Ten Reasons Not to Abolish Slavery
Print This Post
• 
Email This Post
• 26 comments • 
Filed Under: Our Economic Past
Tags: abolitionism • anarchism • government • slavery • wage slave
Slavery existed for thousands of years, in all sorts of societies and all parts of the world. To imagine human social life without it required an extraordinary effort. Yet, from time to time, eccentrics emerged to oppose it, most of them arguing that slavery is a moral monstrosity and therefore people should get rid of it. Such advocates generally elicited reactions ranging from gentle amusement to harsh scorn and even violent assault.
When people bothered to give reasons for opposing the proposed abolition, they advanced various ideas. Here are ten such ideas I have encountered in my reading.
1. Slavery is natural. People differ, and we must expect that those who are superior in a certain way—for example, in intelligence, morality, knowledge, technological prowess, or capacity for fighting—will make themselves the masters of those who are inferior in this regard. Abraham Lincoln expressed this idea in one of his famous 1858 debates with Senator Stephen Douglas: “[T]here is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
2. Slavery has always existed. This reason exemplifies the logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). Nevertheless, it often persuaded people, especially those of conservative bent. Even nonconservatives might give it weight on the quasi-Hayekian ground that although we do not understand why a social institution persists, its persistence may nonetheless be well grounded in a logic we have yet to understand.
3. Every society on earth has slavery. The unspoken corollary is that every society must have slavery. The pervasiveness of an institution seems to many people to constitute compelling proof of its necessity. Perhaps, as one variant maintains, every society has slavery because certain kinds of work are so difficult or degrading that no free person will do them, and therefore unless we have slaves to do these jobs, they will not get done. Someone, as the saying went in the Old South, has to be the mud sill, and free people will not tolerate serving in this capacity.
4. The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves. This idea was popular in the United States in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries among people, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who regarded slavery as morally reprehensible yet continued to hold slaves and to obtain personal services from them and income from the products these “servants” (as they preferred to call them) were compelled to produce. It would be cruel to set free people who would then, at best, fall into destitution and suffering.
5. Without masters, the slaves will die off. This idea is the preceding one pushed to its extreme. Even after slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865, many people continued to voice this idea. Northern journalists traveling in the South immediately after the war reported that, indeed, the blacks were in the process of becoming extinct because of their high death rate, low birth rate, and miserable economic condition. Sad but true, some observers declared, the freed people really were too incompetent, lazy, or immoral to behave in ways consistent with their own group survival. (See my 1977 book Competition and Coercion: Blacks in the American Economy, 1865–1914.)
6. Where the common people are free, they are even worse off than slaves. This argument became popular in the South in the decades before the War Between the States. Its leading exponent was the proslavery writer George Fitzhugh, whose book titles speak for themselves: Sociology for the South, or, the Failure of Free Society (1854) and Cannibals All!, or, Slaves Without Masters (1857). Fitzhugh seems to have taken many of his ideas from the reactionary, racist, Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle. The expression “wage slave” still echoes this antebellum outlook. True to his sociological theories, Fitzhugh wanted to extend slavery in the United States to working-class white people, for their own good!
7. Getting rid of slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils. In the United States many people assumed that the slaveholders would never permit the termination of the slave system without an all-out fight to preserve it. Sure enough, when the Confederacy and the Union went to war—set aside that the immediate issue was not the abolition of slavery, but the secession of eleven Southern states—great bloodshed and other evils did ensue. These tragic events seemed, in many people’s minds, to validate the reason they had given for opposing abolition. (They evidently overlooked that, except in Haiti, slavery was abolished everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere without large-scale violence.)
8. Without slavery the former slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem. Preservation of social order therefore rules out the abolition of slavery. Southerners lived in dread of slave uprisings. Northerners in the mid-nineteenth century found the situation in their own region already sufficiently intolerable, owing to the massive influx of drunken, brawling Irishmen into the country in the 1840s and 1850s. Throwing free blacks, whom the Irish generally disliked, into the mix would well-nigh guarantee social chaos.
9. Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal. Serious people cannot afford to waste their time considering such farfetched ideas.
10. Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. We cannot expect fairness or justice in this life, but all of us, including the slaves, can aspire to a life of ease and joy in Paradise.
At one time, countless people found one or more of the foregoing reasons adequate grounds on which to oppose the abolition of slavery. Yet in retrospect, these reasons seem shabby—more rationalizations than reasons.
