Why were there few slave revolts in the South during the 19th century?

I think that one of the potential reasons why there were not more slave revolts and rebellions in the South is evident in the measures that slaveowners took in controlling their slaves.  Simply put, the institution of slavery was the epitome of repression and control.  As late as 1850, controlling the slave population through brutality and repression was critical to the institution's sustenance.  Publications during the time period detailed ways in which this could be accomplished and advocated  a "code of conduct" for slaveowners:

1. Maintain strict discipline and unconditional submission.
2. Create a sense of personal inferiority, so that slaves "know their place."
3. Instill fear.
4. Teach servants to take interest in their master's enterprise.
5. Deprive access to education and recreation, to ensure that slaves remain uneducated, helpless and dependent.

Through its insistence on control and repression, the culture of the time period ensured that slaves could not wage wide rebellion in the South.  This was enhanced through the repeated and intense passage of slave codes, ensuring that legal practice matched cultural acceptance of brutality and control.

In his writings, Frederick Douglass, a former slave himself, confirmed that the slave owner's control was a critical reason as to why rebellions and revolts were not common in the South.  His analysis suggests that religion played a major role in this element of control.  Douglass argues that the institution of the church, in particular a "false" notion of Christianity, helped to ensure that rebellions were not common in the South:

Slaveholders hide themselves behind the church. A more praying, preaching, psalm-singing people cannot be found than the slaveholders [in] the south. The religion of the South is referred to everyday to prove that slaveholders are good, pious men. But with all their pretensions, and all the aid that they get from the Northern church, they cannot succeed in deceiving the Christian portion of the world.

Through his writing, Douglass suggests that the use of religion was critical in demanding that control was evident, denying the chance for slaves to ever exert any power over their own being.  Douglass frames this paradigm as one in which slaveowners were convinced that the greater their brutality and control over slaves translated into "pleasing" a "false" understanding of Christianity.

Slaveowners were also able to prevent any widespread notion of change and rebellion because of providing a routine that made life so dreary that revolt was almost inconceivable.  Providing a demanding state of being where control was evident in each aspect of a slave's life ensured that rising up en masse would be very, very difficult, as indicated in the writings of Olmstead in 1853:

A cast mass of the slaves pass their lives, from the moment they are able to go afield in the picking season till they drop worn out in the grave, in incessant labor, in all sorts of weather, at all seasons of the year, without any other change or relaxation than is furnished by sickness, without the smallest hope of any improvement either in their condition, in their food, or in their clothing, which are of the plainest and coarsest kind, and indebted solely to the forbearance or good temper of the overseer for exception from terrible physical suffering.

The passing of "their lives" as one interminable channel of control helped to ensure that there could be no literal opportunity for rebellion and revolt.  In the design of such a world, slaves could not imagine the possibility of change because survival was so very difficult.

Why didn't the slaves revolt in the Nineteenth Century?

Although some slaves did revolt, it is clearly true that the vast majority of slaves did not participate in any violent rebellions.  Why was this?  Different slaves would surely have had different reasons for not rebelling.  Let us look at a few of the more common reasons for not revolting.

Some slaves would not have revolted because they would have been relatively happy with their lives.  This does not mean that slaves enjoyed slavery or that slavery was not a brutal system.  However, there were clearly some slaveowners who were not brutal and there would have been some slaves who were less inclined by temperament to be rebellious.  There were also some slaves who were given positions of importance and would not have been inclined to rebel for that reason.   So, without claiming that slaves liked slavery, we can say that some slaves would not have hated slavery enough to revolt.  This could have been because of their individual personalities, because of their positions on their plantations, or because of the fact that they had relatively “good” owners.

Some slaves would not have revolted because they could find other ways in which to resist slavery.  Some slaves escaped or tried to escape.  Historians tell us that the majority of slaves rebelled in other ways.  They refused to work quickly or well.  They intentionally broke tools or damaged crops.  They pretended to be sick.  They abused the slave owners’ livestock.  They did all of these things as ways to push back against the evil system in which they found themselves trapped.  Because they had ways other than revolting to push back against slavery, they did not revolt.

Finally, many slaves surely did not revolt because they knew that a revolt could never work and would lead to certain death for them and, most likely, for their loved ones.  First of all, it would have been exceedingly hard for slaves to get their hands on many firearms.  Therefore, as with Nat Turner’s rebellion, they would have had to use things like knives for their weapons.  If they used these things as weapons, they would be able to kill some whites, but they would surely be defeated as soon as any sort of militia with firearms was organized.  Even if they won a few victories, there was no way that the United States government was going to allow them to go free or to set up their own country.  Therefore, they really had no hope of winning.

Second, once they were defeated, they were almost sure to be killed, along with many other people.  For example, we are told that about 70 blacks participated in Nat Turner’s rebellion.  In retaliation, it is said that 200 blacks were killed by whites.  The fact that a rebellion would surely be defeated and would lead to almost certain death would be enough to prevent almost all slaves from revolting.

Most people do not want to simply throw their lives away without any hope that their side will win in a war.  Slaves would have realized that participating in a revolt would be the same as throwing their lives away with no hope of victory.  Therefore, slaves chose to rebel in other ways.  They tried to escape or they simply engaged in a variety of forms of more passive resistance.  These actions could allow them to fight back against slavery in ways that would not get them killed.