Enslavement Becomes Imbedded in the Southern Culture (College Board AP® US History)
Study Guide
Written by: Barbara Keese
Reviewed by: Bridgette Barrett
Summary
While only a small number of Southern White people owned slaves, they held the greatest power in terms of the Southern economy and political legislation. The practice of slavery influenced nearly every aspect of Southern life. Yeoman farmers, who worked their own land but did not own slaves, played a key role in supporting and benefitting from the slavery system. Due to the economic importance of cotton, slavery became more embedded in Southern culture. Despite growing abolition movements in other parts of the world, Southern leaders defended slavery, using economic necessity among their justifications.
Yeoman Farmers & the Business of Slavery
Yeoman Farmers
Yeoman farmers were Southern farmers who did not own slaves but worked their fields independently
They were small-scale landowners
They made up a large proportion of the Southern population
Although yeoman farmers did not directly participate in slavery, they were heavily influenced by it
They would usually support the institute of slavery, but at times would challenge it when it proved to harm their cause
The key reason for yeoman farmers to support slavery was because they benefitted directly from the system
Slave labor produced the cotton that underpinned the Southern economy
This affected all people in the region, whether they were slave owners or not
Yeoman farmers would question slavery when large plantation owners tried to expand slavery into new territories
This would reduce the amount of land available for non-slaveholders like yeoman farmers
As more White men received voting rights, yeoman farmers became more influential in local and state legislation
They pushed for policies that favored their economic interests
Business of Slavery
Cotton was “King” and was the center of the Southern economy
It was the main cash crop of the South
The cotton industry relied heavily on enslaved labor, making slavery integral to the South’s economic system
This economic dependence on cotton gave Southern elites significant influence in both state and national politics
The Southern produced 75% of the world’s cotton supply by the 1860s
Cotton was crucial to textile production
Uneasiness would arise when slavery was abolished in other nations
Great Britain ended slavery in 1834
This alarmed Southern slaveholders as it raised the possibility that slavery could be abolished worldwide
South American nations abolished slavery during the early 19th century, for example, Brazil
The Three-Fifths Compromise (1787) allowed enslaved individuals to be counted as three-fifths of a person in census counts
This gave Southern states more political power and representation in Congress
Southern states influenced federal legislation and worked to protect slavery against growing abolitionist pressure in the North
The small number of plantation owners kept slavery alive by using their wealth and political influence to ensure yeoman farmers and others received some benefit from the institution, buying their loyalty
They gave jobs to poorer White people in need of employment
They made loans available to those in financial need
Helped yeoman farmers get their goods to markets, thus helping them make a living
Apologists
As anti-slavery movements gained momentum in the North, many Southern leaders became vocal in their defense of slavery
These apologists justified the need for slavery through a variety of arguments:
Economic necessity: some claimed slavery was essential for the Southern economy, particularly in the cotton industry.
They claimed that without slavery, the South would not be able to maintain its wealth or global influence
Moral and racial justifications: pro-slavery advocates argued slavery was a “positive good” for both enslaved people and Southern society
Thomas Dew, a pro-slavery advocate, claimed that enslaved Africans were inferior to Whites and that slavery provided them with care and civilization
This argument of “White Supremacy” was rooted in racist ideologies which aimed to justify inhumane treatment of enslaved people
Examiner Tips and Tricks
When writing about the South, remember the difference between yeoman farmers and plantation owners. Yeoman farmers owned small amounts of land and worked the land themselves with the aid of their families. In very few instances, they might have owned or rented one or two enslaved people. These individuals were not wealthy, unlike the plantation owners, and were known for their self-reliance and independent spirit. On the other hand, the plantation owner had large tracts of land where several dozens to hundreds of enslaved persons worked. The plantation owner and his family never took part in the day-to-day operation of raising crops. Instead, the plantation owners had other jobs, including lawyers, bankers, or other business-related occupations. The area of commonality between yeoman farmers and plantation owners was that both supported and used the institution of slavery. The plantation owner endorsed the institution because it was the source of his wealth. The yeoman farmer supported the institution because he held the dream that one day, he, too, would be able to have enslaved people to work his land.
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 5 free study guides this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?