Curious, but I first read that term, "Mudsill Theory" no more than a week ago in this book:
Freehling, "The Road to Disunion" Vol. II
Posted on 03/17/2015 8:14:26 AM PDT by iowamark
So you say.
no.
Efficiency, which often exceeds even moral reservations.
Not to neglect also the reservations of many in freeing large numbers of slaves without some semblance of their adjustments to making do in free market economics. A consideration of which the North was completely negligent of, and uninterested in.
Hey, you’re the one saying it would have happened when southern agriculture became mechanized. That happened in the 1940s. Coincidentally, that’s when sharecropping, the farm labor system that replaced slavery in the south, faded away.
Hey! I also added to that statement. But you conveniently didn’t take that up.
I retain a lot of ambivalence about both sides in the War.
I was recently told by a Southern sympathizer that one should always hand over a five dollar bill face down so as not to have to look at the face of Lincoln. I reminded him however that despite whatever shortcomings Lincoln may have had he was in fact a great writer, to which he replied, “Oh he had secretaries do that for him.” Though I rejoined about his writing the Gettysburg address en route on the back of an envelope.
Yet I know my loyalties when push came to shove would have been with the South for which I will never make an apology. Take it as you will.
In what way did you add to that statement?
Thank you for your input. Not all Southerners were slave owners obviously so what was the lot of the average white Southerner, a farmer that this, not a member of the mercantile class? How did they feel about slavery?
I read about the same situation in Russia in 1861 to 1866. There was a lot of unrest. The Tsar issued an Edict of Emancipation to free the serfs in 1859 and there was some political stuff and freedom for the serfs finally started 1861. The nobility had borrowed against the value of the serfs and the properties so that they were weakened and less powerful. The nobility were under the power of the Czar but they no ability to negotiate. the Czar Alexander the second was able to implement the rule. The Nobility were paid in government bonds. Civil War was avoided for 50 years. And they could of worked on the solution more over time. Alexander II was assassinated later.
I read about the same situation in Russia in 1861 to 1866. There was a lot of unrest. The Tsar issued an Edict of Emancipation to free the serfs in 1859 and there was some political stuff and freedom for the serfs finally started 1861. The nobility had borrowed against the value of the serfs and the properties so that they were weakened and less powerful. The nobility were under the power of the Czar but they no ability to negotiate. the Czar Alexander the second was able to implement the rule. The Nobility were paid in government bonds. Civil War was avoided for 50 years. And they could of worked on the solution more over time. Alexander II was assassinated later.
Regal: "You are hovering in the vicinity of making a valid point, if it weren’t for..."
Most of our Founders' generation -- including slave-owners like Washington and Jefferson -- recognized slavery as evil.
Yes, a necessary evil, but certainly evil, to be abolished if and when, uh, practicable.
So Jefferson and others set to work calculating and devising plans to free slaves gradually, returning them as free-men to Africa.
All such calculations show, in hind sight, that it would have been vastly cheaper in treasure (to say nothing of blood) than fighting the Civil War.
And Washington himself is quoted as saying that if he had to give up slavery to achieve Union, he would do so.
Washington freed his slaves in his will.
Only in later generations did slave-owners adopt a "slavery is morally good" attitude, and become willing to defend slavery at all costs, even to the death.
As for whether slavery was a form of communism... well, you might say that, and it would be no less valid than claiming, as we so often see on these threads, that "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans were all a bunch of communists.
So, how does that old saying go? "One good hyperbole deserves another?"
I’m no expert on antebellum Southern society by any means, but my understanding is that the majority of white men in the South were small farmers basically trying to eke out a subsistence living simply by growing what they need to eat. These people probably would not have benefited a whole lot from slavery, but the social structure in Southern society was such that these people possessed very little power, as you might imagine. Socially, it was accepted, even by the majority of these subsistence farmers, that the ideal was to acquire more lands and acquire slaves. Even the poor farmers who couldn’t afford to purchase slaves likely aspired to do so. Further, freed slaves likely would have competed with these farmers for land and other resources, further squeezing them economically.
The slave system was seen as an inherent part of Southern society, even by those who were not slave owners. I don’t think there would have been any great push for ending slavery from these people. Also, keep in mind racial attitudes of the time. Even in the North and even among abolitionists in the North, the idea that the slaves could be the equals of white men had not in any way taken hold. While there likely were exceptions, even the most rabid abolitionists did not demand social or political equality for the slaves after they were given freedom. (Granting freed slaves the right to vote was primarily a political maneuver by the Radical Republicans. They knew that the freed slaves would vote Republican and allow the Republicans to control Southern governments.) It’s highly unlikely that Southern farmers who did not own slaves would have regarded the idea of freeing slaves favorably. In the South, there was in fact a generalized fear of blacks. It was believed that if allowed to, blacks would seek revenge for their enslavement, killing white men, raping white women and generally destroying property. Men brought up in a society where that type of attitude is widespread are hardly likely to lead a push against slavery, especially since such a push would have directly opposed the plantation owners who were considered the social and political elite of the Southern society.
The simple truth is that slavery held on as long as it did in the South because the economy of the South was based on slave labor. Slavery had never really taken root anywhere in the North, even when it was legal. It is likely that it would have lasted indefinitely in the South absent the external force that actually did end it. That’s what’s really ironic about the Civil War. While individuals fought in the war for a variety of reasons, the South as a society fought it primarily to protect the institution of slavery. The irony is that fighting the war likely led to a much quicker end to the institution. Had the South just sucked it up and dealt with a Lincoln presidency, we don’t know what may have happened, but it does seem likely that slavery would have lasted longer than it did.
