Why free the slaves? [Archive]

Invader Zim

10th April 2009, 15:44

Well, slavery was a dying institution following the abolition of the slave trade in 1807/8, and the abolition of slavery in the British Empire in 1833. The abolition of slavery in the US after the abolition of the slave trade was something of an inevitability.

As for the economic reasons for the abolition of the slavery, it is a tricky question. The Marxist analysis of the question comes in the form of Eric William's pioneering study Capitalism and Slavery (1944). However, in the past 60+ years numerous works have looked at the issue of slavery and found that William's thesis, which was that the step from mercantile to industrial capitalism rendered slavery an unprofitable institution, was mistaken. For example Seymour Drescher's work Econocide (1977) convinsingly showed that in the late 18th and early 19th century, when the abolition movement was at its height, the profits and extent of the slave trade were as high as they had ever been.

The current popular view is that slavery came to an end because society (on both sides of the Atlantic), in a post-enlightenment era, that also saw the Second Great Awakening, found slavery to be morally objectionable and at odds with both its newly adopted take on religion and liberty.

Rjevan

10th April 2009, 16:20

As it has been already said, freeing the slaves was more because of prestige, support and weakening the CSA but out of humanity.
From what I read about Abe, I think that he was a very powerhungry demagogue who actually thought very racist about blacks and couldn't care less about their future. He knew that by proclaiming the freedom of the slaves (which he did in 1863, the war started in 1861!) he would weaken the economy of the CSA and maybe cause riots in the south and that he would gain much support and would have a moral legitimation for "his" war.
All he cared about was saving the union, i.e. his power but he understood to present himself as a moral fighter for humanity and this is how he's seen by most people, still.

Psy

10th April 2009, 16:26

Slave labor is limited to primitive accumulation, you can't mechanize slave labor as the more educated slaves become the more militant they become as unlike with proletariat it is impossible to hide exploitation from slaves, you can't convince a slave they are getting their fair share thus the slaves use their education to figure out how to kill their master thus why there was many slave revolts during feudalism.

The abolishment of slavery forced plantations to adopt the capitalist mode of production, to use wage slaves instead conventional slaves to eliminate the threat of slave revolts (from conventional slaves) to the bourgeoisie state.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

10th April 2009, 17:11

The main reason was the political power amassed by slaves was so vast that the benefits gained from stopping them we less than the losses that would've incurred.

Some people recognized the humanity of slaves and had empathy. They were motivated by a sense of justice. Even capitalist have concepts of justice. They just don't realize everything justice entails.

AvanteRedGarde

10th April 2009, 18:12

Brother No. 1

10th April 2009, 19:10

It was a dieing industry for the World so that Capitalist asked them selfs. "why use that when we can use the Workers and exploite them more."
Besides in War one of the best stragies is to look like the good guy and make the enemy seem like the villian. Abe lincoln wanted the Confederacy destroyed so giving a "need" to the slaves their primary engine of runing should do the trick. You take away that and the South is no more. Abe just wanted his enemy or as he would have said it "the Peoples enemy" or the "unions enemy." the primary mission of the War from his view is the "save the Union." Both the confederacy and the Union were Capitalists but in different ways. The confederates are the old world Capitalists and the Union is the more mordern Capitalists useing the Proletarian rather then slaves.

DesertShark

11th April 2009, 08:09

I'm in a hurry, but,
That's what I remember learning about Lincoln and his position on slavery.

Also, I always thought the US wouldn't have been able to turn into a dominant force ("world power" in the 1870s: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_09-2008.xls) without slave labor keeping products cheaper than other places. Granted, that was after slavery was abolished, but I think slavery still lingered for a bit or at least extremely cheap labor. I really don't think the US separation from Britain would have been successful or long lived if labor wasn't exploited the way it was (+France hating Britain and helping the US financially during the revolution) because Britain was the super power of the time.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

11th April 2009, 08:48

Obviously any worker would want the slaves free. I'm demanding so much an hour and this dude is working for free? How the fuck can I compete with that?

And Lincoln certainly wasn't the saint he's made out to be today but I consider him our best President, by far. The South seceded before he had even taken office because of his opposition to slavery, but yes he wanted to avoid war and was willing to sacrifice immediate abolition to do so. And with what, like, 600,000 dead I can understand.

Marx liked him (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm) quite a bit too it seems:

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

AvanteRedGarde

11th April 2009, 09:23

You are simply wrong on so many levels- like a caricature of the Left which is throwing out dogma and leftist trivia as a replacement for historical facts.

The abolitionist movement wasn't a workers movement any more than it was a moral one connected to the second 'Great Awakening.'

Lincoln didn't oppose slavery. In his presidential campaign he promised to preserve slavery where it existed (while also promising to halt its spread to neighboring even more states).

The newly formed Republican Party included most Abolitionists. That's not to say that Lincoln was in their pockets more than Northern Industrialists- which did not want the uncertainty of war.

Thus after assuming office, Lincoln negotiated until the Battle of Fort Sumter and still waited almost two years to issue the emancipation proclamation- which came at the behest of his generals. Within the Union army itself, a sizable fraction actually owned slaves.

Invader Zim

11th April 2009, 10:18

The abolitionist movement wasn't a workers movement any more than it was a moral one connected to the second 'Great Awakening.'

Which shows how little you know. The anti-slavery campaign actually found its origions with the religious, primarily the quakers, but the serious body of anti-slavery emerged in the 1780s and 90s, and it is no coincidence that at the same time the Baptist and Methodist evangelical churches exploaded in numbers.

Indeed the link between the two movements has long been noted and substanciated by archjival evidence. For example in the British 1830 anti-slavery petition, signed by just over 350,000 individuals, garned the bulk of it's signitures from the evangelical churches, most notably the Wesleyan Methodists who provided just under 250,000 of those signitures. It was no different on the other side of the Atlantic.

AvanteRedGarde

11th April 2009, 11:14

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. I'm assuming you are saying that the abolitionist began during the First Great Awakening, not the Second. Sure, if you are talking about its origins. I however said nothing about its origins and was in fact talking about Abolitionism in its most historically relevant period (within the context of the previous discussion.)

I was trying to make a larger point while keeping it basic. Your arguments of historical minutia- ones which I'm not contending persay- doesn't challenge the larger point I was making. You don't look smarter than me, you just confirm the point I was making: that Abolitionism was not a 'worker's movement.'

TheCultofAbeLincoln

11th April 2009, 21:55

Um, nobody except Marx is claiming it was a workers movement. I was simply pointing out why a wage slave would want to do away with chattel slaves:

Because they are scabs in the most correct sense of the word.

The newly formed Republican Party included most Abolitionists. That's not to say that Lincoln was in their pockets more than Northern Industrialists- which did not want the uncertainty of war.

Yeah, because it's not like corporations make massive amounts of money from war or anything.

Thus after assuming office, Lincoln negotiated until the Battle of Fort Sumter and still waited almost two years to issue the emancipation proclamation- which came at the behest of his generals. Within the Union army itself, a sizable fraction actually owned slaves.

No, it was brought up in the House of Representatives, now devoid of any Southerners, in order to destroy the Confederate economy in areas retaken by the union and prevent said areas from being able to recover if retaken by the rebels.

The Emancipation Proclamation had little to do with the Abolitionist movement, else the slaves in Maryland would have been freed, for example. Instead, Lincoln realized that that had to be put on the backburner due to the war effort and keeping MA in union hands, which wanted to secede very much.

Anyway, Lincoln obviously returned to his anti-slavery stance once the war had appeared won and he was able to do so.

People would be wise to stop caring so much about the mostly-symbolic Emancipation Proclamation and instead perhaps read the 13th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) which he had instrumented the passage of.

( R )evolution

11th April 2009, 22:11

The Northern factory owners were always in competition with the southern plantations owners, whether it be for economic or political control. The Northerners knew slavery couldn't happen in the north and thus they feared the economic growth and the possibility of political control by the slave South. While some like to credit it to some morality code, but its not. They rich will never do anything unless they benefit.

And others touched it on the top of the thread; It became more economic beneficial to have exploited paid workers then hundreds of slaves to feed.

Brother No. 1

11th April 2009, 22:21

The american civil War was a War between the mordern and the orginal Capitalists. Both the workers and slaves were used and no matter who won the workers and slaves would lose. Mordern Capitalists wanted to expolite the workers with pay and health care. Orginal Capitalists wanted to exploite their workers by giving them nothing and working all day. The slaves were apid nothing and as such the plantations didnt need to pay their workers like the North. What caused the civil War was Fear,power, and dominance.

Iuvo

12th April 2009, 05:04

I'm in a hurry, but,

You have to put the entire letter there or you're going to mislead someone:

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

-Abe Lincoln

Glorious Union

12th April 2009, 05:40

Slaves did not need luxury good or anything of the like, and basicly lived off of nothing or whatever they were given. Now, the more working people who do this then the less the capitalists pay to the owrkforce, and the less they pay to the workforce then the less the workforce can spend buying goods. It downspirals like this untill you hit rock bottom: total overproduction and nothing ever gets used or bought. Now this is good for international capitalists that trade with other nations, but America is largely a consumer market and the more consumers and spenders they have then the more money they make.

