Slavery, which the South frequently referred to as its “peculiar institution,” had an enormous impact on American history. Even after 1863 and the abolition of slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation, as well as the 1865 passage of the 13th amendment to the Constitution, slavery continued to have lasting effects on the American people for decades to come. The beginnings of African slavery go all the way back to the first British settlements in North America. However, it was the division of former British colonies into slave states in the South and free states in the North that laid the groundwork for the American Civil War. This bloody conflict was the deadliest and most costly (in terms of lives) in American history. Yet it could be justifiably argued that the suffering experienced by Americans in general during this conflict pales in comparison to the suffering of slaves and former slaves before, during and after the war. As is often the case where emotions and suffering are involved, it can be difficult to quantify slavery’s scope and nature. Nevertheless, the following will examine (to the extent possible) the statistical aspects of African slavery and their economic implications for both the North and the South. In short, was slavery profitable for slaveowners and was it likely to die out because of unprofitability?
In the period prior to the Revolution, an understanding of the demographic situation for slaves brought in from Africa (such as numbers of new slaves arriving and births among slaves already here) has to be assembled from an array of records. Estimates must be based on commercial shipping records, local surveys and similar primary sources. However, beginning with the 1790 federal census and continuing every 10 years, scholars have access to a remarkably detailed set of facts regarding slave numbers at the state, county and municipal level. In later years, as the census expanded its scope and detail, the information regarding manufacturing and agriculture it generated provides the principal source for most of the later literature regarding the slave economy of the South during the antebellum period. Of course, there are other records that can supplement this data, such as transaction records at slave selling markets (like New Orleans or Charleston), probate inventories, business records and accounts from plantations.
When speaking of slavery, there is often a tendency to believe that slavery is a concept unique to the Americas. However, despite the impact that slavery has had on the history of the United States, it did not originate here or in any American colonies. Slavery existed in Rome, Greece and throughout the ancient world. It continued to exist in much of medieval Europe. Slavery existed for centuries in Africa, Asia and the Americas long before Europeans arrived in any of these regions. Roughly 1 million Africans were transported across the Atlantic on Spanish and Portuguese ships to serve as slaves in South America well before the first slaves arrived in the Virginia colony in 1619. Surprisingly, during the entire trans-Atlantic slave trade, less than 10% of those Africans forced into slavery and sent across the Atlantic came to North America. While the United States contained approximately 50% of the hemisphere’s slave population by the beginning of the Civil War, these high numbers can be attributed to the different demographic reality of slaves in the United States, rather than the ongoing slave trade across the Atlantic.
It should be noted that Africans were not the only slaves in North America. For example, the earliest settlements in South Carolina saw members of native tribes captured and then sold to plantation owners far away in the West Indies. As the production of naval stores and rice rose in the early 18th century, many more enslaved natives were held in captivity in the low country. By 1720, there were approximately 2000. However, the use of natives as slaves gradually came to an end because of fear by the Carolina legislature that it could trigger new wars with the local tribes. In addition to this, the high mortality rate experienced by the native population when they were exposed to European diseases made them poor choices for enslavement.
It’s important to note that colonies in the Deep South (such as Georgia and South Carolina) actually imported fewer slaves than Virginia or Maryland. Despite this, the percentage of Blacks in their population was nevertheless larger. For instance, Blacks comprised one third of South Carolina’s population in 1690 but were two thirds of South Carolina’s population by 1730. Because of Georgia’s status as a debtor colony in 1733, it was unable to import slaves until 1750. However, once the restriction was removed Georgians quickly began importing slaves at a rapid rate, with the result that 40% of Georgia’s population was Black by 1770. In fact, between 1768 in 1772, over 40% of slaves imported to North America were destined for Georgia. This difference between the relative importance of slavery in the Deep South and the Upper South is related to the difficult working conditions and adverse climate faced by those working in the Deep South, making it desirable for plantation owners to have workers who couldn’t quit. On the other hand, tobacco farming in Virginia was something that free farmers were still willing to do themselves, although some did choose to use slaves.
While slave populations reached their highest concentrations in the Deep South, it has to still be at knowledge that slavery was present in all of the English colonies. Moreover, in most of them it persisted until after the Revolution. For example, statistics show that by 1748 9% of Rhode Island’s population was Black. In New Jersey, Blacks made up 7.5% of the colony’s population by 1745. The percentage is even higher in New York, with Blacks making up over 12% of the population. It should be noted that virtually all of these Blacks were most likely slaves, although the censuses conducted by the states rarely gave a clear status for individuals.
Following the Revolution, measures aimed at emancipating slaves were passed in many Northern states, with Vermont being the first in 1777. In some states, such as New Jersey and New York, the effort to pass emancipation legislation was extremely difficult. Emancipation did not pass in New York until 1799, while it wasn’t until 1804 that New Jersey enacted such legislation. In most cases, Northern emancipation legislation was designed to be gradual in nature. It was usually applied only to offspring and even then only after a period of “apprenticeship.” For this reason, it was quite common to find slaves listed on the census in these Northern states as late as the 1840s. In fact, 18 slaves for still listed in New Jersey in 1860.
