From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Civil War Alternate Histories
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:07:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.184608.8045@Princeton.EDU> glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.164841.28266@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>In article <D2150056.ladc96@erics.infoserv.com> erics@infoserv.com writes:
>>>The slave-based agricultural economy of the South was not compatible
>>>with industrialization, and this country was bound to industrialize.
>>>Unless the South could have figured out how to change their plantation
>>>economy to a slave-based industrial one, then either slavery had to
>>>be ended (by force or mutual agreement), or the South had to go its
>>>separate way. And I doubt the North would have stood for the South's
>>>industrializing on a slavery base. If pro-slavery forces lost the
>>>battle for expansion into new territories, and therefore their balance
>>>in Congress, slavery as an institution was doomed.

>>I've heard arguments that slavery for agriculture became uneconomical--
>>I've never heard any sort of reason why keeping slaves as personal
>>servants is uneconomical, but it's obvious that such slavery doesn't
>>exist in industrialized countries (except for some scams involving
>>illegal immigrants). Any theories about why?

>A possible theory is that in a political sense, the abolition of slavery
>enables a full conversion to a free-labor economy, that is, a system in
>which one is required to sell one's labor-power in a market (or _the_
>market, for that matter), in which the relationship between employer
>(say, owner of land/capital) and employee is mediated only by a wage.
>In this argumetn, the existence of slavery _in_any_form_ tends to
>undermine this abstracted relationship, and so the political result is
>that capitalists like to abolish slavery, in order that their new labor
>system which involves fewer responsibilities towards their employees can
>be justified.  This is often accompanied by Arminian religion, by the
>way.

There are several issues involved here; and though I agree in principal
with your philosophical reasons why slavery would not exist in an industrial
economy I doubt if this is the total reason.

At the time slaves were introduced into the American Colonies (West Indies
in the 16th century) there was a need for agricultural workers who could do
well in that climate.  There was no great desire on the part of European
farmers to emigrate and thus the slaves fulfilled the need.  This also was
the case later in the American South.

At the time of the settling of the Northern American Colonies (early 17th
century), there was a desire for Europeans (whether farmers or mechanics)
to emigrate.  These people later became the farmers and factory workers of
the North.  The North thus developed without a need of using slave labor (which
might not have been useful regardless).

As the North developed industrially (late 19th, early 20th centuries) I doubt
if the workers would have politically accepted a peripheral slave environment.
Any labor movement developing would have resisted slave use in factories, farms
or homes.

One can also remember that in the early colonial days an indentured servant
was only slightly more expensive than a slave laborer (both had to be fed,
clothed, housed and given medical treatment).  The indentured servants never
became a lifelong slave for a number of reasons.

Charlie