Today these reasons or very similar ones are used by opponents of a different form of abolitionism: the proposal that government as we know it—monopolistic, individually nonconsensual rule by an armed group that demands obedience and payment of taxes—be abolished. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether the foregoing reasons are more compelling in this regard than they were in regard to the proposed abolition of slavery.
Comment by Brian C on 19 November 2009:
Mr. Higgs,
Outstanding article! I don’t usually comment on articles, but on this one I’m compelled to. I think your point is very sound, and similar to another that I like: That territorial government should be looked at like territorial religion of the past.
With your permission, I’d love to disseminate you article.
Brian
Comment by Peter on 19 November 2009:
The parallels to living in a society with government are unmistakeable. Well, on second thought, they are easily mistakeable because we have such a society.
Pingback by Kymmenen syytä olla lopettamatta orjuutta - Pasi J. Matilainen — Talouspasifisti on 19 November 2009:
[...] kirjoitus on vapaa käännös Robert Higgsin artikkelista Ten Reasons Not to Abolish Slavery, joka on julkaistu The Freeman -lehdessä joulukuussa 2009 [vol. 59, issue 10]. Kiitos linkistä [...]
Comment by negator on 20 November 2009:
“10. Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. We cannot expect fairness or justice in this life, but all of us, including the slaves, can aspire to a life of ease and joy in Paradise.”
. . . why does this make me feel . . . uncomfortable. . .
Comment by Jay Baker on 20 November 2009:
Mark it down,Slavery has only taken a temporary time out.It will be back sometime in the future.
Comment by ShayX on 20 November 2009:
racist bloogers … black people are in modern slavery … but guess what we have 7 1/2 oz of brain when you caucasian man has only 6 0z .. You made jail cells for black men . half pf ever jail or prison is filled up with people.. anywayss white people are money hungry , they don’t even believe in god. they try to use science and theolgy and any other kind of theory to make up and try to make people believe .. Now black people depend on you BECAUSE OWN EVERYTHING WHITE DEVIL .. yOU don’t own the heavens of the earth and god will take it from who ever and give it to whom he pleases .. so white man i wonder how many franklins will you bring to satan . he doesn’t love you … Black people don’t care about being integerated with you stuck up snooby nosed people only the kracker lovers will do so . because of you TRICKNOLOGY. this is a time of wisdom
Comment by Resa on 20 November 2009:
Sir, I believe that, not only is this article ridiculously well written and portrayed, but that it has truths deeper than most who read it will ever realize. I believe that the more people that are exposed to this, the better off every single one of them will be and encourage you to send it to those who can get it to the masses and would enjoy it themselves. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jason Lewis…the list goes on. Make your statement heard!
Comment by Resa on 20 November 2009:
Wow Shayx…I could spend a good bit of time picking apart how horrible your post was and ignorant you made yourself out to be, but I won’t. Instead I will just say that not only did you miss the ENTIRE point of Mr. Higg’s piece (you know, that the government is out of control and that our excuses for doing nothing about it are similar to those used by people afraid of abolition), but you discredited every remark you made by doing so. I am sorry for you.
Comment by rox24 on 24 November 2009:
This atrile i felt was very redundant…
Comment by Gene Baldassari on 25 November 2009:
This is a fantastic article.
I might add one more point.
You cannot change the nature of man. The electorate will not understand that they are being circled – until it is too late.
Comment by H.M. on 29 November 2009:
I’m not steeped in libertarian theory, but I think a truly “free market” would be conducive to highly exploitative institutions such as slavery. It is a fairly well settled historical fact that the expansion of federal power in the U.S. during Reconstruction and throughout the 20th century has been the means by which slavery, segregation, and continuing racism have been gradually eroded. Furthermore, physical or spatial liberty is fundamentally different from economic or financial liberty. It is simply inaccurate to analogize forced agricultural labor, or being whipped and in chains, to an average contemporary middle class family struggling under the burden of taxation.
Comment by Skye Stewart on 29 November 2009:
H.M,
Often apparent disagreements begin with real disparities in vocabulary. What you seem to mean by “free market” is any state of affairs without government intervention. Ultimately, this may be a necessary condition, but for the libertarian it is not a sufficient one. It is perfectly possible to have conditions more conducive to liberty and autonomy under a minarchy, or constitutional monarchy than in a state of anarchy (if such a term merely means an absence of the state), however, it logically does not follow that a state is thereby justified.
When Austro-Libertarians, or Market-Anarchists speak in support of a “free market” they are appealing to those mechanisms which are, or are the result of, consensual relations (and therefore ex ante mutually beneficial) ie., that real or potential state of affairs where persons and property are secure from aggression.
