BLACKS IN THE NEW WORLD HERBERT G. GUTMAN August Meier, Serie Editor Slavery and the Numbers Game A Critique of Time on the Cross UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS Urbana Chicago London© 1975 by Hebert ©, Cutan Manutactard nthe Unie Seo Ameri, Leary of Congo Calon ia Foliction Data ‘Sima, Herbert Groner, 1928 eee (tt inthe Rew Wend) Thee bog rp eeency an inden 1 Fogeh Rat Willan Te on he rom, 2. Saeryin the United Stet Esoco amet 5. Savery Sn he Unied Suse Conlon save 1, Tide Tse, ISBN 62500085. (SL) ‘Wis week tgnaty appeared in alighly ifeen frm in The Insnal of Mages History osmary 113) Sher dtr te ‘The joel eed by Lersine A. Willan wl pel by ‘he Aton for the Stay of Ashen te sa Hi, ‘Wanineon, DC tebe eweston destr 9 Ropre Res For Marta and Nel! who are making their own words ‘nd koow what countsContents Preface Inerodtion ‘An Overview of T/C Bradaved AfrosAmericant andthe“ ‘Protestant’ Work Eee” Positive Lakor Incentive and Slave Work Habite “The Slave Family, Slave Sens] Rehavier, and Slave Saks ‘An Archaic Historical Model Digitized by the Internet Archive = in 2012 http://archive.org/details/slaverynumbersg00gutmList of Tables ‘able 1, Dinsaion of Whipping onthe Ment H. Maron Plantation dung» ‘Two Vea Prod Begaring ta Deceer, 810 eae 18 “Tale 2 Fequeney of Whipping of Diwrow Mile and Female Coton Picker, iene page 25 “able 9, Frequency of Individual Act of Miscondat by Barow Plantation Male ‘nd Female Coton Pickens, 1810-1811 ee? “Table 4 Frequency of Recorded Acts of Misendoet aniong Male ned Female (Cte Puke Who Commies One Mae Ace of Mids, ae row Patadon, 1880188 rad “able 5. Aes of Midst and Whippings Compared 1 Rank of Coxon Picker, ‘ew Plato, 18104081 fess) Table 6 Cobo ad Place of Binh f All Fase Richiond Labowes aod All Fre [Artian Selected Orespatons, 96D ase 50 ‘able 7, Chston Cems of 1838 Compared to 1050 Publuted Federal Grae {ing Ade Maes pare “Tale @ Ghareon Male Poplatin, 1850 aed 1850 pee) ‘Tale 8. Oceupaconal Stans of Whit sod Poe Black Werke, Charen, 190) page st “Table 10 Orepatonal Status of Ses and White and Free Back Werke (Chat, 1080, a Table, Orespatoal Distusen of Skilled and Unie Stave, Free Blac, ad Whites Charleston, (800 pase 33 ‘Tbie 12 Eximaret Ocropniensl Dbtion of Black Male, Slave and Fes, Chern, 180. Bese 8 Table 1. Oreepations of Black Adult Males in Chleson, 160, Rich and Metile, 1000, and Nadie White and Tesh Male in’ Paterce, 10, ‘Twenty and Older Ea ‘Tablet Doran of the Oecapaocal Strture of Adult Mle Siees on Fem page “Table 15. A Comparison beeen the Occoptienal Ditton of Adit Me Stee {atowe 150) and the Octpaioal Datrbton of A Aa Mats in 1870) re ‘able 16, Adult Black Male Oscoparonal Dieribuon, Rum Adams Cousty, Missin, L000 pe Table 7. Arians os 2 Peeotage of All Adu Black Male, Vigna Conte, test eset “able 18 Occupational Diribution cf Kentucky Black Union Amy Solder Compared tothe Oreuptienal Siete of Adult Male Slaves on Fine tage ‘Tahe19, Peetge of Ariane wader Tiny Years af Age page ‘Table, Ace Dostrbtion of Pantin Moles Fifteen and Older ad ‘Table 31. A\Comparinon of the Age Datrbtin of Adsl Males with the. Age Disco of Male Anas fase 80 ‘Table 22. New Orlane Slave Populatcn,1820-1800 pase 108 “able 23 Raimated Age Diario of Feral Slaves from the expan Sts Sold ia New Osea ard cuted inthe F-+ E Sample page 110 ‘Table24, Age Disbuen of Female Slaves iven and Olter Sud in the Po Esample age 118 ‘Tale, Nunber of Women Aged Thiey 1 They-foue in the New Ones ‘Slave Sac Tots and hci Maral State pase 116 “alle 2, Sliver ofthe Darnton Hrs Sold ia Male, Jsmury 5.1850 ‘Tie 27, Age Distion of Women in the Danéngrn Slave Sale Meviat San ‘Table 28 Example of» Manag lave Cea Schedule ‘able 2. United State Slne Popa, 120-1880 ‘able 20. Camprin of Mariage rake by Force o Sale ‘Table. Siler of Snes, 180-100 ‘Tae 2. ian of Fit Bry the Agel Slave Mothers page 1 ‘Tae 33. Bocentae of Manied Women Twenty Twet-toe wth a Srrvng ‘Gd Older Than the Nartap o Bom te Yor of the ‘Martog, 1900 pee 6 ‘Tae 34. Median Age of Save Women a he Binh of» Fist Child