In spite of the slow way in which emancipation was introduced in the North, by the end of the 18th century it was clear that the nation was divided into a slave section and another section that was (for the most part) free. In these early days of the United States, each of these two sections had roughly equal populations. However, equality of population and political influence was a major issue at the time. Under the terms of the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, slavery was forbidden in the territories lying North of the Ohio River. This extended the slave/nonslave divide then existing between the states into the territories that had not yet become states. In 1807, the temporary prohibition that the founding fathers placed in the Constitution against interfering with the slave trade expired. Congress immediately established a ban on the African slave trade. During the 14 year period in which it was allowed, there had been a sizable influx of slaves from Africa, which was directly connected to the rise of cotton production in the South. Following this date, any future increases in the slave population were entirely the result of births.
In the half-century leading up to the Civil War, the South’s slave population grew quickly, with an average increase of over 2% annually. While this demographic reality was highly unusual (even unique) among those nations in the New World that still practiced slavery, there were a number of factors that caused it. In part, it was a result of the willingness of the South to accept the end of the African slave trade. Furthermore, unlike slave systems in South America, there was a relative balance between genders in the South’s slave population. In 1820, males represented 51.2% of southern slaves, while females represented 48.8. By 1840, this difference had been reduced even further (less than 1/10 of 1%). This contrasts sharply with slave systems were the African slave trade continued. In these systems, females were usually outnumbered by males by a significant percentage. However, certain states in the South (such as South Carolina and Georgia) did have a higher percentage of females than males. This is been interpreted by some scholars as an indication that slave owners in these states wanted to have higher numbers of females so they could produce more slaves for export to other states.
Demographic data can be used to illustrate many different aspects of American slavery. For instance, it reveals the gradual shift of the South’s slave population from eastern states like North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia to Western states where cotton growing was just getting started, such as Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. Mississippi’s increase in slaves between 1810 and 1860 is a prime example of this, with its slave population rising from just over 17,000 to just over 400,000. Nevertheless, only Delaware and Maryland had a slave system that could be described as “on the decline” during this period. For instance, the gradual decline of slavery in Maryland meant that by 1860 almost 50% of Blacks living in the state were free.
One thing that demographic data does not reveal is what percentage of those slaves being relocated from older southern states to newer ones did so as individuals in individual slave sales versus those who were relocated as part of an entire plantation group. Because of this ambiguity, historians studying the data have arrived at very different conclusions on this particular topic. However, current best guesses suggest that this change in location involved roughly 50% individual sales and 50% group relocations.
Yet despite what is seen in Maryland and Delaware, it is fairly certain that the shift going on in the slave population was not principally a consequence of owners freeing their slaves (a process referred to as “manumission”). It is true that in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution, the general feeling in the population toward freedom (as well as measures employed by the British to suppress the rebels) did result in a slight increase in the number of free Blacks in the colonial populations (even in the South). For instance, between 1790 and 1810 the population of free Blacks in Virginia rose from over 12,000 to more than 30,000.
However, following this the percentage of free Blacks in the overall Black population actually dropped from just over 13% in 1820 to less than 11% in 1860. Moreover, following the Nat Turner Rebellion virtually all southern states placed serious prohibitions on the freeing of slaves. Most required court approval to complete the process. Furthermore, freed slaves were usually required to leave the state wants free. Some states, including Georgia, Mississippi and Texas, banned manumission entirely. By 1860, and examination of data from the Deep South reveals that over 97% of Blacks in these states were slaves.
Another interesting set of data that can be obtained through the study of the primary documents relates to how the slaves were distributed among the plantations and other slaveholding units. As compared with slave systems established in other parts of the world, the ownership of slaves in the United States was fairly dispersed. Using the census data from 1790, it’s possible to evaluate changes in this regard that took place over the next 70 years. Surprisingly, despite the change in the crops being grown (more cotton and less tobacco) and the change in the geographic location of many slaves (more in the Southwest) the size of individual slave holdings stayed remarkably constant during this period. Fewer than .3% of slaveowners owned more than 100 slaves during the first census in 1790. In 1860, this percentage had risen to only 0.6%.
With regard to slave ownership, the principal statistical difference in white Southern society was between slaveowners and those who did not own slaves. In states with significant cotton production, by 1860 roughly 50% of the farms had no slaves at all. Looking at the South overall, the number of families owning slaves dropped from 36% in 1830 to 25% in 1860. However, while slave ownership was fairly dispersed, the average slave was still a part of a relatively large operation. For example, in states engaging in cotton growing fully, one third of all slaves lived on plantations with more than 50 other slaves.
