The Southern Economy Without Slavery?

[Faeelin]

By 1800, the external slave trade in the U.S. was almost dead, meaning almost all of the ancestors of the modern African American population were already in the U.S.

That said, if you had a ban on slavery before cotton got off the ground, more of the black population could remain in the upper South, unless they were given strong "incentives" to migrate.

This is a very good point, and one that I should have realized.

The origin of this post was a timeline involving more extensive use of black troops by the British, before their position falls apart due to some slave revolts against them after they try to reintroduce slavery), and John Laurens, Andrew Hamilton, and Nathaniel Greene joining up to bleed the British out of the southern colonies. What's left is a new order based on the back country farmers who are very, very, skeptical of Charleston.

 

[Arafeel]

A silly thought.

Posit a ban on slavery by 1800. But the cotton belt is going to open up, and it's still profitable. You're going to get pressure to work it. Who do you use?

Could you see Italians moving to the American South?

Who can you use, or who would be willing to work the cotton, and why would they not leave to start a small farm or go work some other place? Was not the angola prison in Lousiana original a cotto plantation? Maybe look a who works the sugar filds? Prisoners, or indenture labour me thinks, free labour is going to be really really hard.

 

[Faeelin]

Who can you use, or who would be willing to work the cotton, and why would they not leave to start a small farm or go work some other place? Was not the angola prison in Lousiana original a cotto plantation? Maybe look a who works the sugar filds? Prisoners, or indenture labour me thinks, free labour is going to be really really hard.

It'd be really funny if the outcome of this timeline is a delayed industrial revolution.

 

[Arafeel]

It'd be really funny if the outcome of this timeline is a delayed industrial revolution.

Is it not more or less starting by the time of the pod?

 

[Admiral Matt]

Is it not more or less starting by the time of the pod?

Oh definitely it is.

I believe what he's getting at is that the first mass product of the industrial revolution was cotton fabric, and this initially came almost exclusively from the US South.

The trouble is, if it's not American cotton, there's nothing else that could immediately fill that gap. Cotton was cheap, so there were millions of potential customers immediately. Cotton was highly desired - it's just plain more comfortable than wool, and before the cotton gin made it available in bulk, the cost rendered it a luxury good. In other words, as a product it was something of a perfect storm. It allowed enormous numbers of light industrial efforts to pop up all at once, which in turn allowed standardization of parts, created a class of people who were experts in various parts of the manufacturing process, guaranteed a relatively steady cash flow to investors, promised monetary reward to inventors who could improve the machines, the list goes on....

In other words, cotton fabric subsidized the rest of the early IR in a way no other contemporary product was in a position to do.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I think ending slavery in the 1790s is a bit too much to hope for.

How about a delaying of the creation of the cotton gin? That could cause slavery to die out in the 1820s or 1830s as it became economically untenable and plantation owners suddenly had a massive money sink in the form of slave plantations. If the slaves themselves are unprofitable, perhaps that leads to a concentrated effort to get rid of them?

A later invention of the cotton gin might spur a Southern Industrial revolution as without the vast free labor pool the Southern cotton economy has to adapt.

Would that fit in with the OPs ideas?

 

[altwere]

what about hemp instead of cotton?

 

[The Uchronian]

Face it, after 1865, the Midwestern breadbasket grew quite well after slavery was abolished.

Indeed so. Slavery may have been profitable, but only for those actually in the system, while everyone else was either left out or just plain screwed altogether.

This is a very good point, and one that I should have realized.

The origin of this post was a timeline involving more extensive use of black troops by the British, before their position falls apart due to some slave revolts against them after they try to reintroduce slavery), and John Laurens, Andrew Hamilton, and Nathaniel Greene joining up to bleed the British out of the southern colonies. What's left is a new order based on the back country farmers who are very, very, skeptical of Charleston.

This might actually work pretty well. Does anyone have a link to said TL, btw?

I think ending slavery in the 1790s is a bit too much to hope for.

How about a delaying of the creation of the cotton gin? That could cause slavery to die out in the 1820s or 1830s as it became economically untenable and plantation owners suddenly had a massive money sink in the form of slave plantations. If the slaves themselves are unprofitable, perhaps that leads to a concentrated effort to get rid of them?