In fact, there was no treason, alleged or prosecuted, when Deep South Fire Eaters declared their secession, beginning in December 1860.
And there was no treason, alleged or prosecuted, when Deep South secessionists elected and formed their own Confederate government.
And there was no treason, alleged or prosecuted, when Confederates began provoking war by seizing dozens of Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.
And there was no treason, alleged or prosecuted, when the Confederate army started war by a military assault on Federal troops in Fort Sumter.
And there was no treason, alleged or prosecuted, when the Confederate government formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
And after it was all over, all charges of "treason" were dropped, none were prosecuted for it, and all were eventually restored to full citizenship.
Nevertheless, our Constitution's definition of "treason" remains clear:
The Confederacy provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States, while sending military aid to Confederate forces fighting in Union states.
If that's not "treason", then the word itself means nothing.
Well stated points.
Several posters have addressed the question of slavery economics -- was it in 1860 profitable and growing, or unprofitable and dying out?
Well, if you think about it, the answer is, "yes"!
And the reason is, we must understand, there was not "one South" and there was not just "one slavery".
In fact, broadly speaking, there were three different "Souths" with three different economies and three different methods for employing slavery, not all successfully.
The Deep South
In the Deep South, "Gone With The Wind" plantations were a common reality, not just fantasy.
In the Deep South half of white families owned slaves, and those who did not all aspired to, someday.
And the Deep South's slave-based economy had grown & boomed for many years because European demand for, and prices paid for, cotton continued to increase.
In the decades before 1860, Deep South cotton production doubled, and doubled again, while cotton prices rose much faster than inflation -- even including Federal import tariffs.
In 1860 and for decades before, the Deep South was booming like no other part of the country, indeed like no other country in history.
And one result was, average prices for slaves had doubled, rising 60% between 1850 and 1860 alone.
So, naturally, Deep South whites refused to see slavery as a necessary evil, but rather insisted slavery was a positive moral good, for which many justifications could be made, beginning with certain carefully selected biblical passages.
And they were totally intolerant of suggestions to the contrary, to the point of evicting other whites who mouthed-off too much about the evils of slavery.
The Border States
These were the slave-states just south of the Mason-Dixon line: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri and their situations were very different from the Deep South.
In the 1860 Border States slavery was, in fact, already dying out, just as it had naturally died in Northern states.
And ironically, one reason was precisely the very booming prosperity of the Deep South!
Deep South prosperity drove up the price of slaves, ever higher, until they became uneconomical in the Border States, which didn't grow highly profitable cotton.
The result was: Border State slave-owners sold many tens of thousands of their slaves to Deep South plantation owners, significantly reducing Border State slave populations, and therefore the political clout of their Slave Power.
At the same time (1850s), many tens of thousands of anti-slavery European immigrants settled in the Border States, turning their political complexion from Southern Slave-Power Democrats to Northern Unionists.
And this, indeed, is the root of the root cause of Confederate defeat in the Civil War -- Southern Border States refused to join the Confederacy, and supplied more than double the number of troops to the Union as they did the Confederacy.
Lincoln is quoted as saying that if the Union had lost Border-State Kentucky early in the war, it would have lost the whole war.
So, why did the Border States refuse to go Confederate?
Because slavery was indeed already dying a natural death in those states, and they didn't want to preserve it.
The Upper South:
The Upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas -- was a mixed bag, with majorities slave-holders or supporters of slavery, but also large minorities opposed.
Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, Western North Carolina, Northern Arkansas were all bastions of Unionism which supplied troops to the North and opposed Confederates.
Some Upper South states also saw a net outflow of slaves in the 1850s, sold to the Deep South, but there were still enough that, when push came to shove, they elected to support the Confederacy's declared war on the United States.
Bottom line:
Question: in 1860 was slavery dying out, or was it more profitable that ever before?
Answer: yes to both. Slavery was dying a natural death in the Border States, but was more profitable than ever in the Deep South.
And that, almost by itself explains which side each state joined.
Very good point. My posts are focused on the situation in the Deep South. Certainly, the Border States were a far different animal. I am sure you would agree with me, then, that, at least in the Deep South, slave owners were not very likely to voluntarily end slavery. That would have amounted to nearly complete collapse of the economy.
Agreed.
While small slave-holders in states like Kentucky were selling their slaves to Deep South plantations, because slave prices were so sky-high they made the institution unprofitable in Border States, at the same time King Cotton made plantation slavery hugely profitable in the Deep South.
So, for the great plantation owners in the Deep South, slavery was a matter of both economics and status, therefore they could not even conceive the idea of abolishing slavery.
Any suggestions along that line were met with the sternest of responses, including when necessary, declarations of secession from, and war against, the United States.
Also, the average price of a slave continued to increase right up to the beginning of the war. So while slavery in sheer numbers was diminishing in some of the border and upper south states, slaves were still an appreciating asset, and readily "sold down the river" when cash was needed.
This is known as the Mudsill Theory, and there's some thought that the slaveowning classes encouraged this thinking to keep poor whites under their control, willing to fight and die to protect an economic system that did not benefit them.
Very good post. Thank you.
Curious, but I first read that term, "Mudsill Theory" no more than a week ago in this book:
Freehling, "The Road to Disunion" Vol. II
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.