Jimmie Higgins

12th April 2009, 05:50

Brother No. 1

12th April 2009, 05:55

Industrial Capitalism=mordern Capitalism

Slavery=primative Capitalism.

Civil War= Battle for which Capitalism is best.

Outcome:Modern Capitalsim won and started its never-ending plauge on humanity.

More Fire for the People

12th April 2009, 06:09

Industrial wage-based capitalism generates more profit than agricultural slave-based capitalism.

Niccolò Rossi

12th April 2009, 11:37

Industrial wage-based capitalism generates more profit than agricultural slave-based capitalism.

This would have been my answer in a nut-shell aswell, however, from the first page:

As for the economic reasons for the abolition of the slavery, it is a tricky question. The Marxist analysis of the question comes in the form of Eric William's pioneering study Capitalism and Slavery (1944). However, in the past 60+ years numerous works have looked at the issue of slavery and found that William's thesis, which was that the step from mercantile to industrial capitalism rendered slavery an unprofitable institution, was mistaken. For example Seymour Drescher's work Econocide (1977) convinsingly showed that in the late 18th and early 19th century, when the abolition movement was at its height, the profits and extent of the slave trade were as high as they had ever been.

The current popular view is that slavery came to an end because society (on both sides of the Atlantic), in a post-enlightenment era, that also saw the Second Great Awakening, found slavery to be morally objectionable and at odds with both its newly adopted take on religion and liberty.

What do you mean by the word "current". This certainly does not seem like marxist or materialist analysis to me. Would you care to justify this?

( R )evolution

12th April 2009, 19:29

This would have been my answer in a nut-shell aswell, however, from the first page:

What do you mean by the word "current". This certainly does not seem like marxist or materialist analysis to me. Would you care to justify this?

I think he means the popular view of the masses, schools portray the end of slavery as morality triumphing through old-age ideas, but it really was the economic pressure that yielded the end. As others have said, Industrial wage-labor became much more efficient and profitable than slave based agriculture labor. Trust me the industrialist from the North knew they were gaining a lot by ending slavery in the South, they weren't going to let it happen if they didn't profit from it.

Niccolò Rossi

13th April 2009, 00:30

I think he means the popular view of the masses, schools portray the end of slavery as morality triumphing through old-age ideas, but it really was the economic pressure that yielded the end. As others have said, Industrial wage-labor became much more efficient and profitable than slave based agriculture labor. Trust me the industrialist from the North knew they were gaining a lot by ending slavery in the South, they weren't going to let it happen if they didn't profit from it.

Yes I realise the former is the mainstream understanding and yes I know that the latter is the mainstream marxism analysis. However:

As for the economic reasons for the abolition of the slavery, it is a tricky question. The Marxist analysis of the question comes in the form of Eric William's pioneering study Capitalism and Slavery (1944). However, in the past 60+ years numerous works have looked at the issue of slavery and found that William's thesis, which was that the step from mercantile to industrial capitalism rendered slavery an unprofitable institution, was mistaken. For example Seymour Drescher's work Econocide (1977) convinsingly showed that in the late 18th and early 19th century, when the abolition movement was at its height, the profits and extent of the slave trade were as high as they had ever been.

How do we explain this?

AvanteRedGarde

13th April 2009, 07:21

While there was a long term contradiction between industrial capitalism and the slave system of the South, I don't think it was as acute as some have portrayed. For instance, as i highlighted earlier, the Northern bourgeoisie did not want to rush into armed civil conflict because of it implied a certain level of uncertainty. Also, i have read elsewhere that the North maintained the South as a sort of dependent colony. Everything that was exported from the South first passed through Northern ports and slave owners were often extended loans by Northern bankers.

As an alternative postulation, in terms of a materialist analysis, I would wager that a more acute contradiction was between setterism in and slave system. That is too say that the competition between free whites and and a necessarily expansive slave system for land use was more of a driving factor in mass anti-slave sentiment than either some ahistorical and completely implanted notion of "class solidarity" between free whites and slaves or the more realistic idea that the Northern industrialists were determined to wipe out the slave system because it was outmoded.

Free whites wanted to settle the land and not have it gobbled up by large plantations. In this area, the interest of the capitalists and the free whites intersected insofar as free whites were a less centralized force which would be easier to disposses of their land, if need be, at a later period.

Invader Zim

13th April 2009, 18:37

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at.

I'm getting at the fact that you proclaimed that the abolition movement had nothing to do with the Second Great Awakening (roughly dated from 1790-1840), a claim roundly disputed by the facts. Religion was at the heart of the abolition movement, and money it seems, was not.

I'm assuming you are saying that the abolitionist began during the First Great Awakening, not the Second.Nope, the Great Awakening, while seeing the publishing of a few anti-slavery tracts largely predated the anti-slavery era of the late 18th early 19th century.

What do you mean by the word "current".

Current trends in the historiography, in other words what historians are saying about abolitionism today.

This certainly does not seem like marxist or materialist analysis to me.That is because it isn't.

The Marxist analysis of the decline of slavery and the slave trade simply isn't supported by the facts. Historians have proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that the abolitionists were directly taking on the economic interests of society, hense Drescher's book title Econocide. Initially, I too was sceptical, but having done archival research on the topic, I am afraid the thesis that slavery was abolished because it ceased being profitable isn't supported by the evidence. To cite you a statistic, in the 1780s, which saw the rapid rise of anti-slavery sentiment from a few lone voices to a massive campaign that turned slavery into one of if not the most important polical topics of the period, well over a quarter of a million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic ocean by British slavers, and that high rate of export had been maintained each decade after 1750.

More Fire for the People

13th April 2009, 19:18

Invader Zim

13th April 2009, 19:54

Slavery-based capitalism wasn't unprofitable but it was antagonistic to industrial capitalism because: (1) slave labor depressed the wages of wage laborers; and (2) the technical sophistication of manufacturing capitalism was more profitable than slave-based capitalism.

Then please explain why slavery was as profitable as ever at its fall. Surely, if other forms of labour were cheaper and other forms of production provided greater profits, slavery, and the slave trade, would have seen a period of decline as its investors pulled out. It didn't.

Psy

13th April 2009, 22:23

Then please explain why slavery was as profitable as ever at its fall. Surely, if other forms of labour were cheaper and other forms of production provided greater profits, slavery, and the slave trade, would have seen a period of decline as its investors pulled out. It didn't.
The cotton plantations fed the textile mills in the north, the problem was slavery was inefficient in the eyes of the textile capitalists in the north, thus in the eyes of the textile capitalists slavery in the south was hurting their profit rate in the idea that if plantations only paid seasonal labourers when work was needed to be done on the field then the price of cotton would be lower.

Niccolò Rossi

13th April 2009, 23:57

This certainly does not seem like marxist or materialist analysis to me. That is because it isn't.

The Marxist analysis of the decline of slavery and the slave trade simply isn't supported by the facts. Historians have proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that the abolitionists were directly taking on the economic interests of society, hense Drescher's book title Econocide. Initially, I too was sceptical, but having done archival research on the topic, I am afraid the thesis that slavery was abolished because it ceased being profitable isn't supported by the evidence. To cite you a statistic, in the 1780s, which saw the rapid rise of anti-slavery sentiment from a few lone voices to a massive campaign that turned slavery into one of if not the most important polical topics of the period, well over a quarter of a million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic ocean by British slavers, and that high rate of export had been maintained each decade after 1750.

What then do you think are the implications of this for historical materialism and marxian historiography?

I think Psy's post makes alot of sense. I'd be interested to here what Zim has to say about this.

More Fire for the People

14th April 2009, 00:54

fitz

14th April 2009, 00:59

one simple answer - unhappy slaves are not as productive as paid workers

Dr.Claw

14th April 2009, 01:10

Psy

14th April 2009, 01:17

Also, abolitionism while vocal and militant was not a widespread ideology. Most white Northerners held both slavery and abolitionism in contempt. They hated the former because it depressed their wages and hated the latter because of its 'fanaticism' and militancy. White northerner's preferred a program of 'free soil': (1) no slavery in new territories; (2) return of freed Blacks to Africa.

In reality the plantation owners in the USA played the same role as the landed aristocracy in France and Britain in that they were a huge obstacle to the growth of capital because the plantation owners didn't adopt the capitalist mode of production. The proletarianization's of plantations in the south was required for capitalists in north to continue to grow and the capitalists in the north knew this.

More Fire for the People

14th April 2009, 01:42

cb9's_unity

14th April 2009, 02:05

Slavery=primative Capitalism.

I'm not sure if I would describe the south as capitalism in almost any form. It drew a sharper resemblance to Feudalism. The slaves served as extreme versions of serfs and southern plantation owners went as far as to act like manorial lords, copying much of 'higher' European culture.