Libertarianism does not dismiss that there exists different kinds of freedom, liberty, or autonomy (what in india is called Swaraj, a term referring to the internal as well as external aspects) but it is a deontological theory of law, and therefore only can address property rights.
I think your objections have been honestly addressed in the available literature, for example;
Slavery, Profitability, and the Market Process, by Mark Thornton
~ http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE7_2_2.pdf
The Radical Libertarian Tradition in Antislavery Thought, by Carl Watner
~ http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_3/3_3_5.pdf
Comment by Andrew Humphries on 30 November 2009:
Dear Mr. Higgs,
I enjoyed your article very much. I just want to add that Lincoln, although he did think whites superior to blacks, he gives an argument suggesting that he would not agree with reason one that you gave and therefore would not be a good example. He writes:
“If A can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B, why may not B snatch the same argument, even prove equally, that he may enslave A? You say A is white and B is black–it is *color* then, the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? Take care–by this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean *color* exactly? You mean the whites are *intellectually* the superior of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again–by this rule you are to be the slave of the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own” (Paul Johnson, pg. 439, A History of the American People).
So he may have thought whites superior to blacks as Jefferson did, but this quote would seem to suggest that he thought that that “fact” did not justify slavery or inequality before the law.
I believe Aristotle, however, defends reason one in his Politics. One might check there for what he says.
Comment by Skye Stewart on 1 December 2009:
H.M.,
Furthermore, on the issue of comparative inaccuracy between “forced agricultural labor, or being whipped and in chains, to an average contemporary middle class family struggling under the burden of taxation,” there is no dispute as it concerns degree, but the Libertarian in this and many similar cases is concerned with kind. Are rights being violated? How will restitution we sought?
Additionally, to illustrate that the principle involved is the same we could refer to the analogy of slavery in the United States and other territories – where it was largely assumed under the framework of private property – and that of the Soviet Union and similar territories where the institution of slavery is in fact public, and all citizens are treated as cattle. I would recommend economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s writings to this effect.
See,
Cultural Revolutions, Chronicles
http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/chronicles_letter_private_slaves.pdf
A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism,
http://mises.org/store/Theory-of-Socialism-and-Capitalism-A-P465.aspx
Comment by Matt on 2 December 2009:
H.M.,
We must never forget that it was the government that began to entrench racism in law.
Secondly, I think you’ll find that racist laws were often challenged by market actors, who realised that segregating whites and blacks proved to be economically inefficient.
For instance:
In Alabama, the Mobile Light and Railroad Company reacted to a Jim Crow ordinance by flatly refusing to enforce it. “Whites would not obey the law and were continually . . . refusing to sit where they were told,” the company’s manager told a reporter in 1902. In Memphis, the transit company defiantly pleaded guilty to violating a Tennessee segregation statute, explaining that it believed the law to be “against the wishes of the majority of its patrons.” In Savannah, the local black paper noted that streetcar officials “are not anxious to carry into effect the unjust laws. . . requiring separate cars for the races,” since it would put them “to extra trouble and expense.”
Source: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/15/the_enemies_of_jim_crow/
Comment by TheChaos on 2 December 2009:
Why am I not surprised that the people who believe slavery should be brought back think that the information should go to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc…I guess crazies are attracted to other crazies. I will admit that I only read argument number 5, but I just have one thing to say. What the hell are you guys thinking? You say that they will die off without their masters? The main reason that they had a “miserable economic condition” was because they had no money because they were not getting paid for their work. Therefore if they had been getting paid for their work instead of just being exploited, they would not have economic issues. So without slavery, they wouldn’t die off, I mean look right now in America, are there any races that appear to be dieing off because they don’t have their masters to back them up? And where does it say that people have the right to slavery? I thought in the Declaration of Independence it said that all men are created equal? So if everyone is equal, then why are some people able to own others?
Comment by Joseph Eros on 2 December 2009:
Higgs writes: “They evidently overlooked that, except in Haiti, slavery was abolished everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere without large-scale violence.”
This is an oft-repeated statement, but it does not appear to be true. In Cuba, the Ten Years’ War (1868-78) played an integral role in ending slavery. A “free birth” law was passed during the war, weakening slavery significantly, and a gradual emancipation law followed in 1870. The destructiveness of the Ten Years’ War in Cuba seems to have been comparable to the devastation caused by the US Civil War was in the seceding states; something like 3-4% of the population of each area died as a result.
