Did Slavery Retard Industrialization in the South - Term Paper Example

Did slavery retard industrialization in the South? Affiliation Did slavery retard industrialization in the South? Introduction In the 1890s, during the Civil war the South was principally agricultural meaning that they were highly dependent upon the sale of staples to the world market. The South did not use or experiment with slave labor in manufacturing, this is because for most of its part it was satisfied with its agriculture and the manner it uplifted the economy (Sobel, 2007). Therefore, the South did not lag behind in industrial development because of industrial development or economic disadvantages, but because of slavery that tied up the economy. This is because by 1860s, the value of slaves in the United States had escalated exceeding the invested values of all the nation’s factories, banks, and railroads combined (Morgan, 1983). This was such that, by the time the eve of the civil war came the prices of cotton had risen where the confederate leaders believed that necessity of cotton in the world market would assist the south with military and diplomatic support they required for victory. However, that was not the case because as they were trying to mobilize the important strengths and weakness slave labor and free market became clearer, especially in relation to supporting the economy. This essay will answer the question of whether slavery retarded the economy of the South. During the war, smaller industrial base did the mobilizing of the troops, an agricultural economy and fewer rail lines that were based on slave labor made mobilization of resources more difficult in the South. This resulted to the economy of the South to become shaky throughout the war (Smith & Economic History Society, 1998). The Emancipation Proclamation both enraged the South promising them freedom for their slaves threatening the existence of its primary labor source. This caused the economy of the South to suffer in 1864 as the Union Armies battered with the Confederate troops in the western and eastern theaters (Fearon & Laitin, 2003). This lowered the productivity of the South as the war slowed down the advantage of slavery that the North had over the South. Therefore, although slavery was established to be highly profitable it had a negative impact on the economy of the South because it impeded on the development of cities, industries. This in turn contributed to soil exhaustion, high debts and lack of technological innovation. According to Ralph Waldo Emerson, he states, “slavery is no scholar, no improver, it does not love the whistle of the railroad; it does not love the newspaper, the mail-bag, a college, a book or a preacher who has the absurd whim of saying what he thinks. Slavery does not increase the white population does not improve the soil because everything goes to decay” (Hughes, 1884). The observation that was made by Emmerson was accurate in relation to the South because slavery caused more problems than good (Smith & Economic History Society, 1998). This is because the slave societies did not develop commerce through urban centers, as well as, finance and industry as was in the case of the North. The cities in the South were small because they did not develop diversified economies, where instead of growing their economy the South did not even become the processing center where even the southern ports did not engage in international trade. This is because the main function of the south was to transport and market cotton and other agricultural crops, as well as, supply local farmers and planters with agricultural implements. Additionally, they produced some small numbers of manufactured goods that included cotton gins that was needed by farmers (Kopytoff, 1982). Slave trade retarded industrialization in the South in part in the sense that, there was overemphasis of slave-based agriculture that made the southerners to neglect transportation and industry improvements (Butchart, 2010). This caused the transportation and manufacturing industry to lag behind compared to the North. For example, by 1860, the North almost 1.3 million industry workers the South, on the other hand, had 110,000 worker (Smith & Economic History Society, 1998). Therefore, the North manufactured nine-tenths of the Industry goods that were produced in the United States. The transportation sector was seen to be primitive to the standards that had been set by the North. In that, in case a person was travelling the 1,460 overland miles coming from Baltimore to New Orleans they had to use five different railroads, two steam boats and two stagecoaches (Fearon & Laitin, 2003). This resulted from the use of the railroads in the transportation of cotton to the southern ports. Taxation and government spending was kept on the lower side because of the high personal debts. This caused the Southerners to lag behind in support of education that in turn cause the widespread of illiteracy. Where in 1850, 20% of all Southern white adults could not manage to read (Mead, 2010). Additionally, large slaveholders owned most of the region’s slaves making the wealth in the region more stratified than how it was in the North. In that, the middles class held a relatively small portion of the region’s property, the wealthy planters, on the other hand, owned a very significant