Capitalism is a distinct event that substitutes classical slavery and legal bonds of servitude with wage slavery.

Psy

14th April 2009, 03:05

I disagree that they were an obstacle to the accumulation of capital prior to the 1830s in Britain, 1860s in US, and 1880s in Brazil. Also, feudalism anteceded capitalism but modern slavery developed concurrently with it. There's a famous saying, 'Lancaster mills were propped up by Georgia fields.'

Think it his way, slaves are fixed capital no different then machinery in the capitalist model, the slave owner can't extract any value out of the slave as the value of the slave's work is the value of the slave in capitalism. Plantations could only survive by forming trusts to avoid capitalist competition with each other, making cotton production in the USA at the time an oligopoly. After the civil-war capitalists from the north bought up the plantations in the south and used seasonal wage labor to produce cotton at a fraction of the cost the slave plantations sold them for, since the capitalists didn't have to care if workers starved to death over winter when fields laid fallow they were able to maximize their profits (the slave owners couldn't do this as they invested capital into their slaves so had to give them enough to survive winter). Thus the problem with the slavery to northern capitalists was it was too humane to slaves as slave owners didn't work their slave to death like how the capitalists at the time worked their workers to death.

Oneironaut

14th April 2009, 03:24

We all know that Abe Lincoln and the union freed the slaves, ending a shameful and disgraceful era of exploitation.

But I'm wondering, from a capitalist standpoint - why even consider freeing the slaves? Having a free workforce can only mean extra profit for them, right?

Were there any deeper implications to this or some sort of more complex plan behind it? Or was the decision really made from the humanist perspective?

I'm not all that informed about the American civil war, so excuse me for my apparent lack of knowledge for details. Thus this topic belongs in the learning forum :)

The key question pertains to productivity. One of the biggest issues the Roman empire faced was a huge mass of slaves that were relatively non-productive and immensely dangerous (the historical slave revolts). What began to happen was land owners in the countryside began to parcel out their land to their slaves and in turn, freeing them from "slavery". These ex-slaves in turn were required to give a tribute to the land owner while they lived on his land. The productivity of these freed slaves skyrocketed when they where able to work what they at least felt like was their own land, have their own house, and not be forced to work by the whip. These landowners began to rely less and less on the Roman empire. This was the economic origin of feudalism from slave society. The same issue faced the United States in during its slave age.

Basically in one sentence, slaves are less productive than workers. That is why it was in the capitalist interest to have workers and not slaves.

AvanteRedGarde

14th April 2009, 06:26

This doesn't address the facts of why slavery was abolished. You are transplatted your view on to this historical situation in a way that flies in the face of the real history. Do you have any evidence that prior to the Civil war the capitalists were plotting to overthrow slavery. Of course not. Because by and large it does not exist.

Read over my posts. I've already explained, rooted in real history, many of the main factors that went into Abolitionism and the anti-slavery drive.

Invader Zim

14th April 2009, 11:18

What then do you think are the implications of this for historical materialism and marxian historiography?

There aren't any. One can still approach the issue of slavery from the point of view of slave resistance, a history from below, etc. The only point here is that the typical marxist analysis of abolitionism, proposing that it emerged because slavery ceased being profitable, largely isn't correct.

The cotton plantations fed the textile mills in the north, the problem was slavery was inefficient in the eyes of the textile capitalists in the north, thus in the eyes of the textile capitalists slavery in the south was hurting their profit rate in the idea that if plantations only paid seasonal labourers when work was needed to be done on the field then the price of cotton would be lower.Several points, firstly, where is the evidence behind this thesis? But even if we accept that the northern textile factory owners were opponents of slavery from an economic perspective (something you have yet to source) they could not have been the source of the bulk of political opposition, because that was built up before the rise of the US textile industry. Secondly, while cotton plantations were the main source of labour for slaves by 1860 it was not the only industry to not the only task to which slaves were put; the primary indistry for Lousiana slaves, for example, was sugar. Thirdly, the primary destination for cotton, through out the bulk of the period when anti-slavery became an established political issue (1780s-1860s) was not the New England, but the 'Old World'. The American textile industry only really took off in the 1830s. Fourthly anti-slavery long pre-dates the Civil War, something I think is often forgotten.

And we are still left with the major problem, that slavery simply hadn't become unprofitable when the issue of antislavery dominated politics.

Hit The North

14th April 2009, 12:15

And we are still left with the major problem, that slavery simply hadn't become unprofitable when the issue of antislavery dominated politics.Firstly, nowhere here have you presented statistics to support your thesis that profitability was maintained in the last few decades of slavery in the States. The statistic about the numbers of slaves being transported only supports the notion that the demand for slave labour continued. This does not address the issue of how productive the average slave labourer was compared to either his antecedents in the plantations or his contemporaries in the free labour market.

Secondly, I think you're mistaken is seeing the issue of continuing profitability as the main problem.

Psy, Avant-Guardian and MoreFire have produced convincing arguments that the real issue is not the maintainance of a level of profit for the slave owner but the issue of productivity and hence cost of raw materials to the industrial sector; plus the requirement of integration of economic function between the various sectors. The slave-owners, remember, did not abandon slave production because it became unprofitable to themselves; in fact, typically, they defended it out of self-interest.

The key fact is that slavery as a relation of production came into conflict with the expanding forces of production. The slave-based economy is necessarily labour intensive and resists the drive towards the mechanisation of production demanded by capitalist accumulation. So at a certain stage in the development of capitalism, slavery becomes a fetter on further development.

This is why abolitionism found eventual favour amongst wide and powerful sectors of the bourgeoisie.

Psy

14th April 2009, 15:34

Several points, firstly, where is the evidence behind this thesis? But even if we accept that the northern textile factory owners were opponents of slavery from an economic perspective (something you have yet to source) they could not have been the source of the bulk of political opposition, because that was built up before the rise of the US textile industry.

This was the case for the friction between the landed aristocracy in Britain and the British capitalist class that led to the British capitalist class pushing for allowing cheaper imports to undermined the landed aristocracy and the landed aristocracy reacting by siding with the guilds using the artisan class as a stick against capitalist expansion, that the capitalists responded by building their factories in small villages in Britain where the guilds were too weak. We also have to remember the landed aristocracy was far more productive then the US slave plantations so if the landed aristocracy was a barrier to capitalist expansion then US slave plantations were a much larger barrier.

While there was other reasons for the political opposition, the northern ruling class in the north had more and more invested interest in smashing slavery as the 19th century rolled on due to the slave plantations becoming a barrier to a larger and larger barrier to capitalist expansion since their inefficiency meant higher commodity prices along with their slaves not consuming many goods from northern capitalists even though their slave owner.

Secondly, while cotton plantations were the main source of labour for slaves by 1860 it was not the only industry to not the only task to which slaves were put; the primary indistry for Lousiana slaves, for example, was sugar.

It still effected the ability for northern capitalists to accumulate more capital.

Thirdly, the primary destination for cotton, through out the bulk of the period when anti-slavery became an established political issue (1780s-1860s) was not the New England, but the 'Old World'.

That doesn't change the fact that slavery made these commodities more extensive while depriving capitalists of consumers.

The American textile industry only really took off in the 1830s. Fourthly anti-slavery long pre-dates the Civil War, something I think is often forgotten.

And the Civil War took place in 1861.

And we are still left with the major problem, that slavery simply hadn't become unprofitable when the issue of antislavery dominated politics.
It became unprofitable to the capitalists as the high cost of slavery was passed on to them.

Invader Zim

14th April 2009, 15:39

nowhere here have you presented statistics to support your thesis that profitability was maintained in the last few decades of slavery in the States.

But by the same token Bob, neither you or anybody else has offered a shred of evidence that slavery ceased being profitable. However the evidence that there was a demand for slaves, and there would not be such a demand for slaves if slave owners were a. suffering losses or b. had discovered a cheaper source of labour.

The statistic about the numbers of slaves being transported only supports the notion that the demand for slaves labour continued. This does not address the issue of how productive the average slave labourer was compared to either his antecedents in the plantations or his contemporaries in the free labour market.

On the contrary Bob, it tells us a great deal. If there remained a strong demand for slaves, then it tells us - pretty obviously - that slave owners still demanded slave labour. That suggests two things, either that slaves remained cheaper than free labourers, or that the number of free labourers willing to work on the plantations was insufficient for plantation owner's needs. Either way, slave labour remained profitable. If it weren't there simply wouldn't have been the demand for slave labour.