A later invention of the cotton gin might spur a Southern Industrial revolution as without the vast free labor pool the Southern cotton economy has to adapt.

Would that fit in with the OPs ideas?

It might not even require a delay; perhaps the first cotton gin, when it's presented, merely doesn't work as well as advertised, or at all.

what about hemp instead of cotton?

It depends, but without slavery, cotton and tobacco might not become so utterly dominant as they did IOTL; hemp, which tended to be very much a secondary crop in our timeline, might possibly have a lot of extra room to grow.

 

[Workable Goblin]

This might actually work pretty well. Does anyone have a link to said TL, btw?

To Set a Country Free, by Faeelin.

As to the idea that cotton drove the Industrial Revolution, it certainly played a major role, and the South was certainly important in providing that cotton...but there were other sources. India, in particular, had been a major producer of cotton for much longer (obviously) than the South, and during the actual Civil War India became the major producer of cotton. Considering that the invention of the cotton gin also coincides with a rather activist position on the part of the British within India (leading up to the 1857 rebellion), I suspect that there will be significant investment in other parts of the world, and certainly India, to develop cotton cultivation.

 

[Admiral Matt]

I think ending slavery in the 1790s is a bit too much to hope for.

The trouble I have with that is that slavery, and especially the politics justifying slavery, were weaker in the 1790s than any other time Antebellum. Slavery got stronger as an institution from that point forward, so logically it would be easier to eliminate when the country was still high on revolutionary fervor and the ideology to reconcile slave-holding and American republican values hadn't yet been made up.

How about a delaying of the creation of the cotton gin? That could cause slavery to die out in the 1820s or 1830s as it became economically untenable and plantation owners suddenly had a massive money sink in the form of slave plantations. If the slaves themselves are unprofitable, perhaps that leads to a concentrated effort to get rid of them?

Eliminating cotton makes slavery less profitable, not (mostly) unprofitable. And even that - making slave prices lower in the south - would also eliminate the economic pressures that pulled slaves out of the north. In other words, slavery would stay stronger, at least in places like New Jersey and New York. Slaves were more desirable to employers than free workers in manufacturing, so we risk industrial slavery becoming a fixture in parts of the north. Low prices would also make it more affordable to have slaves on the frontier, which means more slaves in Illinois and Indiana, which means the efforts to make them slave states might come off....

A later invention of the cotton gin might spur a Southern Industrial revolution as without the vast free labor pool the Southern cotton economy has to adapt.

Well being poor farmland worked for New England, but I doubt it. The lack of profitable agriculture was not main cause of the Industrial Revolution. Actually, it wasn't a cause of it at all - agricultural profitability rose alongside the IR.

And as I mentioned earlier, without bulk cotton industrialization would be slower and smaller in Britain, which will naturally slow all the copycats. And the southeast US is not ideally suited to playing copycat. Low population density, resources, transport, malaria....

But anyway, Faeelin already has a scenario, so I'm just talking in the wind.

 

[The Uchronian]

The trouble I have with that is that slavery, and especially the politics justifying slavery, were weaker in the 1790s than any other time Antebellum. Slavery got stronger as an institution from that point forward, so logically it would be easier to eliminate when the country was still high on revolutionary fervor and the ideology to reconcile slave-holding and American republican values hadn't yet been made up.

But not much stronger until the cotton gin came along, and more importantly, after Nat Turner's rebellion, which helped kickstart the awful trend of slavery becoming not just a way of business, but a way of life, and as part of a means of social control.

Eliminating cotton makes slavery less profitable, not (mostly) unprofitable. And even that - making slave prices lower in the south - would also eliminate the economic pressures that pulled slaves out of the north. In other words, slavery would stay stronger, at least in places like New Jersey and New York.

Perhaps possible, but dubious north of say, Maryland, barring significant changes in culture(which isn't at all likely).

Slaves were more desirable to employers than free workers in manufacturing, so we risk industrial slavery becoming a fixture in parts of the north.

Despite slaves being less efficient than free workers, per capita? Southern factory bosses may have favored them, because slaves didn't have to be paid a wage(amongst other things), but industrial slavery enjoying even modest success anywhere in the North, would be very hard to do, and damn near impossible east of Pennsylvania: not the least of which that many white workers would not stand for being replaced by wage-free labor, black or otherwise.