portion of slave labor and productive lands (Smith & Economic History Society, 1998). These were indicated that during the last period of the Civil War slave ownership became increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. White people who live in the South decided to settle in the urban center as slave and land ownership grew more concentrated (Mead, 2010). The scarceness of the population meant that schools, roads, and other basic infrastructure were lacking in the south meaning that the South macro-economic problems were also predominant of any agricultural country. This meant that slavery was only in part to blame for the retardation of industrialization in the South (Sobel, 2007). Additionally, the South lacked local markets and centers that would have increased the capitalization of Southern labor; hence, hurting the older plantations of the eastern seaboard. Therefore, slavery retarded the growth of the compensating conditions, industrial diversification and immigration, which the North had alleviated because of the growing pains of agricultural expansion. The profitability of slavery was evident; however, according to research done by Foner & Garraty, (1991), on the “high valuation of Negro labor during the 1850s” slavery did not retard the economy of the South, but had a negative impact on the economy. Additionally, in a study by Richard Wade in 1964 on antebellum of southern urbanization he indicated that slavery was deleterious to the macro-economic grown of the area (Einhorn, 2008). This is because of the peculiar institution did not have the fundamental compatibility with urbanization (Fearon & Laitin, 2003). Where the relative cost of maintaining the policing slaves in the Southern exceeded the cost of plantation slavery by the 1850s. Therefore, this with the heightened fears among the white people of the servile insurrection played a major role in retarding the growth of urban centers in the South. A research by Bratt (1962) supported the arguments made in relation to the plantations economy, which was generally based on the negative effects on the South economic development. Additionally, it established that plantation slave labor and the social and economic consequences of investment in the form of capital it affected income distribution, urbanization and economic profitability. The Northerners suggested that the heavy emphasis on cotton cultivation by the farmers caused many damages to the whole region (Brawley, 1995). This suggestion was true because apart for the huge slump that occurred in the Mid-1840s, the prices of cotton never went low enough to motivate the planters to relocate their capital and labor into some other areas of business that were successful. Another problem that led to lack of industrialization in the South was that there was colossal growth in request of the English cotton fabric industry. The South’s supply was not adequate as the supply outstripped the demand causing a rapid expansion in the westward. This in turn limited the profitability if the cotton cultivation for specific planters, especially those who lived in the Old Southeast (Kopytoff, 1982). Additionally, during the Antebellum period there was an increase in the price of slaves making the southwestern plantations to flourish due to their heavy focus on the cultivation of cotton. However, this caused a negative impact on the economy because slaves were capitalized labor meaning that they did not earn any income; hence, making them not to consume any goods and services. The effects of capitalized labor was that it limited urban and industrial growth in the south as there was not enough money in the South for development (Brawley, 1995). The fact that the South was focused on the growth of Cotton for export it left little space or no space for them to cultivate foodstuff. For that reason, the South had to import food from Northwest meaning that even if there were profits made in the selling of cotton the profits most of them were either reinvested in slaves or misspent on the purchasing of foodstuffs from outside the region. This cause the exhaustion of capital from the South (Smith & Economic History Society, 1998). However, in recent research that was conducted on the issue it has been established that the argument by the North was baseless in the sense that, the South did not run on huge food deficits as claimed by the North. Therefore, it is clear that planation economy was unhealthy for the both the planters and the Southern economy. Capitalization of slave labor crippled the finances of industries although industrial slavery was profitable to both an efficient labor system and investors (Einhorn, 2008). Therefore, slavery became unviable because it reduced the mobility of labor and flexibility of capital. Additionally, the slave could not earn an income meaning that the South could not impose any taxes on the slaves. For that reason, slave-owners were the only people who benefited from the trade mostly as the result of capitalization of the slaves on the economy was negative. As much as slavery caused slow development of the Southern industrialization other factors such as politics. When Lincoln became the president in 1861, he was faced by a dived nation because there were the Northerners and the Southerners (Mead, 2010). Additionally he was faced by a congress that was dominated