This first passage I studied was an excerpt from the work American Negro Slavery and its author Ulrich B. Phillips. Phillips, a native Georgian, argues that the system of slave labor used prior to the thirteenth amendment, was an economic necessity in the American south. Phillips almost romanticises his interpretation of slavery as he describes the south. In his first argument, he ponders the success Texas would have enjoyed, had the spread of slavery through its lands not been interrupted by the war. Phillips then moves on to claim that slavery across the entirety of the nation was ceased to early, and that by doing so it stripped the nation of untold profits. The author then shifts to the shortcomings of prior methods of labor, including indentured servitude and the attempted enslavement of Native Americans. He argues that the ineffectiveness of these methods made the forced labor of Africans the clear and logical choice. Phillips explains that upon European colonization it became clear that the abundance of resources and fertile soil were ideal for the birth of a booming economic machine, however it soon became clear that the number of Europeans willing to venture to the New World were few, and even fewer were those outside the gentry willing to work the land of another man for fair wages. As previously stated, there was limited success with other methods, perhaps only with the exception of brief Spanish exploitation of particular groups of southern natives. It is this lack of a sufficient labor source, coupled with immense opportunity for economic success that, in the eyes of Phillips, made slavery an economic necessity.
The second author I studied was Kenneth M. Stampp, the author of The Peculiar Institution, a well known work recognized for bringing American slavery to the forefront of historical debate. Stampp attempts directly counter many of the vastly uncontested arguments of the pro-slavery writers before him, including Phillips. One of Stampp’s most powerful arguments comes in the form of weighing the economic gains versus losses associated with a plantation owner’s investment in slavery. Many of the studies conducted in the southern U.S. during the 19th century by agricultural and economic experts put forth the notion that such investments rarely resulted in major profit yields. Many of the true classic liberals, being staunch advocates for free markets and competition in the workforce and business also argued that the overall economic effects of this system were detrimental to the southern economy. Slaves were a major investment and although they were often not placed under the most ideal conditions, masters would still have to put forth funds to providing food and other basic necessities year round to protect their investments. This was potentially more expensive than paid labor. By largely excluding paid labor, the South was also struggling amongst its lower class citizens who were often able to find suitable jobs such as those filled by slaves. In counter to Phillips, author two points out that agriculture, including that in plantation format was successful in places like Virginia prior to the introduction of African slaves. Stampp argues that the institution of slavery was not necessarily continued due to its economic results, but rather because of its traditional and cultural implications. This is clearly a very sensitive and contentious topic in American history, and it was fascinating reading the perspectives of two influential authors at the forefront of this argument in a historical context. Clearly slavery was boasted as the backbone of the agrarian southern economy prior to the ratification of the thirteenth amendment, however I largely agree with Kenneth Stampp in his assessment that undermines the validity of the notion that such a system was an economic necessity. Although initially African slaves may have been a viable alternative to a volatile state of aggravated indentured servants and a lack of lower class workers, it is clear through Stampp’s research that slavery later potentially took away from viable jobs for an expanded lower class population (post greater immigration from Europe and elsewhere), and was as pointed out by experts at the time, extremely costly and in many cases not very profitable in regards to substantial growth of wealth. I would also agree with Stampp in his argument that the role of a slave owning plantation farmer became a cultural and family tradition passed down for its continuity of familiarity and tradition, rather than its financial benefits.
3 Comments
|
AuthorWelcome to Liam's Blog. Liam is participating in an independent study of history this year part of which requires him to interpret historical arguments. Archives
April 2017
Categories |