page 7 ‘Tle3S. Ape of Hack snd White Women under Thy atthe Dir of 9 Fit ‘Sorvivng Child Sul Livi in the Howseold 16 se ‘alle 36. Diao of Age Difercnecetecen Sve Huss snd Wee pepe 130 ‘Taies7. Diucbcen of ge Diener tetwecs lack Hontands and Wives, Louisa Coury, Via, 1856 ge 134 ‘Table38. Age Dilerences between Hostands and Wives, All Wines Aged Thy and Older, 1600 pe4e 138Preface Time on the Grom: The Beonomics of American Negro Slavery should be tad as theater because it dale with two performances: the performance of the slave economy and the performance of enslaved Afro-Americans. It is the relationship between these two performances that makrs this work 1 controeeial: slavery Tasted soln and worked so well becawe the ordinary fendaved Afro-American iteralined the standards of socal and economic Toeavior presed upon him (or her) by eaveowner, ‘The acceprance of ‘och standard isthe true but neglected record of “black achievement under advert Time on the Cros promises to we that record straight. Ts authors tack "the traditional interpretation of slavery” to “corect the perversion ofthe history of lacs ano destoy myth that tre elpent and ef Cent wodkers iat lazy Iofers and bangles, that tursad ove of fay into 1 dimegaed for it that turned thowe whe supe for slf-enprovement in ‘the only way they could int ‘Uncle Toms!" The enslaved and thei ors pevform av actors and actiewes in a druma writen, directed, and produced by the "ee market” That isthe main therne of Time on the Cross, it ‘ceential menage But crits! and analytical examination of the relevant evidence in Time on the Crom ahows that i aovel patterns of slave bali and behavior bear Hie if say relationship to the common, reablife expen: fences that made up the daily drama of Alo American social history prior to the general emancipation. “What ist forth co-authors Robert W. Fogel and Sealey I. Engerman explin, “represents the honest efor of schlary wove central aim fs been the discovery of what really happened." I Believe that i trac. Fogel and Engerman are former collegues, ad few penons have been more hell 10 me in my own work and more generun with their time than Stanley ngerman. I remain greay in his debt. Nevenhels, as the page which follow make cleat time apd tive again, I am convinced that Time om the {Gro ica profoundly fawed work. Tis not merely thatthe book centaine feror of fact and interpretation. All books that promise to revie our under sonding of important aspects of the past exaggerate thee Gndingy apd enticerears with bold and often extreme statement. Fit rather that the sentia evidence does not sustain the author’ arguments revalutingsace perfor ‘mance, The evidence does not make the eme that enuaved Alr-Amiericans ‘woked hand becase they wanted 1 work ard ‘My debts are several, and my apologies, oe, The editor of the Journal, of Negro History, ad especially Mary Dery, encouraged lengthy review (of Time on the Grou. They got more than they bargained for, I eat, but reverteless published the entire review at seme expense in the Jaan, 1975, ive. T greatly appreciate that decision. The haste involved in pb ing wo long a teview-esay o meet a journal deadline made for some typo rapa eres ithe Journal version. Nowe of theme errors affect any of the larger argument, hut they did affect readability and sometine tained the ‘eI apelogiae to the Journa's edits and readers apd als to the books Suthor for these errors David Brion Davis ended up in footnote twenty e belongs in many places, but sot there, and reader of his magaicent The Problem of Slacery in the Age of Revoltion vail know sey. 1 have coe tected number of eros inthe present version and hope that nene remain Lesie Rowland deserves thanks for leting me use some of the data she toihered in her splendid research en Kentucky Afro-Americans during tnd just after the Civil War. Stanley Engeran made avalable o me birt ogists for the Geod Hope apd Stirling plantations and household lt fr ‘he Watson plantation; he deserves shanks, to. Mary F.Bery, Paul Davi, ‘Gharles Dev, Eee Foner, Judith