by the Republicans since many of Southern Democratic members had left to join the Confederacy. Lincoln and the congressional Republicans used this opportunity to come up with legislations that had flagged in congress because of Southern opposition (Smith & Economic History Society, 1998). In that, the bills that were set were intended for the United States to emerge by war end as an economic super power poising a massive and rapid westward expansion. The southerners leaving the congress gave the North the opportunity to dominate and establish America economic and industrial future. Many bills were enacted by the congress and among them was the Homestead Act in 1941, which provided fee title going up to 160 acres of undeveloped federal land that was located outside the 13 original colonies to any person who was willing to cultivate and live on the land (Einhorn, 2008). Most southerners had opposed the idea because it was reduce their chances and decrease the opportunity of slave trade in areas where settlement was most likely to happen. The Northerners on the other hand, had clamored for the bill for many years because they understood the potential the land posed on the economy. The intention of Lincoln was to ensure that every poor person had a home where in 1862 he made good his promise and signed the bill into law (Brawley, 1995). Therefore, it is eminent that politics play a major role in the depreciation of the South economy because through slave trade the slaveholders would became wealthier. Therefore, it is accurate to state that industry and manufacturing were retarded because of three reasons. Firstly, the slaves did not have the capability of mastering the precise, delicate operations that manufacturing allegedly involved because all of them lack education, which was not even given in the area (Butchart, 2010). This is because education was not an option for the slave as their work was to work in the plantation. Additionally, even though they wanted to be educated the possibility was not there because there were no schools in the South. Secondly, the masters in the industry lacked the desire and the initiative to accumulate sufficient capital to invest in manufacturing (Smith & Economic History Society, 1998). Lastly, the lack of large towns in the South was a major consequence of the rebellious risks because of the concentration of the slaves, which posed a major risk on the Southern society. Additionally, instead of the planters investing in the industry or the economy of the South most of them invested on slaves where there were many slaveholders, which in turn caused the overcapitalization of slaves, which was bad for the economy. Farmers preferred using slaves instead of using machines because they did not want to maintain them and having slaves would be cheaper on them (Einhorn, 2008). In conclusion, slavery partly caused the retardation of the economy in the South because of overcapitalization of the slaves. Additionally, the slave owners used the profits they made to invest in more slaves rather than invest in industrialization. For that reason, the planter was also to blame for the lack of economic and industrial growth in the South. Additionally, most of the Southerners leaders did not want the abolishment of slave trade because they would make huge losses. Additionally, the planters did not allow the growth of horticultural foods, which came as a loss to the economy of the South because most of the profits they made from the growth of cotton went to the importation of foodstuffs. Therefore, slavery and stakeholders in the South played a major role in the retardation of industrialization. References Bratt, E. C. (1962). The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives before Us. Journal of Finance, 17, 704–705. Brawley, L. C. (1995). Fugitive nation: Slavery, travel and technologies of American identity, 1830-1860. Illinois: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Butchart, R. E. (2010). Black hope, white power: emancipation, reconstruction and the legacy of unequal schooling in the US South, 1861–1880. Paedagogica Historica 46(2): 35-50. doi:10.1080/00309230903528447 Einhorn, R. L. (2008). Slavery. Enterprise and Society, 9, 491–506. doi:10.1093/es/khn043 Fearon, J., & Laitin, D. (2003). Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War. American Political Science Review, 97, 75–90. doi:10.1017/S0003055403000534 Foner, E., & Garraty, J. (1991). The reader’s companion to American history. Books.google.com. Hughes, T. C. (1884). Ralph Waldo Emerson. Notes and Queries s6-X (256): 409-i-409 doi:10.1093/nq/s6-X.256.409-i Kopytoff, I. (1982). Slavery. Annual Review of Anthropology, 11, 207–230. Mead, W. R. (2010). Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 by Gordon S. wood. Foreign Affairs 89(2): 1. Morgan, P. (1983). The Ownership of Property by Slaves in the Mid-Nineteenth-Century Low Country. Journal of Southern History, 49, 399–420. doi:10.2307/2208102 Smith, M. M., & Economic History Society. (1998). Debating slavery: Economy and society in the antebellum American South : prepared for the Economic History Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sobel, M. (2007). Slavery and African Ethnicities in the Americas: Restoring the Links (review). Journal of the Early Republic 27(3): 532-536. doi:10.1353/jer.2007.0054 Read More