avoided ..

That is not quite true...

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

Top Five Causes of the Civil War
Leading up to Secession and the Civil War

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

2. States versus federal rights.

3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

http://www.ket.org/civilwar/causes.html

Though most of the reasons for Civil War (mainly slavery) may have avoided the conflict, still there would be other economical and factors such as the idea of state rights may still drive the conflict but it may not have last or was as bloodly as our Civil War.
Yes I admit that slavery was one of the main reasons but not the only reason.
 
That is not quite true...
How so ?

I said " if there were no slavery, then there would not have been a civil war, based on slavery "..

If there had been a civil war for other reasons - then it would have been for -----
" The envelope please ...."

Other reasons ...


P.S.

Your link is hardly an authoritative source, and looks to be a " The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery " apologetic site..

The top five should look like this..

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South. ( Cheap labor in the south ... in other words " Slavery )

2. States versus federal rights. ( A State's right to allow slavery ... in other words " Slavery )

3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents. ( ... in other words " Slavery )

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement. ( to end slavery ... in other words " Slavery )

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln... ( an abolitionist ... in other words " Slavery )
 
Last edited:
Various peoples have been used for cheap labor and are still being used for that purpose to this day. Couldn't poor people say from Asia have been hired cheaply? They couldn't be bought and sold but could you hire people from a very poor country for pay low enough to make a profit? Slaves were expensive to buy, feed and house.
 

How so ?

I said " if there were no slavery, then there would not have been a civil war, based on slavery "..

If there had been a civil war for other reasons - then it would have been for -----
" The envelope please ...."

Other reasons ...


P.S.

Your link is hardly an authoritative source, and looks to be a " The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery " apologetic site..

The top five should look like this..

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South. ( Cheap labor in the south ... in other words " Slavery )

2. States versus federal rights. ( A State's right to allow slavery ... in other words " Slavery )

3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents. ( ... in other words " Slavery )

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement. ( to end slavery ... in other words " Slavery )

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln... ( an abolitionist ... in other words " Slavery )

Slavery was a form of cheap labor, and who own the slaves. Mainly plantion owners. The reason to keep slaves was for economical reasons, cheap labor helps you make more profits. The people purposing to keep slaving going in the South were people who would have profit for it. Again, economical reasons.

From the links:
However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together.

Why keep slaves if you are not getting a good profit. Sure the South puts their eggs in one basket. But it was still economical.

On State rights, you know this also affects more then the issue of slavery. Look at the home page for instance, where California legalize medical marijuana but the Feds still busted a guy for selling it. Yes, it may not have applied at the time of the Civil War but it's effects can be felt today.
 
I think that the relevant question is:

Was it possible to have a successful economy without slaves prior to mechanisation?

I don't claim to know the answer to this question. But slaves may have made a portion of the population rich enough to have time for academic endeavours.
 
I think that the relevant question is:

Was it possible to have a successful economy without slaves prior to mechanisation?

I don't claim to know the answer to this question.

Given that I think the USA was about the only slave-holding nation left in the Western Hemisphere in 1860, I think the answer is a pretty firm "yes."
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom