The view of slavery presented in most history courses is that it is a social and political system involving the brutal oppression of one group by another group justified by a system of racist beliefs. It is not a business and therefore cannot be analyzed using the tools of economics, which assume a rational motive. It must be viewed as an issue of human rights, culture, and politics. One variant of this argument is that since it was an old economic system, it would have eventually passed away without the necessity of war. The war was waged for other political and economic reasons by the Northern states.
The New Economic Historians have challenged the traditional view and claim that slavery is primarily an economic phenomenon. Furthermore, they claim that the system was inherently profitable, therefore it was rational, and it was no more brutal than the daily life of most people. A corollary to this argument is that since slavery was profitable, it would have endured and therefore, the civil war was necessary to rid the world of the moral scourge of slavery.
Between 1600 and 1860, an estimated 660,000
Africans were
imported into the
Early
Rationalizations
In early American economic and political writings, slavery was defended as a “necessary evil” heritage from the early colonial powers. The dominant racist view saw Africans as inherently incompetent and in need of paternalistic protection provided by slave owners. Most Americans, Northerners and Southerners, thought that slavery was an antiquated, unprofitable institution that would eventually pass away. George Washington, for example, counseled a fellow farmer to get rid of his slaves as an unprofitable investment. Thomas Jefferson grudgingly dropped an emancipation proposal from the Constitution since he believed that it would eventually disappear on its own.
In the early 19th century, the spread
of cotton
production caused by the use of Whitney’s cotton gin, and the increased
demand
created by the boom in textile production, renewed the market for
slaves. The moral debate over slavery
increased
during this period and many other countries began to outlaw it. In 1808, the
In the early 1850’s Frederick Law Olmstead toured the south and reported on the conditions of slavery for the New York Times. His views shaped the work of most subsequent historians for over 100 years. Fundamentally, Olmstead believed that slavery was an inherently unprofitable, destructive institution that was incompatible with urbanization and economic development and was therefore holding back the south. Olmstead’s portrayal of the humanity of slaves and their yearning for freedom touched a chord in the north. Sentiments were further raised by the writings of ex-slaves such as Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Tubman as well as the anti-slavery novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The general assumptions in the north were:
1. Slavery was bad—ethically and as an economic system
2. Slave labor was inferior and less productive.
3. Slave agriculture was inefficient and not profitable.
4. Slave owners were not entrepreneurial and corrupted by slavery.
5. The slave’s life was miserable and the black family was destroyed.
Adam Smith was also referenced by the opponents of slavery. Smith had argued that slavery was inherently unprofitable because slaves had no incentive for increasing production since they would gain nothing. He argued that sugar and tobacco were so profitable that they could afford to use slaves, rather than the southern argument that slaves made it profitable.
In the early 20th century, Ulrich B. Phillips wrote several articles about slavery arguing that while slavery may have made economic sense early in history, it was limited in use and declining in profitability. In particular, he wrote that the rising slave prices of the 1850’s at the same time that cotton prices were stable or even declining, meant that slavery was becoming less and less profitable, and could be sustained only by an irrational political and social system. Hence, Phillips argues, the Civil War was unnecessary. WEB Dubois strongly criticized Phillips’ work as inherently racist. He noted Phillips’ depiction of slaves as inherently, “submissive, light-hearted, and ingratiating” who were naturally unproductive and inefficient. Eugene Genovese, a Marxist scholar, characterized slavery as a pre-capitalist mode of production which was inherently unprofitable, but profits were not as important as status and power. In his analysis, the civil war was a conflict between different modes or stages of production.