Psy, Avant-Guardian and MoreFire have produced convincing arguments that the real issue is not the maintainance of a level of profit for the slave owner but the issue of productivity and hence cost of raw materials to the industrial sector;

I don't think their arguments, which have yet to be supplemented by a single scrap of evidence, are remotely compelling. If Southern plantations were incapable of producing cotton, and other materials, at the rate demanded by the Northern textile industry then there were plenty of other sources of cheap cotton. And we are still met with the fact that we have yet to see a shred of evidence that suggests that the leading players in the textile industry had a major stake in the abolition movement, or if they did, their economic concerns were a major factor. Furthermore, as stated on several occasions, the rise of abolitions as a serious, and successful, political movement long predates the rise of the textile industry in the USA.

The key fact is that slavery as a relation of production came into conflict with the expanding forces of production.

A claim oft repeated in this thread, but still remains utterly unsubstantiated.

The slave-based economy is necessarily labour intensive and resists the drive towards the mechanisation of production demanded by capitalist accumulation.

Which would be all very well, but slave labour was primarily employed in agriculture. The agricultural revolution, that would have rendered slavery obsolete, came only at the very close of, and after, the slave era. Specifically, historians have pointed to the beginnings of mechanisation of wheat harvesting in the mid-west in the 1850s and expansion of farm land in the 1860s, (the Homestead Act and the Land-Grant acts) and the forming of the USDA as marking the beginnings of the US agricultural revolution. As a result, slavery as a political issue, long predated the major changes in agricultural production. Anti-slavery, remember, was a major movement with major successes (such as the abolition of the slave trade in 1807/8) dating from the 18th century.

This is why abolitionism found eventual favour amongst wide and powerful sectors of the bourgeoisie.

Something you have yet to show with even a scrap of evidence.

Psy

14th April 2009, 15:43

Psy, Avant-Guardian and MoreFire have produced convincing arguments that the real issue is not the maintainance of a level of profit for the slave owner but the issue of productivity and hence cost of raw materials to the industrial sector; plus the requirement of integration of economic function between the various sectors. The slave-owners, remember, did not abandon slave production because it became unprofitable to themselves; in fact, typically, they defended it out of self-interest.

Same with the landed aristocracy, to them feudalism was profitable it was the capitalists that found feudalism unprofitable as feudalist production resulted in higher commodity values.

The key fact is that slavery as a relation of production came into conflict with the expanding forces of production. The slave-based economy is necessarily labour intensive and resists the drive towards the mechanisation of production demanded by capitalist accumulation. So at a certain stage in the development of capitalism, slavery becomes a fetter on further development.

You have to be careful here, capitalists after the crisis in the rate of profit in the 70's sought more labor incentive production (sweatshops) the difference is that slaves were not variable capital but constant capital (making just like machines in a factory) thus it was impossible for slave owners to extract surplus value of the slaves as the value of the slaves work was inherent in the cost of the slave. Meaning plantation owners were extracting surplus value from the capitalists that needed the raw materials their plantation produced and not from the labor.

Psy

14th April 2009, 15:51

On the contrary Bob, it tells us a great deal. If there remained a strong demand for slaves, then it tells us - pretty obviously - that slave owners still demanded slave labour. That suggests two things, either that slaves remained cheaper than free labourers, or that the number of free labourers willing to work on the plantations was insufficient for plantation owner's needs. Either way, slave labour remained profitable. If it weren't there simply wouldn't have been the demand for slave labour.

Or that the plantation owners were like a landed aristocracy and needed slave labor for its mode of production just like the how landed aristocracy required artisans and peasants for their mode of production.

I don't think their arguments, which have yet to be supplemented by a single scrap of evidence, are remotely compelling. If Southern plantations were incapable of producing cotton, and other materials, at the rate demanded by the Northern textile industry then there were plenty of other sources of cheap cotton.

You do realize importing commodities in the 19th century was costly for the USA as it had bad retaliations with Britain at the time.

And we are still met with the fact that we have yet to see a shred of evidence that suggests that the leading players in the textile industry had a major stake in the abolition movement, or if they did, their economic concerns were a major factor. Furthermore, as stated on several occasions, the rise of abolitions as a serious, and successful, political movement long predates the rise of the textile industry in the USA.

You act like just because political pressure starts for one reason that the bourgeois state acts upon it for the same reason.

Invader Zim

14th April 2009, 16:17

This was the case for the friction between the landed aristocracy in Britain and the British capitalist class that led to the British capitalist class pushing for allowing cheaper imports to undermined the landed aristocracy and the landed aristocracy reacting by siding with the guilds using the artisan class as a stick against capitalist expansion, that the capitalists responded by building their factories in small villages in Britain where the guilds were too weak. We also have to remember the landed aristocracy was far more productive then the US slave plantations so if the landed aristocracy was a barrier to capitalist expansion then US slave plantations were a much larger barrier.

The primary attack on the position of the gentry, by the British capitalist class did not have anything to do with slavery. The issue of slavery, from a British perspective was largely over in 1833. The major attacks on the economic position of the British ruling class came with the Peel government of the 1840s. Peel, between 1842 and 46 reduced or removed duties on over 1,000 articles (including, importantly, sugar). The primary example being the abolition of the Corn laws, which were designed to protect the interests of the British landed gentry by maintaining a high import price of Corn (which was actually wheat, barley, grain, rhy, etc).

While there was other reasons for the political opposition, the northern ruling class in the north had more and more invested interest in smashing slavery as the 19th century rolled onIf it was the Northern capitalists who were behind abolition, and their reasons for destroying slavery came in the mid 19th century, why did the major blow to the institution of slavery come in 1807 with the abolition of the slave trade? Sorry, but your argument makes no sense, when you consider that the abolition movement long pre-dates the rise of the forces you proclaim to be at the heart of abolition. Quite clearly abolitionism was an extremely powerful political force, with the major success of the abolition of the slave trade under its belt, long before the textile industry became a major force.

It still effected the ability for northern capitalists to accumulate more capital.Well in your previous post you pointed to the political leverage of the New England textile industry.

That doesn't change the fact that slavery made these commodities more extensive while depriving capitalists of consumersAgain we return to the fact that you have yet to provide any evidence that slavery did make purchasing cotton more expensive. But consider that with competition, pushing up demand for raw cotton, prices were always going to be high.

And the Civil War took place in 1861.And the abolition movemement had been a major political force for nearly 50 years before the rise of the Northern Textile industry, and nearly 80 years before the civil war.

It became unprofitable to the capitalists as the high cost of slavery was passed on to them. Assuming that slavery did inflate prices, assuming that the textile industry had any major political teath, and assuming that despite your claim that cotton was expensive that the textile industry didn't import from China, India or the Caribbean.

Or that the plantation owners were like a landed aristocracy and needed slave labor for its mode of production just like the how landed aristocracy required artisans and peasants for their mode of production.But plantation owners were not like the aristocracy, and did not need to rely upon slave labour as shown by the fact that the plantation system didn't die immidiately after the abolition of slavery. They used slave labour because it was in their interests to do so.

You do realize importing commodities in the 19th century was costly for the USA as it had bad retaliations with Britain at the time.On the contrary, after 1814 Anglo-American relations were relatively smooth, and (as stated) in the 1840s Britain actually had a policy of scrapping tarriffs in the hope of lowering the cost of living but also in the hope that other nations, including the US, would scrap their own tarriffs against British goods. In short British policy by the 1840s was designed to encourage international trade.

You act like just because political pressure starts for one reason that the bourgeois state acts upon it for the same reason.That is because, in the case of slavery, it, at least in a major part, was. You must remember that during this period the religious lobby was extremely powerful and extremely active. You must also consider that this lobby was extremely well connected and included figures right at the centre of high American politics and industry.

Psy

14th April 2009, 17:06

The primary attack on the position of the gentry, by the British capitalist class did not have anything to do with slavery. The issue of slavery, from a British perspective was largely over in 1833. The major attacks on the economic position of the British ruling class came with the Peel government of the 1840s. Peel, between 1842 and 46 reduced or removed duties on over 1,000 articles (including, importantly, sugar). The primary example being the abolition of the Corn laws, which were designed to protect the interests of the British landed gentry by maintaining a high import price of Corn (which was actually wheat, barley, grain, rhy, etc).

And the Peel Government reduced and removed duties due to pressure from the capitalist class.

If it was the Northern capitalists who were behind abolition, and their reasons for destroying slavery came in the mid 19th century, why did the major blow to the institution of slavery come in 1807 with the abolition of the slave trade? Sorry, but your argument makes no sense, when you consider that the abolition movement long pre-dates the rise of the forces you proclaim to be at the heart of abolition. Quite clearly abolitionism was an extremely powerful political force long before the textile industry became a major force.

In 1807 the landed aristocracy in Britain was still the dominant class so you are talking about two completely different ruling classes then the dominant class in the USA leading up to the civil-war. The landed aristocracy in Britain abolishing slavery helped the British aristocracy project a image of being civilized and defended people from those uncivilized like capitalists and slave owners.

Well in your previous post you pointed to the political leverage of the New England textile industry.

That were part of the northern capitalist class

Again we return to the fact that you have yet to provide any evidence that slavery did make purchasing cotton more expensive. But consider that with competition, pushing up demand for raw cotton, prices were always going to be high.

Slave labor is even less productive then the feudal mode of production which is why the fedual mode of production came into being. You requires far more slaves to the same of work of peasants and you need more peasants to do the same work of proletariat.

And the abolition movemement had been a major political force for nearly 50 years before the rise of the Northern Textile industry, and nearly 80 years before the civil war.

Again you assume that the state acts for the same populas want it to act.

Assuming that slavery did inflate prices, assuming that the textile industry had any major political teath, and assuming that despite your claim that cotton was expensive that the textile industry didn't import from China, India or the Caribbean.
China was still feudalist at the time, hell the landed aristocracy of China didn't disappear till after Mao took over. India was part of the British empire and the US had bad releations with Britain at the time that effected the price of importing commodities from Britain. The US didn't expand into the Caribbean till after the end of the 19th century.

Demogorgon

14th April 2009, 17:29

You have to look at this from a Northern perspective because the North was able to impose its will on the South at the end of the war. It wasn't to do with slavery ceasing to be profitable because the Southern Capitalists were desperate to keep it. Rather slavery was increasingly problematic to Northern interests, including those of the Northern Capitalists.

From the perspective of the North slavery was several things. First of all it was disgusting. The anti-slavery movement had been strong there for decades and had led to the abolition of slavery in those states (even the southern slave states that remained in the Union, such as Maryland, had tamed the institution compared to the deep south). This meant that many Northern politicians were keen to get rid of slavery too, either wiping it out or letting it fall into permanent decline (this latter group was crucial as we shall soon see).

Secondly it was unfair competition, while the South was not industrialised, it would industrialise sooner or later. And there is no particular reason why slaves could not be put to work in unskilled factory jobs. That would give Southern industrialists an advantage that their Northern counterparts were not in the least bid keen on them having. Of course you might cite evidence that slaves would not have been as good as paid workers, and I agree they probably wouldn't have, but that wasn't a sure thing then. As I say you have to see it from the perspective of people at the time.

Thirdly slavery was an assault on Northern political autonomy. The political power of slave owners was increasing at the expense of Northern capitalists. As far as they were concerned this needed to be put an end to. This was both interfering in domestic Northern arrangements (the deeply unpopular fugitive slave laws for instance) and also at the federal level where pro-slavery Southern politicians were using their increased clout to oppose economic policies beneficial to Northern capitalists. If their power increased any more, that could be a real problem for the North.

Now remember those Northern politicians who wanted slavery to fall into decline? This is where they come in. Their political outlook (very much embodied by Lincoln) was that slavery should be confined to the areas in which it already existed and have no impact on free states or any territories. THey also wanted to restrict the trade in slaves, making cross border trading more difficult and so on. They did not however want to ban slavery in slave states (though they wanted to ban its introduction anywhere it did not exist) and did not believe the federal Government had the authority to do so. Rather they wanted the South to gradually move away from slavery-applying some mild pressure to speed up the process, but otherwise leaving it to die on its own.

This halfway house started to crumble in the years leading up to the civil war where there was the aformentioned expansion of Southern power and of slavery itself. In the early years of the United States, slavery had indeed declined as the soft abolitionists (of which the moderates I described in the previous paragraph were the descendants of) intended. Several states banned slavery and the transatlantic slave trade was banned. However the South had very much started to fight back. The fugitive slave laws were passed as I mentioned, as was the Kansas-Nebraska act, on paper a compromise, but really just a concession by the North to the South to allow slavery in Northern territories and new states under some circumstances.

The final straw though was Dred Scott v. Sandford where the Supreme Court ruled that slavery was legal in all territories, that a slave brought into a Northern State was still a slave (previously they had become free if brought in voluntarily) effectively opening the door for slavery to be re-introduced in the North. As explained before, that was a major threat to Northern Capitalists.

This caused the moderate Republicans to toughen up. Lincoln was not elected on a platform of abolitionism, but he was committed to halting the expansion if slavery, undoing some of its recent gains and pursuing an economic policy very much to the benefit of Northern capitalists. That was too much for the South and hence the Civil War.

It is worth looking at how slavery actually came to an end as well. Lincoln, as a moderate, was still against the federal government outlawing slavery, believing it unconstitutional, and made no effort to do so. His Emancipation Proclamation was made in his capacity of Commander in Chief as a war measure to attempt to damage the South. It didn't outlaw slavery in any way, nor did it free slaves in Union controlled areas, rather it simply meant that those slaves in Confederacy Controlled areas were freed and entitled to their freedom once they either escaped or the Union captured their area. However that proclamation broke the back of slavery and lead to other parts of America banning it and then the Thirteenth Amendment, so in many ways the actual act of abolition can be put down to military strategy.

To sum up though, the primary reason was that slave owners were increasing their political power and threatening the economic and political interests of Northern capitalists. This led to moderates who wished to contain slavery increasingly siding with radicals who wanted it abolished.

A crucial point to add onto this is that after reconstruction failed, blacks in the south were forced back into a position so bad that they might as well have been slaves. This did indeed start coming apart as the economy moved on and it transpired that slavery did not suit modern capitalism. So the traditional Marxist perspective works there.

Demogorgon

14th April 2009, 17:33

Marx said Lincoln was basically an idiot who stumbled into a revolutionary situation but was smart enough to eventually realize that only a real attack on slavery could resolve the conflict.

If you read things by Eric Foner, he basically gives a similar account. Lincoln wanted to avoid conflict and wanted reconciliation, but by the end of the war he was devising sweeping changes to the ruling structure of the south.

Capitalists wanted to end slavery because they wanted to modernize the south and make the economy there based on money rather than landowning and how many slaves you owned. The growth of markets was actually hurt by the slave-owning ruling class because the slave-economy was more stagnant than the dynamic trading that goes on in industrial capitalism.
This is a pretty vital point as well. The increasing alignment of containment favouring moderates and hardline abolitionists meant that Northern Capitalists in general were very much for reforming the South in their image. Once the war had begun and the South needed crushed for obvious reasons, the desire to do so became central to Northern politics.

Psy

14th April 2009, 18:02

You have to look at this from a Northern perspective because the North was able to impose its will on the South at the end of the war. It wasn't to do with slavery ceasing to be profitable because the Southern Capitalists were desperate to keep it. Rather slavery was increasingly problematic to Northern interests, including those of the Northern Capitalists.

The plantations supported slavery for the same reason why landed aristocracy support peasantry as they were required for that mode of production.

Secondly it was unfair competition, while the South was not industrialised, it would industrialise sooner or later. And there is no particular reason why slaves could not be put to work in unskilled factory jobs. That would give Southern industrialists an advantage that their Northern counterparts were not in the least bid keen on them having. Of course you might cite evidence that slaves would not have been as good as paid workers, and I agree they probably wouldn't have, but that wasn't a sure thing then. As I say you have to see it from the perspective of people at the time.

How the hell could slave owners industrialize? The plantations had a realities low rate of profit (even less then landed aristocracy) thus had little capital and what capital the plantation owners had was tied up in slaves and land.

Thirdly slavery was an assault on Northern political autonomy. The political power of slave owners was increasing at the expense of Northern capitalists. As far as they were concerned this needed to be put an end to. This was both interfering in domestic Northern arrangements (the deeply unpopular fugitive slave laws for instance) and also at the federal level where pro-slavery Southern politicians were using their increased clout to oppose economic policies beneficial to Northern capitalists. If their power increased any more, that could be a real problem for the North.

Now remember those Northern politicians who wanted slavery to fall into decline? This is where they come in. Their political outlook (very much embodied by Lincoln) was that slavery should be confined to the areas in which it already existed and have no impact on free states or any territories. THey also wanted to restrict the trade in slaves, making cross border trading more difficult and so on. They did not however want to ban slavery in slave states (though they wanted to ban its introduction anywhere it did not exist) and did not believe the federal Government had the authority to do so. Rather they wanted the South to gradually move away from slavery-applying some mild pressure to speed up the process, but otherwise leaving it to die on its own.

This halfway house started to crumble in the years leading up to the civil war where there was the aformentioned expansion of Southern power and of slavery itself. In the early years of the United States, slavery had indeed declined as the soft abolitionists (of which the moderates I described in the previous paragraph were the descendants of) intended. Several states banned slavery and the transatlantic slave trade was banned. However the South had very much started to fight back. The fugitive slave laws were passed as I mentioned, as was the Kansas-Nebraska act, on paper a compromise, but really just a concession by the North to the South to allow slavery in Northern territories and new states under some circumstances.

The final straw though was Dred Scott v. Sandford where the Supreme Court ruled that slavery was legal in all territories, that a slave brought into a Northern State was still a slave (previously they had become free if brought in voluntarily) effectively opening the door for slavery to be re-introduced in the North. As explained before, that was a major threat to Northern Capitalists.

This caused the moderate Republicans to toughen up. Lincoln was not elected on a platform of abolitionism, but he was committed to halting the expansion if slavery, undoing some of its recent gains and pursuing an economic policy very much to the benefit of Northern capitalists. That was too much for the South and hence the Civil War.

It is worth looking at how slavery actually came to an end as well. Lincoln, as a moderate, was still against the federal government outlawing slavery, believing it unconstitutional, and made no effort to do so. His Emancipation Proclamation was made in his capacity of Commander in Chief as a war measure to attempt to damage the South. It didn't outlaw slavery in any way, nor did it free slaves in Union controlled areas, rather it simply meant that those slaves in Confederacy Controlled areas were freed and entitled to their freedom once they either escaped or the Union captured their area. However that proclamation broke the back of slavery and lead to other parts of America banning it and then the Thirteenth Amendment, so in many ways the actual act of abolition can be put down to military strategy.

To sum up though, the primary reason was that slave owners were increasing their political power and threatening the economic and political interests of Northern capitalists. This led to moderates who wished to contain slavery increasingly siding with radicals who wanted it abolished.

A crucial point to add onto this is that after reconstruction failed, blacks in the south were forced back into a position so bad that they might as well have been slaves. This did indeed start coming apart as the economy moved on and it transpired that slavery did not suit modern capitalism. So the traditional Marxist perspective works there.
You also have to look at the greater accumulation of capital during the civil-war, northern capitalists came out of the war much stronger economically then they went in, thus they saw no reason why not to impose their will on southern plantation owners and petiti-capitalists.

Invader Zim

14th April 2009, 18:13

And the Peel Government reduced and removed duties due to pressure from the capitalist class.

Certainly, that and his own ideological desire to do so, but that still has nothing to do with slavery.

In 1807 the landed aristocracy in Britain was still the dominant class so you are talking about two completely different ruling classes then the dominant class in the USA leading up to the civil-war.

But we are discussing the same movement, which was founded on the same principals. And we aren't just dicussing Britain, the US abolition movement was also succesful in seeing the abolition of the slave trade at the same time.

The landed aristocracy in Britain abolishing slavery helped the British aristocracy project a image of being civilized and defended people from those uncivilized like capitalists and slave owners.

You are mistaken, the landed aristocracy was not the source of opposition to the slave trade, quite the reverse. Individuals such as 'Mercator' voiced the opinions of many of the British elite. And the 'middle class' opponents of slavery did not voice the concern that slavery was not profitable. Rather they had other motives. To quote a very typical document from the period: -

Slavery and the slave trade were, "repugnant to the spirit and dictates of the Christian Religion, and a reproach to the justice and Humanity of a liberal and enlightened Nation."

That quote is taken from a 1792 anti-slavery petition to parlaiment.

I have never read, not once in all of my research, a single document that suggested opposition to slavery stemmed from a desire to damage the profits of the landed gentry, who owned many of the plantations in the Caribbean. Quite the reverse.

That were part of the northern capitalist class

But only a tiny part of it, you have yet to show that they had the political leverage to unite their peers in opposition to slavery or that they were even a part of the anti-slavery movement. Indeed you have yet to provide evidence of anything you have claimed.

Slave labor is even less productive then the feudal mode of production which is why the fedual mode of production came into being.

Yet the trans-Atlantic slave trade was an early-modern phenomenon, while feudalism was a medieval phenomenon.

Again you assume that the state acts for the same populas want it to act.

And I have read plenty of 18th and 19th century senior figures backing up my view, and you haven't provided any evidence to suggest I think should otherwise.

India was part of the British empire and the US had bad releations with Britain at the time that effected the price of importing commodities from Britain.

This, as we have already discussed, incorrect. In the 1840s Britain attempted o encourage international trade, including trade with the US.

Psy

14th April 2009, 18:41

Certainly, that and his own ideological desire to do so, but that still has nothing to do with slavery.

It means the capitalists saw the landed aristocracy as obstacle to capital at the time.

But we are discussing the same movement, which was founded on the same principals. And we aren't just dicussing Britain, the US abolition movement was also succesful in seeing the abolition of the slave trade at the same time.

But you are talking about two different ruling classes. The interests of landed aristocracy are different then that of capitalists.

You are mistaken, the landed aristocracy was not the source of opposition to the slave trade, quite the reverse. Individuals such as 'Mercator' voiced the opinions of many of the British elite. And the 'middle class' opponents of slavery did not voice the concern that slavery was not profitable. Rather they had other motives. To quote a very typical document from the period: -

The landed aristocracy publicly did opposed slavery as a PR move. That being the case they didn't start the anti-slavery movement in Britain but joined in when they saw it as a good PR move.

Slavery and the slave trade were, "repugnant to the spirit and dictates of the Christian Religion, and a reproach to the justice and Humanity of a liberal and enlightened Nation."

That quote is taken from a 1792 anti-slavery petition to parlaiment.

I have never read, not once in all of my research, a single document that suggested opposition to slavery stemmed from a desire to damage the profits of the landed gentry, who owned many of the plantations in the Caribbean. Quite the reverse.

Remember Britain abolished slavery while the landed aristocracy was the dominant class, that same was not true for the USA.

But only a tiny part of it, you have yet to show that they had the political leverage to unite their peers in opposition to slavery or that they were even a part of the anti-slavery movement. Indeed you have yet to provide evidence of anything you have claimed.

Yes so tiny they effected immigration policy, encouraging a open door immigration policy to man their factories with cheap labor. They also successfully prevented moralists from preventing kids and women for working in the factories (as again they were cheap labor).

Yet the trans-Atlantic slave trade was an early-modern phenomenon, while feudalism was a medieval phenomenon.

Yet slavery dates back to Egypt, Greece and Rome. They was phased out in "classical" civilizations because they were hard to control and relatively unproductive.

And I have read plenty of 18th and 19th century senior figures backing up my view, and you haven't provided any evidence to suggest I think should otherwise.

You insist that capitalists and landed aristocracy abolished slavery for the same reason.

This, as we have already discussed, incorrect. In the 1840s Britain attempted to encourage international trade, including trade with the US.
International trade that benefited the British empire.

Rascolnikova

14th April 2009, 18:49

You have to put the entire letter there or you're going to mislead someone:

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

-Abe Lincoln

Disclaimer: I think Abe was all right. But--

To be fair, lots of people who do terribly horrific things do so against their "personal wishes." I'm sure plenty of bosses have said, "It is my personal wish that I never had to fire anyone, and that you all had adequate health insurance, and that I could give you the leave you need to visit your dying grandmother. However, I have an official duty to the stock holders to make this company profitable."

Guess which wins?

AvanteRedGarde

14th April 2009, 18:55

This is a pretty vital point as well. The increasing alignment of containment favouring moderates and hardline abolitionists meant that Northern Capitalists in general were very much for reforming the South in their image.

As I and Zim have said. There is little to no evidence that this was the case. You are superimposing your view onto a historical circumstance with different conditions. This is absolutely no evidence that prior to the Civil War the northern bourgeoisie was out to break and and replace slavery. Depite the best attemots by myself and comrade Zim, people here seem content to wallow in the ignorance of leftist dogma. Like i said, read over our posts again. We, unlike most people who have weighed in, have obviously studied the situation.

Demogorgon

14th April 2009, 21:18

As I and Zim have said. There is little to no evidence that this was the case. You are superimposing your view onto a historical circumstance with different conditions. This is absolutely no evidence that prior to the Civil War the northern bourgeoisie was out to break and and replace slavery. Depite the best attemots by myself and comrade Zim, people here seem content to wallow in the ignorance of leftist dogma. Like i said, read over our posts again. We, unlike most people who have weighed in, have obviously studied the situation.
Read my posts again. There is neither dogma nor a lack of understanding of the subject. Indeed I agree with much of what Invader Zim is saying (unlike you it seems). To briefly sum up the long post I wrote, the Northern Capitalists and their moderate allies (who wanted to prevent the expansion of slavery) were increasingly becoming aligned with the radicals who wanted to do away with slavery due to the South's bullishness in the years preceding the war, particularly their attempts to expand slavery.

And of course during the war this quite quickly turned itself into a desire to remake the South. Reconstruction didn't just come out of nowhere after all. It seems to me as well that there was a clear interest in dealing with the Southern Elite as well, otherwise the war might never have been fought. If they had simply wanted to be free of slavery in their politics they would have let the South secede and be done with it. They would still have been able to dominate it economically as they always had done and without so much political problems coming from an increasingly powerful Southern Aristocracy.

You have offered some theories of your own, but they don't fit. The plantations weren't a threat to free white settlers as they were expanding Westwards, not Southwards and at any rate America wasn't short of land at the time anyway. Similarly I am surprised that after attempting to apply clumsy dialectics you have the brass neck to accuse me of dogma!

To put things clearly, there were two separate forces at play when it came to abolition, the Northern Capitalists (whose political representatives were mostly the moderates favouring containment) and the radicals who wanted rid of slavery. The motivations of the radicals are up for discussion and I favour much of Zim's explanation. Class solidarity did exist and was manifesting itself in disgust towards slavery generally through religious movements and the like. But it was the moderates and the capitalists who actually did away with slavery in the end, when they were forced into a position where they had to go to war with the Southern elite.

Demogorgon

14th April 2009, 21:24

The plantations supported slavery for the same reason why landed aristocracy support peasantry as they were required for that mode of production.
They weren't. The South may have been backwards, but it wasn't a pre-feudal slave state. It was a fairly primitive form of capitalism and the slave owners were mostly businessmen. And to put it in perspective, the plantations survived the end of slavery.

How the hell could slave owners industrialize? The plantations had a realities low rate of profit (even less then landed aristocracy) thus had little capital and what capital the plantation owners had was tied up in slaves and land. Well as was pointed out it was as profitable as ever, but that isn't the point, even if the slave owners hadn't industrialised, they could have sold their slaves to industrialists. From a Northern perspective that could have put its own system at risk.

You also have to look at the greater accumulation of capital during the civil-war, northern capitalists came out of the war much stronger economically then they went in, thus they saw no reason why not to impose their will on southern plantation owners and petiti-capitalists.
There isn't anything particularly wrong with that analysis, but there is more to it than that. They wanted to stamp out once and for all the Souther Elite who had been making so much trouble politically for them. Before the civil war, political debate, even where slavery was not involved was clearly taking a North vs. South characteristic and the Northern elite were quite happy to seize the chance to get rid of their opponents there.

Psy

15th April 2009, 00:35

They weren't. The South may have been backwards, but it wasn't a pre-feudal slave state. It was a fairly primitive form of capitalism and the slave owners were mostly businessmen. And to put it in perspective, the plantations survived the end of slavery.

The plantations had stagnant profits as they couldn't really grow and could only accumulate capital by hording capital (not consuming all the surplus value they extract). The problem the plantations had with slaves is they had to look after slaves during periods of idle production, when a landed aristocrat doesn't need any work to be done on the fields they simply don't call on their peasants and their peasants would work to sustain themselves yet the plantation owners in the south couldn't do that they had to look after their slaves while they were idle that made them less profitable. The plantation owner also required slave drivers that the landed aristocracy didn't as peasants didn't have to be forced to work in the same way slaves did as peasants were on average more content then slaves.

Well as was pointed out it was as profitable as ever, but that isn't the point, even if the slave owners hadn't industrialised, they could have sold their slaves to industrialists. From a Northern perspective that could have put its own system at risk.

It wouldn't have worked, at the time slaves were engaging in regular sabotage so no industrialist would hire slaves for fear they'd sabotage their machines like how they sabotage tools.

There isn't anything particularly wrong with that analysis, but there is more to it than that. They wanted to stamp out once and for all the Souther Elite who had been making so much trouble politically for them. Before the civil war, political debate, even where slavery was not involved was clearly taking a North vs. South characteristic and the Northern elite were quite happy to seize the chance to get rid of their opponents there.

Right but his boils down to the different modes of production between the north and south.

Niccolò Rossi

15th April 2009, 01:51

The specifics of this debate are way over my head unfortunately, though I've learnt alot from reading it, this is by far one of the best threads I've seen on revleft in a long time, hence my giving out thanks left and right. I'd still like to clarify, though:

There aren't any. One can still approach the issue of slavery from the point of view of slave resistance, a history from below, etc. The only point here is that the typical marxist analysis of abolitionism, proposing that it emerged because slavery ceased being profitable, largely isn't correct.

I don't think there is anything inherently marxist about "history from below". Specifically what I'd like to understand is how your thesis fits with the Marxist analysis of the importance of ideas in history, see for example the base-superstructure model or the notion that "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances".

Iuvo

16th April 2009, 05:50

Disclaimer: I think Abe was all right. But--

To be fair, lots of people who do terribly horrific things do so against their "personal wishes." I'm sure plenty of bosses have said, "It is my personal wish that I never had to fire anyone, and that you all had adequate health insurance, and that I could give you the leave you need to visit your dying grandmother. However, I have an official duty to the stock holders to make this company profitable."

Guess which wins?

Yes, but one could also look at it as a necessary evil to sacrifice things for federalism in the United States (Marx would certainly approve it dialectically, Federalist v Confederation). Of course, the latter is one where the manager is putting himself above his morality (he could resign), but the former (Abe) may have believed that the abolition of slavery could not be brought without federalism anyways (and that, since he was in the position to do so, might as well do it). Since the North was already in support of the emancipation, it was something he could push along (and I daresay would inevitably come with federalism in the future, wouldn't you say so? We left-wingers tend to do these kinds of things).

AvanteRedGarde

16th April 2009, 09:31

(Abe) may have believed that the abolition of slavery could not be brought without federalism anyways (and that, since he was in the position to do so, might as well do it).

{Smacking head repeatedly}

But he didn't.

Why are you even speculating if you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about? That you present such unknowleged statements prove you have no clue what you are talking about. Hence, you should either (a) sit on your hands and read what has been written here by people who know about the subject, or (b) pick up a f###ing book on the topic.

[edit: I guess I should qualify that. Comrade Zim has thus far displayed a reality-based understanding of the subject (as opposed to the Lincoln myth proponents or those wearing their "Marxist" blinders). S/he obviously has far more patience than myself. Listen to Comrade Zim.]

Invader Zim

20th April 2009, 00:30

The specifics of this debate are way over my head unfortunately, though I've learnt alot from reading it, this is by far one of the best threads I've seen on revleft in a long time, hence my giving out thanks left and right. I'd still like to clarify, though:

I don't think there is anything inherently marxist about "history from below". Specifically what I'd like to understand is how your thesis fits with the Marxist analysis of the importance of ideas in history, see for example the base-superstructure model or the notion that "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances".

Hey, I've just got back from a conference, giving a paper on this topic as it happens. So sorry for the delay. I'll get back to you in the morning.

MarxSchmarx

20th April 2009, 06:10

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../images/icons/icon1.gif
You have to look at this from a Northern perspective because the North was able to impose its will on the South at the end of the war. It wasn't to do with slavery ceasing to be profitable because the Southern Capitalists were desperate to keep it. Rather slavery was increasingly problematic to Northern interests, including those of the Northern Capitalists.

From the perspective of the North slavery was several things. First of all it was disgusting. The anti-slavery movement had been strong there for decades and had led to the abolition of slavery in those states (even the southern slave states that remained in the Union, such as Maryland, had tamed the institution compared to the deep south). This meant that many Northern politicians were keen to get rid of slavery too, either wiping it out or letting it fall into permanent decline (this latter group was crucial as we shall soon see).

Secondly it was unfair competition, while the South was not industrialised, it would industrialise sooner or later. And there is no particular reason why slaves could not be put to work in unskilled factory jobs. That would give Southern industrialists an advantage that their Northern counterparts were not in the least bid keen on them having. Of course you might cite evidence that slaves would not have been as good as paid workers, and I agree they probably wouldn't have, but that wasn't a sure thing then. As I say you have to see it from the perspective of people at the time.

Thirdly slavery was an assault on Northern political autonomy. The political power of slave owners was increasing at the expense of Northern capitalists. As far as they were concerned this needed to be put an end to. This was both interfering in domestic Northern arrangements (the deeply unpopular fugitive slave laws for instance) and also at the federal level where pro-slavery Southern politicians were using their increased clout to oppose economic policies beneficial to Northern capitalists. If their power increased any more, that could be a real problem for the North.

Now remember those Northern politicians who wanted slavery to fall into decline? This is where they come in. Their political outlook (very much embodied by Lincoln) was that slavery should be confined to the areas in which it already existed and have no impact on free states or any territories. THey also wanted to restrict the trade in slaves, making cross border trading more difficult and so on. They did not however want to ban slavery in slave states (though they wanted to ban its introduction anywhere it did not exist) and did not believe the federal Government had the authority to do so. Rather they wanted the South to gradually move away from slavery-applying some mild pressure to speed up the process, but otherwise leaving it to die on its own.
To your list I would add a fourth point - namely that hired labor did better at maximizing profit. Slaves worked well for long term investments like agricultural and certain artisanal work, but for short term projects hired labor was easier - you didn't have to worry about being stuck with an unsold "construction slave" after a building was completed. I know more about serfdom than slavery, but in many respects the institutions were similar. Serfdom had an analogous logic, and was profitable as long as the lords could hire out their serfs, acting as a "temp agency". But this involved a heavy overhead that was economically unsustainable. I suspect similar dynamics worked with slavery, if a master wanted to hire out a skilled artisan. In the early days of the industrial revolution, it was arguably cheaper to pay slightly higher wages to a freeman and cut out the middleman.

Indeed, although it has become fashionable to argue against the view that serfdom became unprofitable (a view, I would argue, that has more to do with contemporary political polemics than historical fact), arguably rapid industrial development could not operate on the basis of bound, specialized labor that is contracted out, but required a large pool of "free" workers who could be rented out at will. I have little reason to believe that, issues of race aside, American slavery was much different.

