Capitalism's Role in the Abolition of Slavery

Though our readings and class discussions have focused on the vital relationship between slavery, economics, politics, and social life in the history and development of the United States, capitalism’s role in the abolishment of slavery has been absent. Though the extent to which capitalism aided abolition is controversial, its complementary role cannot be overlooked, especially as it relates to the government’s involvement in political and economic affairs. The codification of slavery into law and further government efforts to support the institutionalization of slavery stand in direct opposition to the foundational tenets and ideals of capitalism and warrant additional consideration. Before discussing the legitimacy of capitalism as a complementary tool in the process of abolishing slavery, it is important to define capitalism to provide clarity to the discussion of the government’s role in abolition.

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary and other subject matter experts, capitalism is “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” Thus, capitalism explicitly discourages government intervention in economic affairs and suggests that government actions tend to harm market participants. Further, others have argued that capitalism encourages, through a system of profits and losses, economic and social punishment for anti-social, criminal, and discriminatory conduct. This does not mean that capitalism works perfectly in an absolute sense or that wrongs simply do not happen as a result of free-market policies that promote capitalism; it simply means that discriminatory activities tend to be punished more often than not as a result of a less regulated, capitalist economy, as it is in the best interest of businesses and institutions to craft fair, competitive work policies and strategies that promote equality. Nevertheless, with these considerations in mind it is still possible to consider the effects that government actions and legislation had on promoting and sustaining slavery and to observe how capitalism aided in the destruction of this heinous institution.

The resistance to abolition and the languid pace at which the government moved to criminalize the institution of slavery and to enforce the equality and rights of African Americans in the U.S. demonstrates the government’s inhibitive role in the abolition of slavery and the enforcement of equality. Throughout our lectures, we’ve discussed the explicit actions of the government to codify and sustain the institution of slavery in the Constitution, in legislative actions like the Fugitive Slave Acts, and in court cases like Prigg v. Pennsylvania, among others. In “Ex-Slaves and the Rise of Universal Education,” the author illustrates the government’s role as an inhibitor in the abolition of slavery. The author describes the bureaucratic and anti-capitalistic nature of government at the time when he says, “The planters,” with the help of “a variety of state laws and local customs,” “established a system of coercive labor designed to reduce wages…to protect individual planters from competition with other employers, and to force blacks to sign repressive labor contracts.” This evidence undoubtedly suggests that the government’s role in abolition was inhibitory. Further, it supports the claim that capitalism played a catalytic role in the abolition of slavery, as its main principles and corollaries render economic and social punishment for anti-social, discriminatory behavior like that found in the institution of slavery.

Capitalism and the virtues it tends to promote are inconsistent with the institution of slavery. On an ethical and political level, capitalism in the truest sense recognizes “the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives,” as Donald J. Boudreaux states in his article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Even on economic grounds, he argues, “capitalism rejects slavery.” To support his argument, he says that capitalism is an “institution that puts a premium on creativity, initiative, and good judgment, and because the ethos that gives life to capitalism… is hostile to the ownership of man by man.” Intuitively, he asserts that it is “[much] better to have contented employees who want their jobs—who are paid to work and who want to work—than to operate [slaveholders’] expensive, complicated, easily sabotaged factory with slaves,” further supporting the assertion that capitalism played a complementary role in the abolition of slavery. It is more competitive and sustainable to provide fair and competitive treatment to autonomous, free employees. Empirically, Boudreaux cites the emergence of industrial capitalism in Great Britain and the subsequent abolishment of slavery. Government actions that institutionalized slavery highlight the complementary role capitalism played in the abolition of slavery.

Government intervention inhibited capitalism from working as it had in Great Britain and as it would later on when it emerged with the development of the U.S. Capitalism tends to reward individuals and institutions for egalitarian and economically rational behavior, while punishing anti-social, discriminatory, and immoral behavior. The extent to which capitalism aided in the abolition of slavery is debatable, but its complementary role should not go unnoticed.

In light of the evidence presented, what role do you think capitalism played in the abolition of slavery? Did the government play an inhibitory role in the abolition of slavery and later establishments/declarations of African American equality (e.g. integration)? What role should the government play in matters of race?