Mara Guunan, and Willa Eric Perkins made unusuly helpful comments on an early version ofthis eritique. Tes beter for that reaon, Whatever shortcomings it has are ential of my own ‘making. Much in the Aft American experience before the general exiarei pation is now being stand afresh. Tike to think tht this ertique of Time the Crovscontibutes in some way to that long-needed reexamination. Some may wonder what a “abor historian” is doing writing about etlaved ‘Alre-Americam. I hope the answer to that question ie clear bythe time they fini reading this critgue. Hasenr G. Gennes = Nyack, New York ‘March 10,1975 He whe ss the tncoable bck of Nate we i were Merch’ Ledger is jualy mupected of Baving ever seen that Book, at enly sme School Synopsis tert, fom which i tae Ke the wal bck, more err ha eight ft be dered “Thoma Cariye fe at ol Secs —ayeragm of dete inthe et angen 2 percent lane average, cvanly they did’ ane ge he Isles exaly right bt to the rite of ereae in CCrison country averages 2% percent over wt ic would have en in Aiea Now if de fad bon If ia Alcs, they sould have ren all Heathen; by geting dem over bere, you ive jas at any and all Chia wo bot Benue, ou mee the exons of ino balances the percentage of low, onde tthe pe deco for ite the cesIntroduction eve books in United States history, and certainly none about the hisory of ctulaved Afo-Atevicanspublshed in the past two decades, have attracted ‘more pepular noice and given more promise of provoking fee controveiy Among historians and even lay persons than Robert Willam Fege's ard Stanley L. Bogerman's Tite on the Cyou: The Economies of American Negro. Slavery® Controverial becaue ic challenges wany “conventional” ‘iews about enalaved AlcoAmeicaa, it does 40 by 4 nearly Promiscuoot fexponare of aes of quantitative data, Such data and the methods accor. Panying them are cesbrated for supplying vaet ranges of new information ‘which in turn —at least scoring to Fogel and Engerman —fmally alow 1s decisively wo put aide racst myths and to se the enaved as well a ‘hee ewer in avr ight Sambo, it tara out, was really Back Horatio Alger, made 0 by his owner, ho sas nating more than a rational profi ‘masimizer whose everyday decisions were determined by the powerful i Deratives ofthe “ewe mae” ‘Although Tirce on the Crost(heretter referred to ay T/C) contains ‘many arguments and much data about the economics of slavery that aze ‘new, the wor’s importance as wells the popular neice it has attracted Ihave much lest to dowih that subject than with Fogel and Engermar's Mrhing sateen aboot slave belief ane tekvioe, T/C nay have unual ‘alue a economie hiory. Te may tur eut that the expected etm oa Jnvestzent in alaves “compared favorably with the moet oustanding ines ‘ment opportunities in manufacturing?” that slavcholder were “optimitic™ tn the eve of che Civ War, that southern plantation were mere "eficient”| and more “productive” than northern feve farm, ar that the southern fconomy and southern per eapita inceme grew rapidly besween 1540 and 1860. (Before the publication of T/C, eliometricians, Foge! and Engerman ‘prominently among them, published revisionist Endings om these and related ‘matters — Endings, not surpiingly, that help ill te pages of 1/C.)* That "Tie val, Heston! Lit, Brown and Company, 197, cited healer 4 T/C. 1 cepa Reber Foal sod Saley Eagan, The Ecorse of Sis.”is for econcasic historians to diupute, and some have already dove sa.* But ‘whatever the book's importance a economic history, detaled examination <1'T/C— ie major arguments ard the evidence supporting thems — abo ‘onsincngy that io poor socal histor, tha it anal of the belies and Uehavior of ordinary” emlaved Alro-Amercane i entielymiading, that it ier a thoroughly inadequate medel of ave seciaintion and that con tains frequent and important errs of al Kinds in its we of quantiaive [not w mention literary) evidence eental 1 it major arguments, "T/C, however a serious work, and its authon are well-established and light able economic htoram. Ie in work that draws heavy upon mie redial