In any case, the idea that ending slavery in the USA’s slave states would be as easy as ending it in Latin America is highly dubious. The CSA-joining states had a much higher percentage of slaveowners and a much lower number of free blacks than did comparable Latin American slave societies. They also had laws against emancipation, which were being made more and more restrictive.
Comment by kla on 2 December 2009:
Slavery appears in many shades, and when right, perhaps both sides are more comfortable, e.g., “Out of Africa”.
What about the “Knecht/Herrschaft” arangement in Germany from the late middle ages until recently? The “Diener” belonged to an estate and there existence was based on a subsistence arrangement.
How much do we know about slavery in the pre-civil war US? After all, history is always written by the winner and the dumbed-down education received by the US citizen, always treats the US like the ultimate utopia.
Helps pump ‘em up for the next war.
Comment by George O'Macon on 5 December 2009:
In my opinion, the only thing wrong with slavery was that it was based on race instead of being based on just deserts.
Comment by George O'Macon on 6 December 2009:
Dear “TheChaos,”
The article was not about bringing back slavery but about all citizens now being slaves to big government; the article showed that the arguments for big government are just as ludricous as the arguments for slavery. Furthermore, you didn’t read No. 5 either; it does not say slaves had economic issues, rather, it says that the freed-men had economic issues. Slaves received food, clothing, shelter, and health care cradle to grave, in sickness and in health, through old age to death. Freed-men and northern white factory workers received such only so long as factory owners saw fit to employee them, which they did not do during sickness and old age; rather, they fired the sick and the elderly. The freed-men definitely had economic issues.
Comment by Dave on 7 December 2009:
Chaos,
Before you comment on the entirety of this article, might I suggest you READ it in its entirety?
You missed the entire point because you only partially read it.
Comment by DD on 8 December 2009:
TheChaos,
What an embarrassment for you! You completely misunderstood the point of the article. Read it again, this time from End to Start.
Comment by Clay Barham on 9 December 2009:
FROM FREEDOM TO SLAVERY
Lincoln reflected the Hamilton-Clay interventionist ideals, where the central government and the “superiors” will determine the extent of federal “assistance” to infrastructure and industry in America, certainly opposite the hands-off policies of the 19th century state’s rights Democrats. The 20th century Democrat is closer to Lincoln’s policies than Jefferson’s. Modern Democrats tend to follow the ideals of Rousseau and Marx, where almost everyone, regardless of race, is inferior to the very few superior elite who must rule. Jefferson’s democrats were libertarians, and as such, figured individual freedom and a free market would establish superior and inferior by works and not by government or chains. Claysamerica.com
Comment by David on 12 December 2009:
God is a Republican, no, maybe he is a Democrat. I don’t know, the Democrats come into office and tell everyone that “they” are going to take care of us from cradle to grave, then the Republicans come in and tell us that we all have to pay for all the wonderful gifts that the Democrats “gave” us and the rich are certainly not going to be expected to shoulder the whole burden…..I know, Good Cop, Bad Cop! Tag team. Both teams talk us into buying more then we should on credit (so that I can be entertained and fed well and drive a nice car because that is my status symbol and my home needs to have the correct address and on and on.) so that I don’t have time to think about who is enslaving me. I am fed, cared for and safe. Do I live in paradise?
Take it (this discussion) all the way back to the Garden of Eden.
Paradise! Nothing that you can’t do. Pet all the animals, look and enjoy everything around you. Don’t go hungry, always a safe place to sleep, never get sick, never get old, no having to worry about anything.
How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? When did they start asking the question, “What is knowledge”? “Why can’t I have knowledge”?
The only thing that they didn’t have was knowledge. Why did they know that didn’t have something? God showed them and told them. He told them that they could have EVERYTHING, but knowledge. He wanted to show them that they were under him; they didn’t have all that he had. He held them in “slavery” for his entertainment.
How many years did it take to become bored with paradise? Knowledge must have been a very tempting fruit, maybe it would show the way to “freedom”. If you “knew”, then you would be free.
I suppose that Adam knowing that he was enslaved and accepting his slavery, was knowledge.
Poor Eve probably didn’t like knowledge.
TITLE: Find the Cost of Freedom
ARTIST: Stephen Stills
Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground
Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down
Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground
Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down
Pingback by Hoping for anarchy « A Little Lower Than the Angels on 8 January 2010:
[...] don’t think so, not so long ago, most folks believed that slavery was a necessary, inevitable, and/or acceptable part of society. One day the State will go the way of [...]
Comment by leslie on 28 January 2010:
this is the best article i ever read in my life