African Americans and Slavery (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes

African Americans and Slavery

The economic and social foundations of slavery

By the mid-nineteenth century, slavery had become deeply embedded in the Southern economy and society. The South's agricultural system depended on cash crops—particularly cotton, tobacco, sugar, and rice—that required intensive manual labor to cultivate profitably. Owning enslaved people demonstrated both wealth and social standing. Large plantation owners, those who held 500 or more enslaved workers, formed the Southern elite who dominated social and political life. These planters believed the economy, especially plantation agriculture, would collapse without cheap enslaved labor and opposed any interference from Northern states.

Beyond its economic function, slavery served as a mechanism for maintaining racial hierarchy. It kept African Americans subordinated and reinforced white dominance throughout Southern society. White Southerners feared that ending slavery would cause not only economic ruin but also racial conflict and the breakdown of their social order.

Growing sectional tensions, 1777-1858

Between 1777 and 1858, nineteen Northern states abolished slavery within their borders and became known as 'free' states. The majority of Northerners agreed with abolitionists who sought to end slavery entirely, though this support did not necessarily extend to racial equality or tolerance. Abolitionists argued that slavery contradicted the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. They also highlighted the brutal treatment many enslaved people endured in the South.

Sectional differences—political, economic, and social divisions between North and South—intensified over whether slavery should be permitted in new territories acquired by the United States. These unresolved tensions would eventually lead to civil war.

The scale and distribution of slavery by 1860

In 1860, nearly 4 million enslaved people lived in the Southern states. Understanding the distribution of slavery requires examining several patterns:

• One in four Southern families owned enslaved people
• 50% of slave owners held five or fewer enslaved individuals
• Over 50% of enslaved people lived on plantations with more than twenty enslaved workers
• Approximately 10,000 families controlled the majority of enslaved people
• About half of all enslaved workers labored in cotton production; around 10% worked cultivating tobacco, sugar, rice, and hemp

Historiographical debate: The conditions of enslavement

Historians have offered sharply contrasting interpretations of how enslaved people were treated and how they experienced bondage.

Ulrich Phillips' interpretation

In the early twentieth century, Southern historian Ulrich Phillips argued that most enslaved people generally accepted their circumstances and maintained acceptable working relationships with those who enslaved them. Supporters of this view contended that:

• Enslaved people did not work harder than most free Americans
• Physical punishments such as flogging were uncommon
• Few enslavers acted with extreme brutality
• Sexual exploitation was relatively rare
• Enslaved people were adequately fed, clothed, and housed according to contemporary standards
• Enslaved people could usually choose their own partners
• Some enslaved people earned or were granted sufficient money to purchase their freedom
• No major slave rebellion occurred before 1830
• Only a few hundred enslaved people attempted escape to the North or Canada each year

Kenneth Stampp's interpretation

In the 1950s, historian Kenneth Stampp challenged this view, asserting that slavery was harsh and that enslavers frequently subjected enslaved people to brutal treatment. Those supporting this interpretation argue that:

• Enslaved people could be punished through branding, flogging, sexual exploitation, and even murder
• Enslaved people worked longer hours than free Americans
• Approximately one-quarter of slave marriages were destroyed by forced separation when family members were sold
• Most enslaved people hated their bondage
• Enslaved people did not attempt escape more often only because organizing resistance was extremely difficult and capture resulted in severe punishment

This debate reflects fundamentally different assessments of slavery's brutality and the agency of enslaved people in resisting their oppression.

Aspect	Phillips (early 20th century)	Stampp (1950s)
Treatment	Generally acceptable, well-fed and housed	Harsh, brutal punishments common
Working conditions	Similar hours to free workers	Longer hours than free Americans
Physical punishment	Flogging rare, few brutal owners	Branding, flogging, murder occurred
Family life	Could choose partners	Quarter of marriages broken by forced sale
Resistance	Few escape attempts, no major rebellions before 1830	Most hated slavery but escape too dangerous
Sexual exploitation	Relatively little	Common occurrence

Primary source evidence: The dehumanisation of enslavement

A report from the New York Tribune in 1859 provides contemporary evidence of conditions at slave auctions. The newspaper's editor, Horace Greeley, was an abolitionist staunchly opposed to slavery and sent a reporter to cover an auction in Savannah, Georgia.

The account describes how enslaved people were held at the race-course for up to a week before the sale, with four days of public viewing before the auction. Prospective buyers subjected enslaved people to dehumanising physical examinations:

• Pulling their mouths open to inspect their teeth
• Pinching their limbs to assess muscular strength
• Making them walk, stoop, and bend to detect any physical impairments or injuries
• Asking numerous questions about their qualifications and abilities

The report notes that enslaved people endured these humiliations without protest, sometimes with forced cheerfulness when they wanted to appear favorable to a potential buyer. The entire process treated human beings as livestock to be inspected and purchased, demonstrating the complete denial of enslaved people's humanity that underpinned the institution of slavery.

The Civil War context, 1861-65

Causes of the conflict

The American Civil War (1861-65) resulted from long-standing sectional differences and unresolved questions following the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1789. The central issue concerned slavery's future, particularly whether it would be permitted in territories that had not yet become states. The free and slave states fundamentally disagreed over whether the national government could prohibit slavery in these territories.

When Republican Abraham Lincoln won the presidential election of 1860 on a platform opposing slavery's expansion into the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded (withdrew) from the Union and formed a new nation: the Confederate States of America, which eventually expanded to eleven states. The incoming Lincoln administration and most Northerners refused to recognize secession's legitimacy. They believed it would undermine democracy and establish a dangerous precedent that would eventually fragment the United States into several small, competing nations.

Effects of the war

After four years of conflict, the Confederacy collapsed and the Union was preserved. The war's immediate consequences were profound:

The Civil War's conclusion set the stage for Reconstruction (1865-77), during which the nation would attempt to rebuild the South, reintegrate the Confederate states into the Union, and determine the status and rights of nearly 4 million newly freed African Americans.