The political parallel in the USA to what you are describing may be of some interested to you if you’re not already looking or aware. Depending on who one speaks to or reads the US Civil War was either all about slavery or not really about it at all. I suspect those are the political endpoints and it’s hard to claim that the war and the issue of slavery were somehow completely unrelated and completely independent of one another. But, I think it was from of the Confederate political discourse where a number of the Southern States held the position that if the secession had been about slavery they would have preferred giving up their slaves rather than go to war. Only 4 of the Southern States were large plantation states that depended on slaves for their agricultural production work—and I think that was even more concentrated into a small number or plantation owners rather than a large portion of the State’s population. Most of the other States, and slave owners, only had a few slaves that were largely more like household servants (and to some extent tenant farmers).
So the issue of slavery and abolition was similar in that it was about a small special interest group that was driving the the politics about preserving slavery rather than a large wide spread social institution (that probably is too strong as it was wide spread but the dependency on slavery was not).
I’m interested in another aspect of your research here. What was the position of the abolitions in the UK regarding indentured service? I don’t know that history so don’t even know if that had been abolished already but in the USA for a lot of the smaller slave owners their slaves were much more like indentured servants, could and did earn some money on the side (when the owner was not being a complete jerk about things) and some even bought their freedom that way. Now, some of the owners took actions to make that effectively impossible for the slave even to the extent of violating the laws governing slavery. But I’ve also heard some horror history that similar treatment occurred for some of the indentured servants in the UK where the family they were indentured to did similar things. So wondering if the abolitionist movement was fighting a similar battle there and if that the industry of indenture didn’t have some similar political economic characteristics of concentrated special interests competing for political support?
But, I think it was from of the Confederate political discourse where a number of the Southern States held the position that if the secession had been about slavery they would have preferred giving up their slaves rather than go to war.
This seems unlikely. They chose to secede at the very moment an anti-slavery president was elected (and before he got into power). What else was there about Lincoln that deserved such an extreme and pre-emptive move? And they were generally very clear in their official declarations that preserving slavery was the key reason for secession.
(E.g. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states , “The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which [the North] supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.”)
Depending on who one speaks to or reads the US Civil War was either all about slavery or not really about it at all.
Yes, for some of the states the immediate cause was Lincoln but for others they did not succeed until Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to subpress the rebellion—and did so it seems to avoid having to provide troops.
My point about all about or little/not about slavery has to do with the separating that out of all the other inter-State politics and political economy going on. Some what to make it the central source which doesn’t seem fully supported.
I wish I could recall the source for the claim that many (most? could have been wrong on that) would not have fought a war just for keeping Slavery but alas cannot. I think the “serios historians” seem to be a kind of shady trick to disqualify historians that might cast things is a different light. Here’s a linkto one that suggests it wasn’t all about slavery, or even primarily about slavery. I think the quote from Woodrow Wilson might be worth considering.
Interesting, thanks. I hadn’t previously heard of indentured servitude within Britain, I had only heard of it as a means of crossing the Atlantic, but Claude says that it did exist in certain forms within Britain.
I don’t think either of the sources for this post ever mention indentured servitude as far as I can recall, so I don’t think it was part of the abolitionist movement.
The political parallel in the USA to what you are describing may be of some interested to you if you’re not already looking or aware. Depending on who one speaks to or reads the US Civil War was either all about slavery or not really about it at all. I suspect those are the political endpoints and it’s hard to claim that the war and the issue of slavery were somehow completely unrelated and completely independent of one another. But, I think it was from of the Confederate political discourse where a number of the Southern States held the position that if the secession had been about slavery they would have preferred giving up their slaves rather than go to war. Only 4 of the Southern States were large plantation states that depended on slaves for their agricultural production work—and I think that was even more concentrated into a small number or plantation owners rather than a large portion of the State’s population. Most of the other States, and slave owners, only had a few slaves that were largely more like household servants (and to some extent tenant farmers).
So the issue of slavery and abolition was similar in that it was about a small special interest group that was driving the the politics about preserving slavery rather than a large wide spread social institution (that probably is too strong as it was wide spread but the dependency on slavery was not).
I’m interested in another aspect of your research here. What was the position of the abolitions in the UK regarding indentured service? I don’t know that history so don’t even know if that had been abolished already but in the USA for a lot of the smaller slave owners their slaves were much more like indentured servants, could and did earn some money on the side (when the owner was not being a complete jerk about things) and some even bought their freedom that way. Now, some of the owners took actions to make that effectively impossible for the slave even to the extent of violating the laws governing slavery. But I’ve also heard some horror history that similar treatment occurred for some of the indentured servants in the UK where the family they were indentured to did similar things. So wondering if the abolitionist movement was fighting a similar battle there and if that the industry of indenture didn’t have some similar political economic characteristics of concentrated special interests competing for political support?
This seems unlikely. They chose to secede at the very moment an anti-slavery president was elected (and before he got into power). What else was there about Lincoln that deserved such an extreme and pre-emptive move? And they were generally very clear in their official declarations that preserving slavery was the key reason for secession.
(E.g. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states , “The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which [the North] supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.”)
You can say that about anything, but it seems that survey articles show that serious historians mostly agree that the civil war was mainly about slavery:
Yes, for some of the states the immediate cause was Lincoln but for others they did not succeed until Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to subpress the rebellion—and did so it seems to avoid having to provide troops.
My point about all about or little/not about slavery has to do with the separating that out of all the other inter-State politics and political economy going on. Some what to make it the central source which doesn’t seem fully supported.
I wish I could recall the source for the claim that many (most? could have been wrong on that) would not have fought a war just for keeping Slavery but alas cannot. I think the “serios historians” seem to be a kind of shady trick to disqualify historians that might cast things is a different light. Here’s a link to one that suggests it wasn’t all about slavery, or even primarily about slavery. I think the quote from Woodrow Wilson might be worth considering.
Interesting, thanks. I hadn’t previously heard of indentured servitude within Britain, I had only heard of it as a means of crossing the Atlantic, but Claude says that it did exist in certain forms within Britain.
I don’t think either of the sources for this post ever mention indentured servitude as far as I can recall, so I don’t think it was part of the abolitionist movement.