evidence, and volume two, subtiled Evidence and Methods —A Supplement, led with algebraic equations, the resuls of computer ans fad arguments that only “Specials” seemingly can confront. Fogel aad Engorman (hereafter refered to a Fh Eso complete body of infrmiation on the operation ofthe slave sytem than teen avalabe to anyone iterated in the subject either during the ante- ‘ellum era or since then.” Readers lara that an “enormous body of ei Seace” it "he wuree of -new dicoveren” The scope of the remarth project sumone. Te inchades data frm five other Clemens with spe ‘alae! als eleven resident University of Chicago graduate students, st ther graduate students (perhaps ar many ax filter, and seme heading ‘aller data coleson trams), twenty or twenty-one persons (incuding this ‘witer) who read am ene earier drat, and another rinet.three peste many among them distinguished economic historians and well Anon ane productive historians of slavery who rad earlier poroas of dhe unpub. Ted work* Mon ofthe data reported in ‘T/C, moreover, ve benef {roma the modern computer. "We were able to-do in fve minut, for $10, sid Fogel to an admving Wall Stret Journal writer, “what would have ten 200 man dys of ork Early reviewer, distinguished Nistorans among them, got the mesage The Reeuprattion of Amecen Esmomis Hetry (New Yok, 171), 9p 31 SAL Mach thats page in toluene ef Time om the Cro ad deal the slave econ it fou in that tay The reser shel compa tat may wi se ese i ert vpms ok Tin OO “See ec Pt Av David and Pee Temum “Sivery The Pree Tot tun” Jamel of Beonome Hit, 34 Septnber 134), pp 7788; Thowae Hel "Wer Shaver More Eee? Scme Deas About Tee on the Crom! New York Revie: of Dsl, 1 Sop 1994, 30-43 Marin Daberman, eo ‘HE, Vile Poier 18 Joly 1974 pp. 2538, Alm Liha ese af 1. New Repatts, 219 Jay 198, yp. 2690) Jobe Bancrane, teen T/C, Aiete Monthy Aca 174 TE Tre, oop 3.12 22 Wal Sire os 28 Mane 19% {In cautious reviews, David Brion Davis and C. Vanm Woodward usd sini metaphor. Davis noted that F ++ E “speak eaualy of their legions of re earch anbtanta of tic motile SAM computes, of their elecconic weap ‘ony, of thee occupation of every hidden sie... We are tld that we ae fneiteded, cut ff, and cannot fight unless we have weaponystems equal to ‘hone ofthe Cliometrcians” Woodward found that “even in the nontecn= ‘al volume of findings the rte of electron equipment is hear ef te, dnd the reader is eotced by references 10... inconceivable mountains of foitical data” FE themselves demonstrate a fence capacity fr combat ina wrtuous, if tle, anal of Kenneth Sunpp's Phe Peelit Insti ion, “They pail Kenneth Stapp te Ue ero” sid Davis, “taunting in {or his nial eros [and] his noneientie methodology.” Woodward fet ‘T/C an “allot anault on American slavery hitorins,.--a ruthles sours. fg of teadvoral historians of slavery, whether of the left or the ret, for thelr slpabod and unscientific ways” incloding “the mercies laters of 2 few unforsunate victim” Reviewers les guaifled than Davis ard Woo ‘ward drove home a diferent point, ne meant at = warsing fo “tenon” atria. T/C, eld the Now York Timer Book Review, "ea diferent Lind of itor it conelaions are bud on rear of Ura data a! shinscated ‘mathematial techniques borewed from economics Te just won't wash ‘to feign moral outrage about quantitative whippigs or about the nuraer of slave women in broil” The sae point was ade in Tire. “Gencally smederate”F-+ E were “quite mercies when desing with what they regard asthe fumbling ignorance of Stampp, Pins, and Philips en the subject of ‘cenomies and statins... . The mesage is perfect clear. Historians who ‘donot have these tools ould rope for another hundeed year in subjective ‘onftsicn and never be able to evaluate or cbt the work of the clcmetn= ‘ane The intelligent layman inteered in. Mro-Amerian enelasemant wat ‘even lem fortunate. How could tbe otherwise ifthe Timer Literary Suphle- ‘ment warred poteatial T/C readers that “many of its graphs, equation nd symtos will be beyond the eomprehersion of mos historane”™ ‘Computers are hepa