Historiography by Liam, 2016 - 2017
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
Palmer Smith
11/17/2016 09:58:43 pm
I agree with Liam and Stampp’s view of the insitution of slavery that you put more in than you will get out but I also can see how Phillip's viewed it because during this time period it was all about money, but only if I throw away all my morals. Stampp concluded that slaveholders spend more money on clothing, food, and shelter for the slave than the profit they will make. Due to the influx of immigration from Germany and Ireland, the demand for jobs rapidly increased and slaves took those low wage jobs immigrants could have benefited from. But I also see the unmoral way Phillip’s was looking at the matter. During this time period, 60% of exports were cotton and slaves were the ones planting and harvesting it and if slavery was abolished, the southern economy and northern cities would have crashed.
Reply
kevin willis (im sorry about this I got carried away, my final answer is I the last sentence)
11/18/2016 07:53:17 am
I agree with Liam in the fact that slave labor, as it was, was costly and detrimental to the American economy. Although the economy took a heavy blow with its removal, especially the south. It can be related to a nicotine addition(long shot), the person will represent America as a whole, the brain will be the upper middle class, and the organs will be the common people. When you smoke endorphins are produced in the brain causing a pleasant feeling. The endorphins represent the economic gain that the select upper class got from slavery. Although its a good feeling the body takes some pretty severe damage in the process, we'll connect the worsening of the lungs to the worsening of the job market for the common man. And finally we will connect the addictiveness of nicotine to the traditional and habitual nature of the South's slaves. Its definitely a one sided deal between the brain and the lungs, as it was between the upper and lower classes. When you quit something addictive the body, especially the brain will go through symptoms of withdrawal. The U.S. government was afraid of this withdrawal, or economic hardship that would follow the abolition of slavery, so it was extremely clever in dealing with the issue. While slavery against any free man was abolished in the 13th amendment, it was made clear that criminals were fair game. This amendment would serve as the nicotine patch for America, a patch we would never stop using. This loop hole has been exploited to this day, it effectively took the slavery issue and put it out of sight and out of mind. Prisoners are forced to have at least one job in all federal prisons were they make at maximum 5 dollars a day making products such as license plates, clothing and textiles, and office furniture. This is extremely profitable for the select few, making 388 million a year. This system only promotes large scale incarceration and the sectioning off of jobs that could give work to the law abiding unemployed. So in conclusion I believe that slavery was an economic deficit to the South's economy, due to the job opportunities that it sectioned off from the middle class. But, our economy does still use the crutch of slave labor, except it is hidden behind bars and low pay.
Reply
Madison Wessells
11/18/2016 08:47:43 pm
I agree with Phillips’ thought that African slavery was an economic necessity in the American South. Although the first slaves arrived in America in the early 1600s, that population remained small until the 1680s when slaves were needed to replace indentured servants on southern tobacco plantations. Slaves were also needed on rice and indigo plantations. After the invention of the cotton gin, more and more cotton was planted, and slaves were needed to work in the fields. Without slave labor, the economy of the plantations and, in turn, the economy of the entire region, would not have grown. As the economy grew, banks were more willing to loan money for even further expansion. Slave owners were also able to trade slave labor for needed materials and services or to pay a debt. Because slaves were seen as personal property, they could be used as security in business deals. State and local governments took into account the value of slaves when assessing taxes. In time, the North argued that Southern slaves who were not permitted to vote should not be counted for tax purposes and for determining the number of representatives in the House. The South benefitted when the issue was resolved via the three-fifth compromise, allowing slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person and giving more power to slave-states. For all these reasons, it can be said that slavery played an important role in the growth of southern economy.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
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 |