Could the American South have worked without Slave Labour?

[Klausewitz]

Well, could it?
White indentured servants had a pretty high death rate upon arriving in the South due to Malaria while black slaves were mostly immune to Malaria.
What else would have made it harder?

 

[benice1234]

Well of course it could, agriculture has been practiced everywhere, and at least some of those places didn't have slaves

 

[Klausewitz]

Well of course it could, agriculture has been practiced everywhere, and at least some of those places didn't have slaves

You missed the point.

 

[Arilou]

Well.... Yes and no?

Slavery was pretty fundamental to the way the americas was colonized, because it was that central and important. The areas that *didn't* rely on either slave plantations or exploitation of large native populations tended to be more afterthoughts, and were never as productive (and even then they often profited from the existence of the slave-trade) It's an immensely complicated thing, lots of capital accumulation wouldn't happen or would happen differently. (even places we wouldn't think of as being part of the slave trade might be eg. building ships, producing food, producing trade goods for barter with africans, etc.)

Could white indentured servants have worked? Maybe, the reason they *weren't* is because african slaves were a "better" option. For starters, european monarchs (or for that matter, african monarchs) didn't much like people taking their tax-paying citizens and sending them to the other side of the world (where taxation and drafting them is much harder...) so that always limited the pool, and that's disregarding the social troubles. The other major slave-market, the black sea/steppe region was both A) getting conquered by the Russians and B) being diverted towards the middle-eastern market (and it was also farther away of course) which meant that getting slaves that way was much, much more expensive.

Europeans also had the nasty problem of tending to get various tropical diseases and die off in pretty staggering numbers whenever they set foot in the tropics. Africans had at least some inherited resistance to some of these diseases.

The third option, native americans, had a combination of these two problems: First of all, they died off in droves from disease. Secondly, the spanish crown tended to at least make noises about people enslaving their theoretical subjects. That didn't stop other forms of forced labour, or even outright enslavement in the conquest-period, but "real" slavery was hard to establish with any permanency. (and of course, even when you did have a large indian population that could be exploited, the spanish would hardly let you ship them to Carolina)

It gets... Tricky, to make alterations to these equations. If you make african slaves prohibitively expensive (say, a few major empires that put a stop to the slave trade arise in Africa) that's going to have all sorts of weird knock-on effects, and I think in order to get a "US South without slavery" you pretty much have to remove the entire trans-atlantic slave trade from the equation, because if there are all those slaves availible *someone* is going to use them in places that are good for growing these specific cash-crops.

Remember, people are thinking of a big influx of european migrants: This didn't really happen. We're not talking about the 19th century with it's exploding population growth, but the 17th century when population is fairly stagnant. That doesen't mean there won't be colonization, but it will look very different and probably at different points.

 

[Klausewitz]

So basically a South without slavery would be a South starved of population.
Maybe some swamp farmers hunting alligators and growing cash-crops in the side but no huge plantations to dominate the landscape.

 

[Arilou]

So basically a South without slavery would be a South starved of population.
Maybe some swamp farmers hunting alligators and growing cash-crops in the side but no huge plantations to dominate the landscape.

At least for a while, yep. There might be something else valuable there, but without plantation agriculture (and the easy access to slaves) it's going to be harder to get people to settle. (especially in the less hospitable (to europeans) parts)

There would probably still be trading posts for commerce with the natives, maybe a couple of small settlements for something else, but the plantation economy would probably at least be delayed. (though notably sugar and other cash crops were really, really profitable... all the problems I mentioned might not have been enough to prevent people from growing it, but that assumes no transatlantic african slavery at all, not just "no slavery in the US south", because non-slave plantations are going to have a hell of a time competing with slave-based ones.

EDIT: And all of that might change completely by say, mid-late 18th and 19th century, when there's more labour around.

 

[keynes2.0]

The white population was larger then the black population in most areas. Farming proceeded just fine after abolition. No slaves obviously is going to cut back on profits and mean no forced migration but a lot of crops would still be viable. So it would be very different without the plantations but there would still be reasons to immigrate. Pre Independence there weren't many plantations and the higher earnings from cash crops attracted migrants despite the higher mortality.

Also slave plantations were in the tidewater region despite it being very temperate.

 

[Arilou]

Farming proceeded just fine after abolition.

I think it's systematically very different to try to establish something from scratch and getting to re-tool an already existing society. The incentives and costs are very different.

Pre Independence there weren't many plantations and the higher earnings from cash crops attracted migrants despite the higher mortality.

This is wrong, they were just growing different things. (tobacco, indigo and rice, among other things) rather than the cotton monoculture it became later.

And of course sugar, which was the real moneymaker.

 

[keynes2.0]

This is wrong, they were just growing different things. (tobacco, indigo and rice, among other things) rather than the cotton monoculture it became later.

This phrasing is slightly dodgy to me.

 

[ArmedNeutrality]

So basically a South without slavery would be a South starved of population.
Maybe some swamp farmers hunting alligators and growing cash-crops in the side but no huge plantations to dominate the landscape.