ands, no doubt, ae complex mathematical tech niques, but they are not prerequisites for understanding T/C, dealing with ‘tseentral arguments, and examining its any wes and abuses of quantitative and literary evidence. ‘The intelligent reader dees sot need 10 hoow the difference between chisquare test and a multple-represion analis 0 Jearn that oninary erased Afro-Americans di not conform co the pacers ofl nid behavior emphsied in T/C. "Dvn Davi *Starry andthe Pot-Wld War 1 Him” Dada (sone 1979) pp. 116, © Vane Wander, "The Yay esate’ New York Rese of Rokr? May 199, yp 24, Poes Pas elon of T/0, Nes Yor Tor Boat Review, 26 Ape WHA, 4; Tinahy Pot, ove ef 1/0) Tose, 17 Je 1994 9p 9100; Tamer toy Supplement 31 May 37%An Overview of T/C ‘The Cental Therein T/C: "Black Achiscreent under Advarsiy”™ Just as southern history has ts “come themes, to, dees T/C in dealing ‘wih the beliefs and behavior of enslaved Afro-Americam, chat in dealing ‘with thei socal history. Tis major purpose isto chronicle anew “whe record of black achievement under advenity.” Time's reviewer smarly noted that "T/O dearth “plantations ns business scninistered tn way that suggest oth a Victorian family and a pateraliic corporation eager to encourage ‘worker morale inthe istecet of higher profit” That reviewer failed only £0 iention thet the eagerness of "ow?" slaves to work hard and diligently, ‘according to P+ Ey matched the eagerness of “most” slaveowners to get them te dos. “a a review appropriately ended “Capitalist Mates, Bourges Slaves” ‘the economic hatriam Patl David and Peter Tein splendidly mrad ‘the ental theme of T/C: *The major part of ‘the record of black achieve- ‘ment under adversity’ which the book caine to ave revealed const simply fn the alleged silty of Mack slaves to fully iteralze the Prottant work ‘ethic and the more of Victri fail lif, to animate and fonevion within 4 marketoriented scp, and —even thoogh largely contre to the lowe Jevels of the scioeconcmie hierarchy — succesfully to strive to make a rot for the enterprises which depended upon their labor..." It is not ‘merely that very was profitable, F'+ B are nt theft to ange that point, and few historians would dispute it Tes rather that “the way the sles responded tothe ponise incentives their masters devied for maintaining nuclear families, caring for thet young, and working diligently was respon sible for che smooth and profitable operation ofthe sytem of shvery inthe ‘antebellum South’ Davi and Temin go on: “Thi in seen by Fogel and german as the mais “achievement of the American Negro. people is slavery. This isthe vie that ditngushes their book from every ober aor study of slavery published during the pax three decades: Fogs! and Foe * ae, review a T/C Time, 17 Joe 1874, pp, 9-100.san feset not only the Sambo image, but alas the conception that it wat Appopeiate for the avert have reid their bondage: So gore te main thrvat of T/C. A maw of evidence —some of it old and some of Ht nes, some of it quantiative and some off Berry — seeks to show how well the fom their omer about how to labor eficiesly and proe- Protrtn? work ethic") and about how to ie in normal ine: teenth-entoryfamliee (she more of Victodan family fe). An implicit model of slave sociation permeates the pages of T/C. T/C and the Modelo Stave Socaisaton: Howe Staves Learned and Whet They Learned ‘The model of live wciairaton in T/C i the trediional ede, and an eronerun model that has greatly Timited understanding of enslaved Alro- ‘Arecicane and their belts and behavier, Put simply, F-+ E argue that enslavement succesfully arsforned the AftorAmerian ino a hard works ing, proluctve, ae compliant specialized labors. Planerspemored stimu ‘worked this transformation. ‘That process had its origina inthe polices and ‘racic of daveowners azaious t9 raximizn profit. Tho medel mises two proewes togethers ew ser leer aed what saets learned, IU tre ‘nnn fr tn rats Fist ofall it defies hve socialization by aking simply what enslavement did to Atricans and o several generations of eralaved Afro-Americans. The ‘methods wed to answer this esential and important question are sometimes ‘ne, and sare mary of the data. But the question asked is pot ew, Te the sme question that has hen aed by most historians and seal eines foc thre-quares ofa century. t does tot differ from the question asked by such diverse stadents of slavery as U. Tk Philips, Stanley Elkins, and E. Franklin Praier Sives learned oly becouto of what war dore to thet But jst so much and no more can be leacred about the eased by the "Dvd and Tein, Jornal of Inrdcitnry Miter, 5 (inter 973) wp $45- 457, zon ot tat "ecrme mater ave omer rake thes in The “maret” cetera his behave’ "(Selo apese at nae file tm pare eens en If they act tenet, eve empty ‘Share inmate et ct of paar seminar Eevee the re dtc he mace” yl Far pened hes et to nde no fad preset the sue wet of he avn” “The ened nd Jt ab he ce "Top! ated Ent ot tp et ‘he beans ‘fe tata avr, ar thay hold that the eo, Ieee reed ts range ecco crs hat rset or my ing ite seas hear ote utes a Un amie onion al eee Se the the ick tive eammunty ora by Fog and Engen my Soot uch ays epi naty ws the weve ming” 6 ‘storia aking only this question, The quantity and the quality ofthe evi ‘dence examined hardly matter. "The social history of the enslaved. Ato. ‘American still remain heavily shrouded bythe the shadow of U. BP, the influential eary-twentieth-eentary historian —a shadow east by more than dha historians narow racial asumptons. I: has just as rave 9 do ‘with the longer analytic model Philipe worked with to explain how enlace ent aected Afiane and their many Mto-American descendants. Tred from its recstamumptions tht rede ail retina 9 powerfl ard wholly negative influence on the eonceptualizaton of the AfrosAmercan hiorcal ‘experience before the general emancipation. T/C isnot free of tha ealy= Gectesheceniy msl T/C fst 00 wey sacs wewks That shod be ‘lear othe start. Buti seeking t9 explain “eypical” slave bits snd be. Fiera padre ang tomcat te rat trtctivcesty bcc tht cemlaved Afro-Americans only feared fom their ener Philp, of ecu, believed cat save clture (the soureeof slave belief and behavior} wa i= tative” FB rejee that crude formulation. Bu slave vcalizatcn in T/C Iveles no more than slave conformity to mastersporsoredexterl wim ‘Second, the model of save vecialaton in T/C ix atic ad, therefore, aktorisi. ‘Tt, t0, in» eommon fn in writing the history of enlave Afvo-Americars shared for emumple, by F-+ with such advesarin os Elkins, Kenneth Stampp, ard Eugene Genovese In T/C, the prices of ‘cotton and slaves change over time, but the belief and behavior of en Alaved. Afro-Americans remain constant. ‘The enslaved. do not experience Ihistory. Time appears ony in the book’ tile. Numbers and especially aver- ages, which serve as erica indices of slave belief and behavior, ae timeless jn T/C. When the reader lear, for example chat the averowe age of slave mother atthe birth of fst surviving child eas 22° year thre is to indication that P+ E are dealing with enslaved women in 1720, 1770 1810, 0" “ooer time” “The central flaw in mort historical works om the enslaved Airo-Ameriean ‘aa shared static mode of ew aves earned. T/C: does not difer from thaw werks It does no more than reinforce that fed model of slave seciaention. What gives T/C its novelty ate its teuly amaving “Endings” bout what saves leameé. In the pages which follow. we examine thee Jindings as they affect P+ E's explanation of slave belils and. behavior Bat a flawed model of slave vcialsatin can greatly obscure and even isto accurate faings that hint at patterns of slave bit ad ehavoe A single ‘sample slices to ilrtrate this point: ~The average age at which slave ‘women marred was twenty.” ‘Three questions, among other, need to be ansered about this statement Fin, thie accurate ining? Second, i i is accurate, why did mst slave women marry at age twenty? Ad thie, ‘if is acura, what does this regulary in behavior tll us about slave be- Hels and alave cate? A static uadel which auvenes that slaves learned 7only from their owners promises