In 1956, Richard Stampp wrote, The Peculiar Institution, which rejected the view of blacks as culturally inferior, and rejected the view that planters were non-capitalistic. Stampp argued that slavery probably was profitable. This was not a bad economic system, it was a bad moral system that needed to be destroyed. Other scholars soon picked up the debate and analyzed the economic profitability of slavery. Most notably, in 1958, Conrad and Meyer used quantitative data and sophisticated analysis to demonstrate that slavery was an inherently efficient, productive, profitable means of production. It was an investment that returned from 8-14% annual return; a good rate of return compared with other investment opportunities. They concluded that therefore the arguments that the civil war was unnecessary to defeat an economically unprofitable system were “doubtful”. Furthermore, since it was a profitable investment, it was an economically rational choice to invest in agriculture rather than manufacturing and thereby may have diverted funds from other economic development. However, it was not inherently inimical to development. The rise in prices was not necessarily decreasing profitability since their analysis indicated that productivity of slaves was increasing even faster, thus justifying increased prices. In other words, increased productivity of slaves caused an increase in the price of slaves and an increase in the output of cotton causing a decrease in the price of cotton. Rather than a symptom of a dying economic system, rising slave prices reflected a booming economy.
“1. Slavery was not a system
irrationally kept in existence by owners who failed to perceive or were
indifferent to their best economic interests. The purchase of a slave
was
generally a highly profitable investment which yielded rates of return
that
compared favorably with the most outstanding investment opportunities
in
manufacturing.
2. The slave system
was not
economically moribund on the eve of the Civil War. There is no evidence
that
economic forces alone would have soon brought slavery to an end without
the
necessity of a war or other form of political intervention. Quite the
contrary;
as the Civil War approached, slavery as an economic system was never
stronger
and the trend was toward even further entrenchment.
3. Slaveowners were
not becoming
pessimistic about the future of their system during the decade that
preceded
the Civil War. The rise of the secessionist movement coincided with a
wave of
optimism. On the eve of the Civil War, slaveholders anticipated an era
of
unprecedented prosperity.
4. Slave agriculture
was not inefficient
compared with free agriculture. Economies of large-scale operation,
effective
management, and intensive utilization of labor and capital made
southern slave
agriculture 35 percent more efficient than the northern system of
family
farming.
5. The typical slave
field hand
was not lazy, inept, and unproductive. On average he was harder-working
and
more efficient than his white counterpart.
6. The course of
slavery in the
cities does not prove that slavery was incompatible with an industrial
system or
that slaves were unable to cope with an industrial regimen. Slaves
employed in
industry compared favorably with free workers in diligence and
efficiency. Far
from declining, the demand for slaves was actually increasing more
rapidly in
urban areas than in the countryside.
7. The belief that
slave-breeding, sexual exploitation, and promiscuity destroyed the
black family
is a myth. The family was the basic unit of social organization under
slavery.
It was to the economic interest of planters to encourage the stability
of slave
families and most of them did so. Most slave sales were either of whole
families or of individuals who were at an age when it would have been
normal
for them to have left the family.
8. The material (not
psychological) conditions of the lives of slaves compared favorably
with those
of free industrial workers. This is not to say that they were good by
modern
standards. It merely emphasizes the hard lot of all workers, free or
slave,
during the first half of the nineteenth century.
9. Slaves were
exploited in the
sense that part of the income which they produced was expropriated by
their
owners. However, the rate of expropriation was much lower than has
generally
been presumed. Over the course of his lifetime, the typical slave field
hand
received about 90 percent of the income he produced.
10. Far from
stagnating, the
economy of the antebellum South grew quite rapidly. Between 1840 and
1860, per
capita income increased more rapidly in the south than in the rest of
the
nation. By 1860 the south attained a level of per capita income which
was high
by the standards of the time. Indeed, a country as advanced as
The Backlash to Fogel
and Engerman and the Debate:
Critics of Fogel and Engerman appeared on many fronts. Thomas Weiss (2001) summarizes some of these as follows:
“What followed was an avalanche of criticism. Criticism may be putting it mildly; the book and the authors were lambasted from every direction. There was an outpouring of research, papers, special journal issues, edited volumes, monographs, conference sessions, and indeed an entire conference -- the Rochester Conference: "Time on the Cross: A First Appraisal”
“Scholars argued about
everything -- including what the
traditional characterization of slavery was. Sutch produced a monograph
questioning almost every aspect of the material treatment of slaves;
Gavin
Wright criticized the argument that the long run prospects of slavery
were good;
David and Temin, and others examined the efficiency calculation;
Richard Vedder
and others questioned the definition and measurement of exploitation;
Herbert
Gutman examined the arguments about the Protestant work ethic and
family values
among other things. And as expected, Fogel and Engerman, and their
students,
published articles that defended their findings.” Weiss online at: http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/weiss.shtml
Historians in particular rankled at economists doing history and denounced the attempt to quantify history. They argued that history was not about changing prices, it was about real people whose story could not be reduced to statistics. Civil rights advocates claimed that Fogel and Engerman had made the case that slavery wasn’t all that bad. As an example, they cited Fogel and Engerman’s calculation of the frequency of whipping. They calculated that on large plantation, this amounted to no more than 0.7 whippings per hand per year. They used this to suggest that slaves were obviously not excessively mistreated and that therefore, slaveowners must have other more positive means of inducing compliance. Gutman (1975), a cultural historian, criticized this and rephrased the same data as follows: "One slave -- on average -- was whipped every 4.56 days." He argued that the use of public whipping more than once a week created an air of intimidation and degradation.