They had quasi slavery with the post-war sharecropper system that was highly exploitive of blacks and poor whites. The South "worked" with that system. The South didn't need chattel slavery to work, but it certainly helped their plantation system of cash crops.

 

[DoomBunny]

Well, could it?
White indentured servants had a pretty high death rate upon arriving in the South due to Malaria while black slaves were mostly immune to Malaria.
What else would have made it harder?

What do you mean worked, and in what period?

Certainly it was possible to run an economy there without slavery. One only has to look at the post-bellum South for evidence of this. However, the results weren't exactly stunning.

The white population was larger then the black population in most areas. Farming proceeded just fine after abolition. No slaves obviously is going to cut back on profits and mean no forced migration but a lot of crops would still be viable. So it would be very different without the plantations but there would still be reasons to immigrate. Pre Independence there weren't many plantations and the higher earnings from cash crops attracted migrants despite the higher mortality.

Also slave plantations were in the tidewater region despite it being very temperate.

Hell, pre-independence there wasn't much of a South in the first place. Particularly not much of a 'proper' South.

 

[Klausewitz]

Certainly it was possible to run an economy there without slavery. One only has to look at the post-bellum South for evidence of this. However, the results weren't exactly stunning.

However the post-bellum south still had the advantage of huge amounts of black labour to exploit.

Hell, pre-independence there wasn't much of a South in the first place. Particularly not much of a 'proper' South.

Then why were there provision how much a slave was 'worth' in the way of a vote even in the constitution, the infamous three-fifths compromise?

 

[keynes2.0]

What do you mean worked, and in what period?

Certainly it was possible to run an economy there without slavery. One only has to look at the post-bellum South for evidence of this. However, the results weren't exactly stunning.

It was a period of rapid industrialization.

Hell, pre-independence there wasn't much of a South in the first place. Particularly not much of a 'proper' South.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States#Natural_growth

About 35% of the white population lived south of the Mason Dixie line throughout the 18th century. That's a higher fraction then existed later when plantation slavery was at it's height.

 

[Anatur]

Another issue with native american's is that they tend to run off,fairly easily in fact.

As for the workforce,there was no shortage of poor European's willing to work the mine's,so i cant imagine it would be a huge leap to put them on the plantations,when you factor in all the costs of keeping black slave's around,a free European worker may in fact be cheaper,since you at least dodge the costs of enforcers,chains,supervision etc.

During the Abolitionist campaign some of the proponents of Slavery raised the point that black slaves were being cared for more than the average european worker,if there is any truth to that then costs shouldnt be a huge issue.

I know at least from my own countries history that my people of the period would have no destinction between working in a mine and working on a plantation,they would be content with either,and i imagine most European immigrants back then would do.

 

[keynes2.0]

During the civil war, emperor Norton raised the point that he was ruler of the united states and protector of mexico,if there is any truth to that then we could stop paying Congress and use that money to build a bridge across the San Francisco sound instead.

 

[Cavalry]

As for the workforce,there was no shortage of poor European's willing to work the mine's,so i cant imagine it would be a huge leap to put them on the plantations,when you factor in all the costs of keeping black slave's around,a free European worker may in fact be cheaper,since you at least dodge the costs of enforcers,chains,supervision etc.

the cost of travel to America at old time sailing ship is very high. If you don't have money you will have to work 3-5 years as indentured laborers (6-7 years for children!!), to cover the cost of it . And forget any contact back to your family or friends in Europe, and no friend is helping you in new place..

So it will take a very serious reason to move to the New World, like famine at home, gold,....

 

[keynes2.0]

So it will take a very serious reason to move to the New World, like famine at home, gold,....

...Huge tracts of land...

 

[DoomBunny]

It was a period of rapid industrialization.

And yet the South was generally the poorest part of the nation.

About 35% of the white population lived south of the Mason Dixie line throughout the 18th century. That's a higher fraction then existed later when plantation slavery was at it's height.

My point was that there wasn't really much of the South there in the first place.

That's a fairly decent map showing the edges of civilization.

However the post-bellum south still had the advantage of huge amounts of black labour to exploit.

Indeed.

Then why were there provision how much a slave was 'worth' in the way of a vote even in the constitution, the infamous three-fifths compromise?

Because otherwise slave owners would have commanded more political say.

 

[keynes2.0]

The south was poor after the war because it had been slow to industrialize and build railroads. That was not caused by abolition.

As for the distance, that's just a misleading map projection. It is farther from Baltimore to Savannah then from Philadelphia to Bangor.

 

[DoomBunny]

The south was poor after the war because it had been slow to industrialize and build railroads. That was not caused by abolition.

The South actually wasn't doing so badly antebellum. It wasn't doing brilliantly either (particularly in long term forecasts). But still.

As for the distance, that's just a misleading map projection. It is farther from Baltimore to Savannah then from Philadelphia to Bangor.

My point was that if you consider 'The South', and in particular the 'true' Deep South plantation areas that really came to dominate, there wasn't that much there at the time of the revolution.