to offer inaccurate annwers tothe second Sh third questions, It cannot be ctherwie. But, at we sal ae, the Hawt nT /C have ke to do with the seo and third quenions than with the first question. Te the Sedge in 1/C that are so Frequeely im enor, and especially the quantitative data eet te Sellen Cetra theme Ahoratades ounersponsored negative Ibor inentivs, emer sponsored posi tive labor incenives, slave urban are rural oceupational dtibution, ave tobity, owner atdiudes and behavior toward slave marrige and the sive aly, the effects of migration and sale en the slave family and slave ma ‘ngs nd slave sexol behave. On all of there important mater, the fd ings in'T/C ae thor dzappoimingly alight and unconvincing, based upon Baved smumptions about dave culture and slave socey, bated upon the misuse of important quantitative data, or derived from inferences and esti= ‘mates chat ar the result ofa misreading of conventional scolaship. The Buen Brorsin T/C About What Enlaved Alro-Americans Learned Listed below ae some of dhe major errors in ‘T/C: 1. Negative Labor Incentives (1) F-+ B do not deny that slaveowners punished slaves, but they misuse single ploce of evidence —a at of whipping on the Bennet H. Barrow “Lousiana cotton plantation im 1840 and IO#1 —t ange that Historians have greatly exaggerated the tse of negative labor incentives such as whips Ping to spur saves to work harder. That argument is made by computing Uheleat Hgnicant aac of whipping. (2) The whipping tt teers efter doesent 1 by Bato ‘ell exactly the oppeie of chat FF find. These document ttl that on fan average a slave wat whipped every 45 days, that meat slaves were ‘whipped for infcent labor, thatthe most productive coton pickers were ako the mest diordery and the mos frequently whipped slaves, that thse ‘who were whipped had net intemal the Protestant work etl, and that P+ E have misrepresented Barrows dagust with the labor of his slaves, 1. Positive Labor Tcentves (1) The evidence offered by P+ E to indicate pattems of short-run and inermediate rewards meant to get slaves to work harder shows no pattems (2) The reconstruction of urban and rural slave occupational retires “about 1850" convinces Ft E that between 25 and 30 perent of rural slave males were either field hands nor common laborers ard that urban Slaves hud even greter opportunities laver vorked ard and imteralised ‘he Promatant work eth Beesuse of the opportunity ithe "lag run" © limb the slave excupational ladder and become artans, divers, and (8) Seciow error in overestimating the percentage of slaves with urban and rural sil, ogetber with an ently snappropriate comparison besunen the occupations of al slave mies 1880 ard all ale in 1070, fvalidate ‘his armament, (8) The poreniage of led ed “seaagecia” saves in southern cites is greatly exaggerated by the wwe of complete data‘on the anteblam southern white and fee lek urban occupational structure, by a miseading| ‘of Robert Stari’ seedy of industrial shvery, and especialy by excesive ‘rllance on a wholy inaccurate 1818 Charleston, South Carolina, census. Tt {bimpomible dat 44 percent of southern urban artisans were blacks in 1660. (5) The percentage of rural slaves who were neither common Isorers nor ‘Bld bunds fs alo exagueraed because the socalled convetional ratio of slave devers to slaves is based upon a miteading of other historians. The ‘timated percentage af save ovetscer is based upon erroneous asurtions, ‘pd the etimated percentage of rural slave artisans is bated wpon a misread ing of probate records. F-+ E estimate that 11.9 parent of rial slates were aans, but the cecupations of twenty thousard Union Army Kentucky black sles fix ut percentage at 6 pescent. When coretions are made, i tam out that at last about 85 percent of rural male slaves were either ‘emimon Jaborers or field hands, x percentage of change that grey Tenens ‘he cpporainites for save advancement o achievement (6). The inflation of slave sil causes F-+ Eto argue that x sharp drop in black sills flowed emancipation. Racim, aot slavery, is blamed