An Alternative to the Civil War?

[Influenza]

It is commonly taught in schools that the Civil War was fought over slavery. However, we know that it was not the initial driving factor of either the North or the South - the South fought defensively. Despite this, the eradication of institutionalized slavery was the direct result of the Civil War. I do not personally justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of freed slaves.

Now this brings us to my primary question: Assume that after the South seceded from the Union, the Civil War never happened - that Lincoln just allowed them to secede. For how many more years would slavery endure in the South? I can't imagine a present day South with slaves working in the fields... Slavery would have had to end someway. How would it eventually end? Is there ever a viable reason to fight a war with the intention of freeing the inhabitants of another country?

 

[eduardo89]

Well, de facto slavery still existed in the one-party Democrat South well into the middle of last century...

 

[James Madison]

Three words: The Cotton Gin

Once again, the free market provides where the government fails.

 

[Origanalist]

For how many more years would slavery endure in the South?

It would not, could not have endured.

 

[Influenza]

Three words: The Cotton Gin

Once again, the free market provides where the government fails.

Are you wrong, or is wikipedia wrong?

Whitney's gin revolutionised the cotton industry in the United States, but also led to the growth of slavery in the American South, and has been identified as a contributing factor to the outbreak of the American Civil War.[SUP][4][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin

 

[Tod]

Cotton gin patented in 1794 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
Cotton picker patented in 1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_picker


The latter invention probably would have happened much sooner if the money and talent that both sides had spent on the war had instead been focused on improving productivity (slavery is very unproductive).....the South had every economic motivation to make the change to mechanization, but the associated technological advancements need to be made. Had that motivation been realized and the benefits understood, I would guess that mechanization could have been shifted back a couple decades anyway, but slavery would have been in operation up until machines were available and sharecropping would have hardly appeared at all.

 

[Tod]

Three words: The Cotton Gin

Once again, the free market provides where the government fails.

I think the cotton gin actually caused a boom in slavery, no? It made cotton a much more useful product.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It is commonly taught in schools that the Civil War was fought over slavery. However, we know that it was not the initial driving factor of either the North or the South - the South fought defensively. Despite this, the eradication of institutionalized slavery was the direct result of the Civil War. I do not personally justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of freed slaves.

Now this brings us to my primary question: Assume that after the South seceded from the Union, the Civil War never happened - that Lincoln just allowed them to secede. For how many more years would slavery endure in the South? I can't imagine a present day South with slaves working in the fields... Slavery would have had to end someway. How would it eventually end? Is there ever a viable reason to fight a war with the intention of freeing the inhabitants of another country?

The Civil War made everyone free-range slaves (outside of the government/crony classes).

 

[James Madison]

Are you wrong, or is wikipedia wrong?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin

To link the cotton gin with promoting slavery is absurd. If anything, the cotton gin is the invention that launched the Industrial Revolution, which ultimately made slavery obsolete. From the same article:

The cotton gin thus “transformed cotton as a crop and the American South into the globe's first agricultural powerhouse, and – according to many historians – was the start of the Industrial Revolution."

Which raises a bigger issue. Cotton was such a powerful crop in trade that abolishing slavery in one, swift action destroyed the southern economy overnight. And that's why the South is still the poorest and least educated region of the country.

 

[James Madison]

Cotton gin patented in 1794 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
Cotton picker patented in 1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_picker


The latter invention probably would have happened much sooner if the money and talent that both sides had spent on the war had instead been focused on improving productivity (slavery is very unproductive).....the South had every economic motivation to make the change to mechanization, but the associated technological advancements need to be made. Had that motivation been realized and the benefits understood, I would guess that mechanization could have been shifted back a couple decades anyway, but slavery would have been in operation up until machines were available and sharecropping would have hardly appeared at all.

The cotton gin didn't just create cotton. It created wealth, established the United States as an industrial/economic powerhouse, and demonstrated that mechanization was preferable to human labor.