Moreover, the limits to the lingering strength of racial prejudice are illustrated by the fact that a similar dynamic to European and East Asian serfdom's transition to capitalism operated in those parts of latin america that did not have a large african slave population (e.g., Mexico and the southern cone) viz. the indigenous population.

Invader Zim

20th April 2009, 20:41

I don't think there is anything inherently marxist about "history from below". Specifically what I'd like to understand is how your thesis fits with the Marxist analysis of the importance of ideas in history, see for example the base-superstructure model or the notion that "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances".

I don't think there is anything inherently marxist about "history from below".There isn't, you don't need to use a marxist analysis to employ 'history from below', but I would argue to employ a Marxist analysis you would have to employ history from below.

Specifically what I'd like to understand is how your thesis fits with the Marxist analysis of the importance of ideas in history, see for example the base-superstructure model or the notion that "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances"Well, this is actually a basic functionalist/structuralist position that Marx was stating was necessary, and it is not unique to Marxism. However my position is completely in line with that, I am taking the view that it was the rise of specific ideas, formed via the changes to political and social thought as a result of the Enlightenment and the Second Great Awakening that created the enviroment that supported anti-slavery sentiments. I.e. abolitionism was indeed the result of changes in the enviroment, but in terms of intellectual enviroment as opposed to economic enviroment.

It means the capitalists saw the landed aristocracy as obstacle to capital at the time.

However, indistrial capitalists weren't necessarily opposed to slavery, and the landed gentry weren't necessarily in favour of it.

Your attempts to paint anti-slavery as being a 'class' issue, with the aristocracy on one side and new industrial middleing orders on the other, is weak in the extreme. The fact is that the anti-slave trade bill went through the Houses of Commons and of Lords.

But you are talking about two different ruling classes. The interests of landed aristocracy are different then that of capitalists.

Indeed they are, but the primary reasons behind the abolition movement were the same regardless of class; it was a campaign (on both sides of the Atlantic) driven by changes in social acceptability rather than changes in economic outlook.

Yes so tiny they effected immigration policy, encouraging a open door immigration policy to man their factories with cheap labor. They also successfully prevented moralists from preventing kids and women for working in the factories (as again they were cheap labor).

None of the above addresses my point.

On the contrary it was never phased out of classic civilisation. Slavery has always existed and still does today.

[QUOTE]You insist that capitalists and landed aristocracy abolished slavery for the same reason.

And I have provided you with evidence to backup my point; where is yours? The anti-slave trade movement was the result of the trans-Atlantic communication network, which was especially strong among the evangelical community. To give you an idea, one of the key anti-slavery texts, Some Historical Account of Guinea by Anthony Benezet was written in the New World. It was sent by various letters to key individuals in Europe and had a marked influence. In particular Benezet had a massive influence upon Granville Sharp, John Wesley and Thomas Clarkson. Wesley, for example, borrowed the bulk of Some Historical Account of Guinea when he wrote his 'Thoughts on Slavery', which was one of the most important anti-slavery tracts both in Britain and America. Two influencial abolitionists in the US, Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury, who drummed up considerable political opposition to slavery (including petitioning the likes of George Washington) as well as convinsing the rapidly expanding Methodist Church in the States (with hundreds of thousands of members by 1814) to oppose slavery, were Wesleyan Methodists who regularly invoked Thoughts on Slavery. Thomas Clarkson, was of course, one of the key members of the Clapham sect whose massive influence, and work drumming up public and political opposition to slavery, is well documented. I could go on pointing out these links all day. The abolition movements in the States and Europe were founded by the same individuals and were based on the same ideological and religious ideals.

International trade that benefited the British empire.

Indeed, the aim was to reduce the cost of living and increase British industrial productivity by encouraging the cheap import of raw materials from abroad. But that isn't the issue, the issue is that you claimed, falsely, that the Britain did not have a good relationship with the US, which isn't true, and that Britain wasn't willing to trade with the America (in other words operate a protectionist policy), which also isn't true, as shown by Britain's decision to actively encourage foreign trade.

Psy

21st April 2009, 18:24

However, indistrial capitalists weren't necessarily opposed to slavery, and the landed gentry weren't necessarily in favour of it.

They can't really use slaves due to their constant sabotage of the means of production thus slavery ties up human capital into a form the industrial capitalists can't use. The only advantage slavery is to industrial capitalists is that their constant destruction of tools means their owners have to buy more tools but even the slowest industrial capitalists would eventually figure out that translates into higher prices for what the slaves produces.

Your attempts to paint anti-slavery as being a 'class' issue, with the aristocracy on one side and new industrial middleing orders on the other, is weak in the extreme. The fact is that the anti-slave trade bill went through the Houses of Commons and of Lords.

I paint slavery as a huge inefficiency to the accumulation of capital.

Indeed they are, but the primary reasons behind the abolition movement were the same regardless of class; it was a campaign (on both sides of the Atlantic) driven by changes in social acceptability rather than changes in economic outlook.

So the fact that there was a sugar boycott in Britain over slavery played no role in the British state banning slavery? The fact the landed aristocracy had a peasentry growing more class conscious slavery had nothing about it and the landed aristocracy didn't care about their peasants looking at their class relations as slavery got more attention in society?

In the USA the issue of slavery was causing far less social upheaval then it did in Britian. Since the French Revolution the landed aristocracy around the world started to fear their peasants as much as the Russian revolution cased capitalists to fear the proletariat, thus as soon as the peasantry started to stir for what ever reason the landed aristrocracy took instant notice while in the USA the capitalists had yet to learn that the proletariat could revolt seize property and lynch capitalists thus had less reasons to end slavery to pacify the masses.

[QUOTEThey was phased out in "classical" civilizations because they were hard to control and relatively unproductive.

On the contrary it was never phased out of classic civilisation. Slavery has always existed and still does today.
[/quote]
Yes it was, this is why we had the rise of feudalism and the ruling classes relying less and less on slave labor.

And I have provided you with evidence to backup my point; where is yours? The anti-slave trade movement was the result of the trans-Atlantic communication network, which was especially strong among the evangelical community. To give you an idea, one of the key anti-slavery texts, Some Historical Account of Guinea by Anthony Benezet was written in the New World. It was sent by various letters to key individuals in Europe and had a marked influence. In particular Benezet had a massive influence upon Granville Sharp, John Wesley and Thomas Clarkson. Wesley, for example, borrowed the bulk of Some Historical Account of Guinea when he wrote his 'Thoughts on Slavery', which was one of the most important anti-slavery tracts both in Britain and America. Two influencial abolitionists in the US, Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury, who drummed up considerable political opposition to slavery (including petitioning the likes of George Washington) as well as convinsing the rapidly expanding Methodist Church in the States (with hundreds of thousands of members by 1814) to oppose slavery, were Wesleyan Methodists who regularly invoked Thoughts on Slavery. Thomas Clarkson, was of course, one of the key members of the Clapham sect whose massive influence, and work drumming up public and political opposition to slavery, is well documented. I could go on pointing out these links all day. The abolition movements in the States and Europe were founded by the same individuals and were based on the same ideological and religious ideals.

Can you prove the US and British state acted solely on their theories?

Indeed, the aim was to reduce the cost of living and increase British industrial productivity by encouraging the cheap import of raw materials from abroad. But that isn't the issue, the issue is that you claimed, falsely, that the Britain did not have a good relationship with the US, which isn't true, and that Britain wasn't willing to trade with the America (in other words operate a protectionist policy), which also isn't true, as shown by Britain's decision to actively encourage foreign trade.
The point of imperialist trade is to get the weaker nation dependent and indebted. Meaning the British trade agreements were based on dominating the other nations economy which thus the reason behind the Opium Wars of the 19th century.

Psy

26th May 2009, 17:35

In Britain the situation was different, there was sugar boycott over slavery as the British artisans were actually more class conscious then industrial workers in the USA leading up to the civil-war, the British artisans had been in full armed revolt with help from the British peasantry for decades against the capitalist class when Britain abolished slavery.

The landed aristocracy pushed against slavery and for better working conditions as they were dealing with their peasantry taking up guerrilla tactics against the British capitalists and British state, the British aristocracy were not stupid and figure if their rebelling peasants ever defeated the British state they would have to look good in the eyes of the British peasantry if they didn't want to end up like the French aristocracy.

In the USA the capitalists class didn't have the same threat of revolution, the capitalists in the north were not worried of ending up on the guillotine like the British aristocracy. The north capitalists were not humanitarians as their factories were far more inhumane than the plantations of the south. What the north capitalists wanted was cheaper raw materials to feed their factories, meaning they wanted to crush all economic nationalism in the south to ensure the south was nothing more then a colony for the north providing it with cheap raw materials. They abolished slavery as was not efficient enough and they could produce cotton much cheaper with wage slaves.