The wide array of statistical data available and the contentious and somewhat controversial nature of the subject have led to a great deal of debate among experts regarding the economic impact of American slavery and (in turn) the effect that economics had on slavery. Historical economists have often tried to determine the degree to which slavery was “profitable” by analyzing the existing data using various economic schools of thought. One of the key features of this research has been an examination of the prices at which slaves were being sold and purchased throughout the South.
Some of the earliest work done in this area was carried out by the well-known Southern historian Ulrich Phillips in the early 20th century. Phillips published studies of slave sales based on a series of invoices. However, Phillips failed to provide a clear statement of his sample size or his criteria for selecting this sample. Many modern historians disagree with Phillips’ conclusions. For example, later researchers have determined that the prices Phillips indicated for New Orleans were excessively high. Moreover, his clearly sympathetic view of the slaveowners throws his objectivity into question. While (on the one hand) Phillips concluded that slavery was dying out by 1860, on the other he felt that the slaveowners treated the slaves well, which of course does not match our current understanding of the reality of slavery. Another more systematic study was carried out by Engerman on these same New Orleans slave sales during the period from 1804 to 1861. This study encompassed approximately 5% of all sales of males age 18-30 who had no physical infirmities of any kind. A third study of this same data by Kotlikoff focuses on males age 21-38, and it included all males in this age group regardless of their condition.
Despite the small discrepancies between the three studies, all of them recognized certain trends that were taking place during this time. This included a significant surge in prices following 1807 (corresponding to the end of the Atlantic slave trade). Furthermore, all three pointed out fluctuations in prices following this, with peaks around 1820 and 1838. Following relatively lower prices in the 1840s, the price of slaves again rose quickly during the 1850s to unprecedented highs just before the Civil War. At that point, a fit field hand was being sold for around $1500 in New Orleans. This makes clear that while, in the long term, slaves generally appreciated in value, there were short-term drops in slave valuation. These were generally tied to dips in the business cycle that were (in turn) tied to the European demand for cotton.
While some later scholars agreed with Phillips that slavery was becoming unprofitable by the beginning of the Civil War, others have pointed out that these high prices had no real impact on the slaveowner’s long-term ROI (return on investment). In fact, the prices asked for slaves being sold were largely based on expectations of profitability by both the sellers and buyers. Almost all later economic studies of the issue support this inference.
In conclusion, it must be admitted that the subjects of slavery, slave prices and the profits achieved by slaveowners are extremely complex and convoluted. Ignoring our preconceptions and biases and drawing out the reality of the situation from the data at hand can be a difficult process. However, as the above has made clear, slavery in the South had become a largely self-supporting institution by the time of the Civil War. Whereas in other parts of the New World slavery had depended upon a continuous supply of new slaves from Africa, the South had established a system in which it created new generations of slaves that it could exploit, sell or buy across the region. Its introduction of ;aws either banning manumission out right or making it extremely difficult helped slaveowners to protect their “investment.” Moreover, while prices for slaves did occasionally dip in response to economic events, overall the long-term trend was toward ever rising prices. While some scholars saw this as an indication of the instability of slavery and a harbinger of its ultimate demise, in fact these ever-increasing prices for slaves were an indicator of the high profitability of the practice for slaveowners.
Bibliography
Conrad, Alfred H., and John R. Meyer. 1958. "The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South," Journal of Political Economy 66 (April 1958): 95-130.
Curtin, Philip D. 1969. The Atlantic slave trade; a census. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Drescher, Seymour, and Stanley L. Engerman. 1998. A historical guide to world slavery. New York: Oxford University Press.
Galenson, David W.. 1996. "The Settlement and Growth of the Colonies," in Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gray, R. and Wood B. 1976. "The Transition from Indentured to Involuntary Labor in Colonial Georgia," Explorations in Economic History 13 (October 1976): 353-70.
Kotlikoff, Laurence J. 1979. The Structure of Slave Prices in New Orleans, 1804 to 1862," Economic Inquiry 17 (1979): 496-517.
Menard, Russell R. "From Servants to Slaves: The Transformation of the Chesapeake Labor System," Southern Studies 16 (Winter 1977): 355-90.
Pritchett, Jonathan B. 2001. "Quantitative Estimates of the United States Interregional Slave Trade, 1820-1860," Journal of Economic History 61 (June 2001): 467-475.
Sutch, Richard. 1865. "The Profitability of Ante Bellum Slavery -- Revisited," Southern Economic Journal 31 (April 1965): 365-377.
Walsh, Lorena S. 2001. “The Chesapeake Slave Trade: Regional Patterns, African Origins, and Some Implications”. The William and Mary Quarterly 58 (1). Institute of Early American History and Culture: 139–70.
Wright, Gavin. 1978. The Political Economy of the Cotton South. New York: W.W. Norton.