This allows you to phase out slavery in a way in which the market tolerates. Remember this was the entire Southern economy and most slaves received zero education. A free market approach allows the economy to withstand changes in the work force and is a boon to former slaves because it lets those who wish to pursue work elsewhere leave, while giving those who wish to stay a marketable skill (assembling and operating machinery). Everybody wins and no one has to die.

 

[Tod]

To link the cotton gin with promoting slavery is absurd. If anything, the cotton gin is the invention that launched the Industrial Revolution, which ultimately made slavery obsolete. From the same article:

In general, mechanization will reduce the viability of slavery, but the gin is a special case where it made a whole industry even viable. Prior to the gin, cotton was not a large crop at all because even slavery was cost prohibitive. Once the gin was invented, cotton became economically viable but still lacked the accompanying mechanization for picking cotton.

I am not alone in this belief. http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/archive/articleview.cfm?aid=31

The invention of the cotton gin caused a revolution in the production of cotton in the southern United States, and had an enormous impact on the institution of slavery in this country. Before the invention of the cotton gin, not only was the raising of cotton very labor intensive, but separating the fiber from the cotton seed itself was even more labor intensive. Only the largest plantations found raising cotton cost effective. The invention of the cotton gin and its manufacture changed that. Growing and cultivating cotton became a lucrative and less labor-intensive cash crop, contributing immensely to the rise of cotton production in the Deep South. This, in turn, led to an increase in the number of slaves and slaveholders, and to the growth of a cotton-based agricultural economy in the South.

 

[James Madison]

In general, mechanization will reduce the viability of slavery, but the gin is a special case where it made a whole industry even viable. Prior to the gin, cotton was not a large crop at all because even slavery was cost prohibitive. Once the gin was invented, cotton became economically viable but still lacked the accompanying mechanization for picking cotton.

I am not alone in this belief. http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/archive/articleview.cfm?aid=31

It appears your entire premise is centered on the erroneous belief that slavery contributed to the Civil War. It also presupposes that cotton (and only cotton) would have created the need for more slaves. while crops like tobacco, corn, and rice would not. Why would you expect that given the nation's growing economy?

 

[Christian Liberty]

It is commonly taught in schools that the Civil War was fought over slavery. However, we know that it was not the initial driving factor of either the North or the South - the South fought defensively. Despite this, the eradication of institutionalized slavery was the direct result of the Civil War. I do not personally justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of freed slaves.

Its good that you don't. This shows a working moral compass.

HB34's comment is pretty much true. While it did give more freedom to the slaves, it came at a price of some of everyone else's freedom. So it wasn't all good.

Regarding Eduardo's comment, I honestly think Jim Crow would never have happened if it had not been for the war.

Now this brings us to my primary question: Assume that after the South seceded from the Union, the Civil War never happened - that Lincoln just allowed them to secede. For how many more years would slavery endure in the South? I can't imagine a present day South with slaves working in the fields... Slavery would have had to end someway. How would it eventually end? Is there ever a viable reason to fight a war with the intention of freeing the inhabitants of another country?

Once the South industrialized, I believe they would have realized that capitalism is more profitable than slavery, and it would have been phased out. Personally I can't imagine it still being around in 1900, but obviously I don't know for sure.

As for wars to liberate other people, I don't believe so. But the beauty of a free society is, if you have a different view you can act in a way compatible with that view. In State-run societies, everyone is forced to pay for the wars of the State and thus to participate at least indirectly.

It appears your entire premise is centered on the erroneous belief that slavery contributed to the Civil War. It also presupposes that cotton (and only cotton) would have created the need for more slaves. while crops like tobacco, corn, and rice would not. Why would you expect that given the nation's growing economy?

Not sure.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Is there ever a viable reason to fight a war with the intention of freeing the inhabitants of another country?

