Andrew Heath

Joyce E. Chaplin, “Tidal Rice Cultivation and the Problem of Slavery in South Carolina and

Georgia, 1760-1815,” William and Mary Quarterly 49, no. 1 (January 1992):29-61.

Chaplin, Joyce E. “Tidal Rice Cultivation and the Problem of Slavery in South Carolina and

Georgia, 1780-1815.” William and Mary Quarterly 49, no. 1 (January 1992):29-61.

Analysis of Tidal Cultivation

Joyce E. Chaplin begins her scholarly paper with her argument, “The lack of

revolutionary change in black slavery during the era of the American Revolution was nowhere

more apparent than in South Carolina and Georgia.”1 She follows up by giving you a basis of

what slavery was like before the Revolutionary War in South Carolina, and informs about the

reason the plantation owners switched from cotton and other products to rice, because it

produced more crop during the harvest season, then Chaplin tells of how the Plantation owners

would hide in the bushes during some seasons when they had ordered some particularly mean or

malevolent task for the servants and slaves to perform and how the masters would run away

during certain seasons as well, this is also discussed to a lesser extent when speaking of the

rotation of slaves during the tasks which one would easily be malcontented or dislike one’s

owner and possibly lead a revolt because of. The crop trade between plantation owners was

another reason, other than more quantity, that rice was a rapidly growing popular crop. The

growth of the rice crop was then explained and how technological advancements and an increase

in the learning concerning the subject led to more and more plantations growing it as their staple

crop. Shortly following, Chaplin tells of how most of the rice plantations got seriously damaged

during the Revolutionary War due to the lack of field hands, much changing week to week on

how many slaves and which ones would be present during any given problem, and the possible

war damage which was done outside of natural causes considering that the American South had

1 Chaplin, 30.
 Andrew Heath

seen some of the biggest portions of destruction throughout. After the war more technological

advancements occurred making rice even easier to cultivate such as a grinding machine using

mortars and force to turn a turbine, such as but not limited to, windmills and horses.

“The lack of revolutionary change in black slavery during the era of the American

Revolution was nowhere more apparent than in South Carolina and Georgia.”2 What is Chaplin

truly claiming with this argument? Other than Georgia and South Carolina being known for their

static views on slavery and growth of slavery, what is this telling us? This gives us a time frame

which is also listed, but not limited to the title. The title of the article, date wise, proceeds well

into the 1800’s and doesn’t start until 1790. The Revolutionary War period which the opening

sentence of the document begins would start before 1790, especially considering that the war

was completely over and the United States had already seen the Articles of Confederation fail

and had drafted the United States Constitution. Now that the first part of the argument has been

analyzed the second part must be as well. So what is the significance of Georgia and South

Carolina? Other than Virginia which had already found which staple crops it would grow in

immense quantities, South Carolina and Georgia were the two biggest slave states and due to

their coastal location, like that of most of the other states at this point in time, was critical to the

cultivation of this cash crop. Unlike the other states, however, Georgia and South Carolina had

the right climate needed in order to grow rice, such as humid and hot, or sub-tropical.

Considering that this article was written in 1992 it is important to note that the writer

would not have access to any internet sources as the internet had just been created and had not

undergone the extreme boom which it had in the late 1990’s. Simply browsing the first ten pages

the first thing which is easily noticed is that Chaplin has cited her predecessors, or secondary

documents such as, A History ofAgriculture in the Southern United States to I86o, on page 32

2 Chaplin, 30.
 Andrew Heath

and A View of South-Carolina as Respects her Natural and Civil Concern on page 35, on the

subject more so than she has cited any primary document. There is at least a two to one ratio,

also no sources have been repeated thus far. Continuing scrolling down the trend reverses and the

next and final twenty-four pages of the paper Chaplin primarily cites primary sources such as,

Samuel DuBose, Jr., to William DuBose found on page 51, Elias Ball (of Bristol) to Elias Ball

(of Charleston) found on page 56, and Petitions to General Assembly, I795, no. io8, S.C. found

on page 60. Chaplin uses many different sources, most of the sources are cited twice at the most

but on average only one time, which although doubtful, can mean that there is misquoting going

on to support her claim made at the beginning of the paper. Her primary sources use a wide

variety, Chaplin uses multiple letters and official documents from the time period to have a

greater focus on the personal level of the states which seems to be great style.

Chaplin builds upon her argument by slowly escalating to the point where slaves were

needed for the plantations to be run properly as a unit. Beginning with secondary sources and an

argument stating that slavery was unchanged as the seemingly immovable force that it was

during the revolutionary war period, and ending the argument with an escalation of damages and

technologies, new crops, and a new society where trade was vital. Her organization is

fundamental to her argument due to this escalation. She begins talking about how the masters

mistreated the slaves at first and hoped that they didn’t have any problems with them and moved

through the paper to the masters treating their slaves well and kissing up to them simply to raise

their crop affectively so that no slave would be malcontented and quit working because every

slave was critical to the production of the crop, especially because stated early on in the essay by

Chaplin the Southern Carolina plantations were almost always understaffed whether it be slaves

or not. Chaplin states “planters were privately willing to consider relinquishing some power over
 Andrew Heath

slaves in order to remain, formally, their masters”3 which is describing the efforts of many

plantation owners to be able to keep their slaves and give them certain freedoms which there is a

possibility that they accepted. The masters only wanted to avoid a revolt and keep their crop

coming in so relinquishing a few powers isn’t necessarily a substantial amount because the

slaves still wouldn’t be getting anything, however, going from absolutely no rights to some

would be very appealing to many people. Chaplin, does tell of some problems with post-war

politics which hurt the slaveholders and caused them to resort to the former statement. Post-war

politics instilled unalienable rights into the mind of a vast population in America which would

prevent slavery if all men are created free and equal.

All in all I really liked this article. It was clear for a majority of the paper but I didn’t

quite follow some parts because it is an odd and specific topic which I was not expecting to see.

Although it interested me because I had never read anything about rice cultivation It would have

been nice to have had a preface for the information, or for the title and argument not necessarily

conflicted with one another as stated in the paragraph analyzing the argument . The argument,

however, was convincing. It was formed well which is what led me to be convinced by it. The

slow escalation over the thirty-four pages was well paced full of information necessary to

understand the argument. The explanations of how slavery had not changed and was a stagnant

force throughout the early years of America was a great learning experience. Although the article

did seem to drag on from time to time it was thirty-four pages, it didn’t stand a chance to be

nothing but interesting, not even the best novels are able to accomplish that feat. I don’t think

that anything except Milledge’s roll was overstated, however, I do think that the politics of the

post-Revolutionary era was understated and could have been covered more thoroughly.

3 Chaplin, 30.