Why no slavery in the Grain/Corn Belt?

Chris S

Okay, so I figured it must have something to do with large scale agriculture was introduced into the region, but not too long ago I wondered how come slavery hadn't been introduced into the US Mid-West for corn/maize farming and wheat farming. After all that would have made a certain amount of sense (thankfully it didn't happen though as that reprehensible institution might well have continued until the early 1900s-1950s).

So why exactly wasn't slavery introduced there?

Had it been introduced, how would that have changed the USA?
 

mowque

Banned
Chris S said:
Okay, so I figured it must have something to do with large scale agriculture was introduced into the region, but not too long ago I wondered how come slavery hadn't been introduced into the US Mid-West for corn/maize farming and wheat farming. After all that would have made a certain amount of sense (thankfully it didn't happen though as that reprehensible institution might well have continued until the early 1900s-1950s).

So why exactly wasn't slavery introduced there?

Had it been introduced, how would that have changed the USA?
Click to expand...

It doesn't work. You don't need a ton of workers like a cotton field.
 

KingByng

There was this thing, I think it was called Popular Sovereignty, where the incoming state could choose whether it wanted to be a free or slave state. The Southerners tried to use that to bring slavery to Kansas, but that ended badly (check out "Bleeding Kansas").
 
Tobit

Tobit

Slavery was never introduced to the wheat or corn growing regions because the price of grain never warranted the expense of using Slaves. Which were pretty expensive commodities back then. Wheat never got to be the money maker that cotton was. Not to mention I think the real intensive wheat farming in the Midwest didn't really begin until after the civil war. Prior to that the region was not as populated or intensively farmed.

A what if to make this possible might be enslavement of the Native Americans that were there, instead of importing Africans. I don't what kind of POD that would make that possible? Maybe if there were larger Native American populations there in the first place?
 
Last edited:

manofsteelwool

Tobit said:
Slavery was never introduced to the wheat or corn growing regions because the price of grain never warranted the expense of using Slaves. Which were pretty expensive commodities back then. Wheat never got to be the money maker that cotton was. Not to mention I think the real intensive wheat farming in the Midwest didn't really begin until after the civil war. Prior to that the region was not as populated or intensively farmed.

A what if to make this possible might be enslavement of the Native Americans that were there, instead of importing Africans. I don't what kind of POD that would make that possible? Maybe if there were larger Native American populations there in the first place?
Click to expand...

I think the early settlers tried that and it didn't work out that well, they eventually gave up on that idea.
 
Hawkeye

Hawkeye

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 established that slavery was prohibited above the latitude 36°30' north. It was also because the US government wanted to maintain a balance of power between the states. Up until the abolition of slavery the US would usually pair a free state with a slave state before entering the Union. For example, my home state, Iowa was paired with Florida when we gained statehood. This worked out okay until the South realized that most of the new future states would be above the 36°30, that's when things started to get out of hand.

I recommend you try finding the book "How the States got their Shapes" for a clearer explanation. Also because it's a damn interesting read by itself. If you can't find a copy then there's still good old google.
 

OneUp

Slaves are expensive, corn and wheat are too cheap to warrant slaves. Also, large scale agriculture wasn't really practiced, remember that this was a time when the country was operated by small family-run farms not huge tracts of land run by a company.
 
Tobit

Tobit

OneUp said:
Slaves are expensive, corn and wheat are too cheap to warrant slaves. Also, large scale agriculture wasn't really practiced, remember that this was a time when the country was operated by small family-run farms not huge tracts of land run by a company.
Click to expand...

I see great minds think alike. ;)

Slavery was never introduced to the wheat or corn growing regions because the price of grain never warranted the expense of using Slaves. Which were pretty expensive commodities back then. Wheat never got to be the money maker that cotton was. Not to mention I think the real intensive wheat farming in the Midwest didn't really begin until after the civil war. Prior to that the region was not as populated or intensively farmed.
Click to expand...
 

Mark E.

Hawkeye said:
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 established that slavery was prohibited above the latitude 36°30' north.
Click to expand...

One state seems to be an exception to the Ohio River/36°30' rule: Missouri itself. Only its "boot heel" in the southeast corner lies south of the line and I guess it was used to rationalize slavery in the state.

Missouri is an example of a slave state in the Grain/Corn belt. Relatively few slaves were used in the grain-oriented northern part of the state, adjacent Iowa and Kansas. More slaves were used in the southeast, where cotton is grown.
 

Geekhis Khan

Plus the Land Ordinance of 1785 divided the whole thing up into small square tracts sold off to settlers (look at a road map or fly over today and you'll see these distinct squares even today), so you ended up with a lot of small landowners rather than large plantations...few of whom wanted competition from slave labor (i.e. the "Freesoilers") and opposed slavery's expansion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top