Stephanie McCurry reviews Slavery’s Capitalism in the Times
Literary Supplement. She raises interesting questions about the
implications of the treatment of capitalism and slavery in the New History of
Capitalism. I, however, find myself in pretty much complete disagreement with
her about two of the essays.
She declares that
“Baptist's argument
about enslaved labour in cotton "labor camps" as bodily torture is
completely persuasive. Walter Johnson made a very similar case, also
powerfully, in River of Dark Dreams (2012). There is nothing to argue with
here. Neo-classical economic historians beg to differ and have taken Baptist to
task, insisting that efficiencies were the result of the introduction of
superior strains of cotton seed. That technical fight goes on, but it is
largely beside the point.”
I can’t figure out what she could possibly mean by “beside
the point.” Isn’t the point to create interpretations of the past based upon
the available evidence? That is what “the Neo-classical economists” have done
and Baptist has not. It has long been known that productivity in cotton
production was increasing. Why? Olmstead and Rhode collected a large amount of
evidence to try to answer the question. They concluded that slaveholders used
violence to coerce maximum effort from slaves and then used innovation in seeds
to increase the amount of cotton that could be produced from that maximum
effort. McCurry seems to simply buy Baptist’s lie that Olmstead and Rhode, as
well as other economists deny the role of violence in the system. I am not
going to repeat all the elements of the argument here, but you can read my
earlier blog post to see why I believe Baptist’s argument is about as far
away from persuasive as an essay can get. The bottom line is that Baptistic
history should never in anyway be encouraged. History needs a big sign that
says “Do Not Feed the Baptist.”
McCurry also writes that
“Slaves were not
compelled by the power of the dollar - that is to say of capital - but by the
whip.”
The problem with this statement is that the first part is
contradicted by a considerable amount of evidence. There is, of course, plenty
of evidence that the second part it true: slaves were motivated by the whip. But
there is also a lot of evidence rewards were used as well. I am sure that my
saying this will be taken out of context by some people and used to show that
economists don’t believe that slaves were tortured, but nothing could be
further from the truth. Whipping and other forms of physical assault were
obviously widely used. There is, however, plenty of evidence that rewards,
including money, were used as well. See, for instance, Kathleen Hilliard’s Master,
Slaves and Exchange. If I remember correctly A Slave No More
also has an interesting description of an arrangement in which John Washington
was hired out to a tobacco factory. His owner got a fixed payment, and
Washington got a piece rate for everything that he produced above a specified amount.
The point I am trying to make here is that, while we should never downplay the
brutality of slavery, it is also a disservice to the history of African
American people to deny the diversity of their experiences. Slave states
occupied a very large territory with diverse environments. If you include the
rest of the Americas the diversity is even greater. Slaves produced a wide
array of crops, manufactured a variety of goods, and performed many different
services. The one thing they all had in common is that they were not free. Even
if they were well treated, continuing in that condition depended on the
continuing goodwill of their master (not to mention his continuing good health
and economic success).
McCurry finds Baptist persuasive, but when John Majewski
asks
“why Republicans
opposed the expansion of slavery if the South was as capitalist, modern,
diversified, thriving and innovative as the North”
she finds that
The answer he offers
is not only unpersuasive; it provides a good basis for the contrary view. The
North, Majewski concludes, differed from even the most modern part of the South
in one important respect: "the democratization of education and
innovation". "Slavery created a political economy antithetical to
long-term development", which explained why Northern Republicans fought
the expansion of slavery into the territories. Far from securing the kind of
material and ideological convergence that is crucial to slavery's capitalism,
Majewski's argument, like Shankman's, seems to confirm that slavery could
generate enormous profit for Northerners while retaining a distinct political
economy that served as a brake on national capitalist development.
Majewski provides considerable evidence that even in areas
along the border with very similar geography, slave states invested less in
education and produced less innovation. He shows that Republicans were aware of
these differences and regarded them negatively.
McCurry does not provide any evidence to contradict this
argument. She declares that
the critical issue in
1860 was not that Republicans saw slavery as a problem, but that slaveholding
Southerners saw free labour and industrial capitalism as an existential threat.
The slaveholders had once called the shots in US politics. But by 1860 the
slave South was not the leading edge of anything except pro-slavery
nationalism. It seceded and provoked a civil war over the future of the nation
and of slavery in it.
But wasn’t it both? If Republicans had not opposed the
spread of slavery into new territories, would Southerners have viewed them as a
threat to the existence of slavery?
Gavin Wright’s review for EH.net remains the most insightful review of Slavery’s
Capitalism