Not to distract from what you're asking in the op but the Civil War itself accelerated manufacturing and power was achieved by those who owned these corporations. Whgat they did was break free of the theoretical chains that kept them in check prior to the war. 14th amendment is very broad. Today, we have corporations still benefitting from the fruits of this war and basically governing by pocketbook.

 

[Keith and stuff]

How many more years would slavery exist in the North? We cannot be sure. 5 years? 3 decades? Would it end in the South first? Maybe. We will never know. But just like the Revolutionary War, the War of Northern Aggression was primarily fought over taxes and freedom.

 

[Tod]

It appears your entire premise is centered on the erroneous belief that slavery contributed to the Civil War.

huh? It would be naive to say otherwise. Slavery was the focal point for the underlying issue, state's rights.

It also presupposes that cotton (and only cotton) would have created the need for more slaves. while crops like tobacco, corn, and rice would not. Why would you expect that given the nation's growing economy?

now that is grasping for straws . Of course there were slaves prior to the cotton gin and the numbers certainly would have grown without the invention, but it is clear that cotton provided a new large market that required extra labor. Before cotton became king, the predominant fibers were wool and flax and cotton offered new and very desirable properties but it was in little use because of the difficulty of separating the fibers from the seeds.

 

[Influenza]

The Civil War made everyone free-range slaves (outside of the government/crony classes).

What the Civil War had made clear was the potential of a tyrannical government to liberate some at the expense of others, as FreedomFanatic had stated. However, many of those who were being oppressed by the Feds were in fact oppressors themselves. While oppression was a permanent policy of the South, it was only a wartime policy of the Feds. Following the end of the Civil War and Reconstruction, would not everyone have been liberated if it were not for the Jim Crow laws? Is it arguable that this is somewhat of a case where the (intended) ends justify the means? (I know this ends-means theory goes against libertarian ideals).

I honestly think Jim Crow would never have happened if it had not been for the war.

Jim Crow laws were a product mostly of racism, and their intended goal was foremost segregation, and secondly maintaining white supremacy. There was no necessity for them without the war because blacks would have been slaves for the foreseeable future. Even without the war, racism would still have been huge.

Once the South industrialized, I believe they would have realized that capitalism is more profitable than slavery

Wouldn't a working class that was largely enslaved result in wealth spread amongst fewer hands, and would thus be more profitable for the slave owners? What I'm trying to get at is, regardless of the decrease in necessity of manpower that comes with technology, wouldn't they just find other jobs for the slaves to do?

 

[Tod]

The natural elimination of slave labor was dependent primarily upon technological advancement. It was delayed by increased demand for cotton (the production of which was still manual labor dependent because the later mobile equipment required a higher degree of technological sophistication) thanks to early technological developments: metallurgy and similar basic engineering sciences, and machinery that became feasible with those improvements, such as the cotton gin, engines, and much of the machinery for processing fiber into cloth

Steam engine tractor: 1868
Internal combustion tractor: circa 1894 to 1901
Cotton picker: circa 1933


edit: slavery was less of a factor in the northern states in no small part because the more easily developed technology such as the gin and stationary fiber processing equipment came on the market earlier on in history. The more sophisticated mobile machinery that would replace field laborers took longer to develop.

 

[Tod]

Wouldn't a working class that was largely enslaved result in wealth spread amongst fewer hands, and would thus be more profitable for the slave owners? What I'm trying to get at is, regardless of the decrease in necessity of manpower that comes with technology, wouldn't they just find other jobs for the slaves to do?

Remember, slavery is very unproductive, meaning that the profits resulting from slavery are smaller than the profits resulting from a motivated laborer or mechanized production. A motivated laborer is going to work harder and longer so that they can earn money which they then turn around and spend, creating a larger customer base for the capitalist. Mechanization provides an even higher return.

 

[robert68]

The deep south states (in their Declarations of Secessions) were sure bothered a lot by northern states not returning escaped slaves, for the institution of slavery to be a secure one without the northern states protection.