Slavery promotes the division of labor only in the very beginning. The more dependent the slave is, the worse he works. Whatever he spoils or allows to go to waste injures only his master. Hence it is that slave-husbandry is only one degree removed from what the Germans call Raubbau, and which means, as nearly as we can translate it, the most thoughtless and wasteful management possible.414 Whatever he consumes is simply so much gain to himself. Industry and skill are injurious to him, because, if remarkable for these qualities, his master exacts more work from him and is more adverse to setting him at liberty. Instead of the numberless incentives of the free workman: care for the future, for his family, honor and comfort, the slave is generally moved by one—the fear of ill-treatment, and to this he gradually becomes insensible.415 The division of labor demanded by manufactures, and which is to be found for the most part only where each person is at liberty to choose his own avocation, is scarcely supposable where slavery, in the strict sense of the word, prevails. The same is true of the spirit of invention and improvement.416 And even where the milder glebÆ [pg 217] adscriptio obtains, the division of labor is much hindered. Hence, competent judges all agree on the badness of slave labor;417 which, as for instance in the United States, was used only where the slaves were crowded together in large numbers and could therefore be easily superintended. And not only are the slaves themselves indolent, but their masters as well; more particularly in slave countries where all labor is considered disgraceful. What must be the national husbandry of a people, one half of whom refuse to do anything that is right and proper, through malice, and the other half through pride! As soon as, on account of increased population and consequent increased consumption, this enormous waste of force can be endured no longer, free workmen become more profitable, not only to themselves and to the whole community, but to the greater number of the individuals who compose it.418 On the Bernstoff estates the quantity of rye harvested before [pg 218] and after emancipation was as 3:8-?; of barley-corn as 4:9-?; of oat-grain as 2-?:8.419

The owners of serfs, especially, are apt to be very wasteful of their labor, because they imagine that they obtain it gratis. Tucker has made a curious calculation tending to show that when civilization reaches a certain point, the master's self-interest leads to emancipation. In Russia, where there are seventy-five persons to the English square mile, it seemed to him that serfdom was still a good economic speculation. In western Europe, where there were one hundred and ten persons to the square mile, freedom, in all relations of master and servant, he considered more advantageous to all parties. Emancipation began in England in the fourteenth century, when that country had a population of forty to the square mile, and was completed in the seventeenth, when the population was ninety-two to the square mile.420 Tucker concludes, that the turning point comes, when the population is relatively to the number of square miles as 66:1.421 Such a calculation cannot, of course, be universally true. The free workman can usually command a much larger portion of the sum total of economic profits [pg 219] than can the slave or serf, who must be satisfied with the minimum necessary to support life.422 Hence, free labor is more profitable to masters only when production in general is so much enhanced thereby that a greater quantity of goods falls to their share also. But this will always be the case where workmen are capable of development.423

At the same time, the same degree of servitude becomes more and more oppressive to the bondman as civilization advances. The greater his intellectual progress, the more does he feel the want of liberty, and the more keenly he experiences the degradation of his condition. The development of luxury digs a gulf between master and servant which grows wider every day. (§ 227 ff.) As commerce extends, it becomes more profitable for the master to exact excessive work from his slave. In the West Indies, it was a problem which every slaveholder solved for himself, whether, by immoderately increased production, which cost the lives of many slaves, the gain in sugar was greater than the loss occasioned by the [pg 220] consequent death of the negroes.424 When, with the advance of civilization, the state guarantees to all more certain protection of their rights than they enjoyed in a less advanced stage of social improvement, the last check on masters, the fear of the vengeance of their slaves, is removed.425 Demoralization naturally increases in the same proportion; and that of the master as well as that of his servants.426

This explains why it is that, in all countries, the power of the state, in a period of transition towards a higher civilization, has endeavored to render slavery milder. Great credit is due the Church in this regard. It soon extinguished slavery entirely in Scandinavia,427 and in portions of Europe it abolished at least the sale of prisoners to foreign countries.428 The [pg 221] Concilium Agatheuse, in the year 506, decreed that serfs should not be killed by their masters at pleasure,429 but that they should be brought before a tribunal of justice. (The manorial tribunals of more recent times.) Moreover, the numberless holidays of the church operated greatly in favor of the bondmen. Pope Alexander III. recommended their gradual emancipation.430 One of the principal steps in the way of progress was made when they could no longer be sold singly, but only with the village or on the estate to which they belonged.431 The feudal aristocracy improved the condition of the bondmen by reducing a great number of freemen to their level.432 This [pg 222] could not be effected without a real amelioration of slavery; and, later, when the feudal aristocracy declined, the older serfs were, with those who had been formerly free, raised from their abject condition. The sense of chivalry would not permit a lord to be served by a bondman. The old adage “the serf lives to serve and serves to live,” by degrees, lost its force. Serfs were required to perform certain tasks on the lands of their master and to pay him a certain quantity of the produce of their own. Heriots (mortuarium), which became usual from the 8th century (J. Grimm), may be considered evidence that even bondmen were permitted to acquire and hold property in their own right. Thus was one of the chief disadvantages of slavery, in an economic sense, removed.433 It may be affirmed, as characteristic of the aristocracy of feudal times, that they treated those, who like the serfs were entirely at their mercy, with much more consideration than those who were free, and, although dependent on them, had certain rights guaranteed by contract. The absolute monarchy found in [pg 223] nearly all nations, at the opening of modern times, was forced by its struggle with the mediÆval aristocracy to favor the emancipation of the serfs and of the lower classes. Even in Russia, Iwan III. (1462-1505) seems to have restored to the peasantry the right of migration, of which they had been deprived by the invasion of the Mongols, nor did they lose it again until the great troubles at the beginning of the seventeenth century, which gave the ruling power to the nobility.434

Where civilization has reached its highest development, the irresistible power of public opinion, governed by the ideas of the universal brotherhood of man and of democratic equality, causes the abolition of all irredeemable and of all hereditary relations of servitude.435436437