Low prices would also make it more affordable to have slaves on the frontier, which means more slaves in Illinois and Indiana, which means the efforts to make them slave states might come off....

Which would very likely be shot down, in either state, by not just Yankees in general, but even Southern transplants not necessarily friendly to slavery, especially if it's at any time before 1840, and especially in Illinois.

 

[Admiral Matt]

But not much stronger until the cotton gin came along, and more importantly, after Nat Turner's rebellion, which helped kickstart the awful trend of slavery becoming not just a way of business, but a way of life, and as part of a means of social control.

Well, the first effect of Nat Turner's rebellion was near-consensus in favor of emancipation in Virginia. Once that solution had been turned down, though, yes.

Not sure what you mean by "not much stronger until the cotton gin" given how quickly after the Treaty of Paris it was invented. It appeared before the recovery from the war.

Perhaps possible, but dubious north of say, Maryland, barring significant changes in culture(which isn't at all likely).

Happened in OTL, even in Pennsylvania, even over a generation into the process of gradual emancipation. Ironworks in Scotch-Irish PA employed slaves wherever possible. The money was just too good.

Despite slaves being less efficient than free workers, per capita? Southern factory bosses may have favored them, because slaves didn't have to be paid a wage(amongst other things), but industrial slavery enjoying even modest success anywhere in the North, would be very hard to do, and damn near impossible east of Pennsylvania: not the least of which that many white workers would not stand for being replaced by wage-free labor, black or otherwise.

It doesn't matter how efficient a freed worker is, if he decides to move to a better job or a home closer to family. Which they did constantly, because industrial work was low status. That's when the slaves paid off, and overwhelmingly so.

And again, it was in fact a modest success in the north historically.

That said, no doubt any gains by slavery would be temporary. So in that sense we agree. You are quite right about the feelings of free workers, and it's an area of the country with a steady supply of immigrants who were willing to do the work for low pay. The risk isn't slave NY in 1890, but of the gradual emancipation bills in those two states being delayed for years, even over a decade, by vested interests.

Which would very likely be shot down, in either state, by not just Yankees in general, but even Southern transplants not necessarily friendly to slavery, especially if it's at any time before 1840, and especially in Illinois.

Almost happened in OTL in Illinois. Barring the fortuitous election of a governor who was anti-slavery (but would not have been elected had slavery been an election issue) Illinois would most likely have become a slave state shortly after statehood. This was because there were already quite a number of slaves in the territory before statehood and the general consensus was that it was a fait accompli.

I find your "especially if it's at any time before 1840" completely mystifying, as the growing anti-slavery feeling in the Old Northwest is common knowledge and well documented. The only time it would have been possible was shortly after statehood, because that was - obviously - both a state and the place of residence of active slavers. In what sense would you see the odds of slavery's introduction increasing after 1840?

As for "especially in Illinois," it is contraindicated by the facts.

See above.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio...."

 

[The Uchronian]

It doesn't matter how efficient a freed worker is, if he decides to move to a better job or a home closer to family. Which they did constantly, because industrial work was low status. That's when the slaves paid off, and overwhelmingly so.

It did happen occasionally, yes, but mobility was far lower in those days compared to today.

I find your "especially if it's at any time before 1840" completely mystifying, as the growing anti-slavery feeling in the Old Northwest is common knowledge and well documented. The only time it would have been possible was shortly after statehood, because that was - obviously - both a state and the place of residence of active slavers. In what sense would you see the odds of slavery's introduction increasing after 1840?

Okay, I just noticed the massive typo myself; I had originally meant after 1840, so my bad. Still, though, the fact that it even came (somewhat) close in the 1824 vote was indeed more of a historical fluke than anything else(yes, they do happen!), as even then, the majority of Illinoisans were either Yankees, or Southern transplants not terribly friendly to slavery; the likelihood of the margins being at least a little bit wider in favor of anti-slavery interests in that state, in most ATL scenarios we can think of, should a vote even be held at all, are pretty high.

As for "especially in Illinois," it is contraindicated by the facts.

Such as? Nothing I've ever read actually confirms that Illinois was, overall, more vulnerable to becoming a slave state than Indiana, a state that also had a fair amount of Southern settlement in it's southern half.