Fogel and Engerman expressed dismay over these reactions to their book and argued, in a later edition, that they were in fact attempting to emphasize black achievement even in the face of slavery and furthermore, to focus upon the continuing discrimination faced by blacks after the war and emancipation. They argued that those people who argue for the inefficiency of slave labor and the severity of conditions are in fact arguing that black labor is inherently less productive and that only force can make it more efficient. Furthermore, they argued, “by exaggerating the severity of slavery, all that has come after it has been made to appear as an improvement” and the continuing poverty has been ignored (p. 260). They claimed that after emancipation, blacks faced in some ways an even harsher life with increased discrimination and actually had statistically shortened lifespans; thereby, showing that emancipation was not a complete cure for their problems. They stated, “Time on the Cross did not come to an end for American blacks with the downfall of the peculiar institution. For they were held on the cross not just by the chains of slavery, but also by the spikes of racism” (p. 263)
After years of debate, it is now generally accepted that slavery was probably profitable and it might have last some decades longer without the civil war. However, many still are offended by Fogel & Engerman’s argument and methods. As a final note, Fogel won the Nobel Prize in economics for this and other work in 1997.
References:
Conrad, A. H., & Meyer, J. R. (1958). The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South. Journal of Political Economy, 66(2), 95-130.
David,
Paul A.
and Temin, Peter. 1974 Review
Article Slavery:
The Progressive Institution?,
Journal of Economic History pp. 739-783 Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507%28197409%2934%3A3%3C739%3ASTPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X This is
considered the “classic” economic rebuttal to Fogel and Engerman.
Fogel,
Robert W.,
and
Fogel, Robert W & Engerman, Stanley L, 1977. "Explaining the Relative Efficiency of Slave Agriculture in the Antebellum South," American Economic Review, (http://ideas.repec.org/s/aea/aecrev.html) Vol. 67 (3) pp. 275-96 Rebuttal to critics.
Foner,
Eric.
(2000). “Slavery and the Origins of the Civil War.”
Teachers Guide to Accompany Africans in
Genovese,
E. D.
(1965). The Political Economy of Slavery.
Thomas
Haskell.
"The True and Tragical History of 'Time on the Cross.' The
James
W. Oberly.
"Review of Eugene D. Genovese, The Political Economy of Slavery:
Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South," H-Rural,
H-Net
Reviews, October, 1995. URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=1726851701152
R.
Sutch, “The
treatment received by American slaves: A critical review of the
evidence
presented in Time on the Cross”, Explorations in Economic History,
1975, 12,
335-438. This article appeared
in the special issue on Fogel and Engerman and
was completely opposite in its analysis of the treatment of slaves.
Gary Walton. "A Symposium on Time on the Cross." Explorations in Economic History 12 (1975): 333-34. Most of this issue featured articles debating the book, its methods, and interpretations.
Wahl,
Jenny B..
"Slavery in the
Weiss,
Gary, Review Essay, part of:
“Project 2001:
Significant Works in Twentieth-Century Economic History, Time on the
Cross: The
Economics of American Negro Slavery http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/weiss.shtml
Excellent
book review about the book and the reactions by scholars.
Gavin
Wright, The
Political Economy of the Cotton South (New York: W. W. Norton,
1978).