for the low skill level among emancipated blacks and their children. That i an inaccurate explanation, becaue ave kills were fa ee important than goed in T/C. (7) The discussion of slave meblliy in T/C is erroneous because mobility ‘cannot be studied ata fied moment in time, It ean enly be ruled over ‘ime, and that is not done in T/C. It ponble that such a seudy will how that saves in 1960 ad x lower eccupatoral status than their slave grande fachersin 1790, TT, Slave Marriage, th Slave Fam (1) 7/0 contains mostly data dealing with save marriage (not the slave family) but regularly and erroneously wes data about “stable” slave mar ‘ages to deere “table” slave familie, The ators fil to datingual be- tween a dave marsage and a save family i thet anal (2) The Ginding that “moe slave ales were either of whole Families or of individuals who were at am age when it would have been noeral fr them to have lef the family is net a finding tall. When an olde child wa ep ‘ated involuntary from is slave pares o siblings by sl, hit, gif tanses, tr eitate division, that arparsion involved the breakup of a alave family ‘And there wat nothing “normal” about such an involuntary separation. Failsable save nuclear fai” (3), There i no patie evidence in T/C that slaves lived in stable mu dear fala, Thee a only negative evidence —an apparent low incidence fas that broke up slave marriages (4) Two angunent inimize the elfes of interregional migration and sale oa the stability of the slave fay. Doth are awed, The bit that ‘migration from the Upper othe Lower South with their owner eid nt bee ‘up itomediate save fais is based on the assumption dat migeating ‘owners owned all meriber of an immediate family. tf was common i the Upper South for a save husband and wile to have wparste owner Migration without see therfore broke up many slave families (3) A second arguent shows infrequent arial breakups among women se in the New Orleans slave masket ly because of the way ia which F +E define a slave marriage. A eomporizon of the percentge of child ‘easing women inthe New Orleans slave muhet with child-bearing women in the sveseling states is invalid beeawe F + E constrct fail slave ‘elaioshipe from tho manuseripe slave census. That cannot be done accu ‘eh (6) F-+K make much we of Willam Caldethea's exeront study of lave sales in eght Maryland counties between 1880 and 1040, the only avalable study of slave sles i a particular population. F+ B fil w point ‘ou that if Calderhead's data are types fr the entie South berween 1820, nd 160, a slave was sold every 3.6 minutes and about ‘co milion slaves ‘were sold between 1620 and 1060, Since mest slaves lived in frie, these data alone show how wrong it ito say dat slaves lived in stable fale. (Unies of course, est aves sald i not lve in fais) (7) Many esentil “propositions” in T/C about the slave family re based upon seated examples, not systematic evidence. They include argue sents that slaveowners “promoted” sable slave families, that planters en- courage fertility by “promoting family omnation,” that saves “apparently Shandoned African family forme” and thet “wives tended to play a much ssroager roe in black than in white families.” (8), The dlaien of the save farly is sacred by the ale to rake such genial dinetions as the deren between sve family and a stave household, by te abrnee of any discusdon of slave hiship groupings, nd bythe failure to deine words suchas “nueese” 1V, Slave Marital and Sexual Behavior (1) The “average” age of slave women and men at marrage ie famd at wenty jen for wemen and wenty-our years for men. F + E suggest that sac sfoematon comes fam probate rots, Kt cannot. 0 (2) The sting sxpimnee that slave semal mores were “prea” i und upon a engl souree:rattered and unidenifed probate ress which fix the “average” age of save women atthe bith ofa et surviving child Jn the household at 2223 years and show that about 40.0 percent of slave thar between 8 and 13 percent of former save wernen had a fist cil prior toa ftom birthday, About 600 percent had a int child prioe toa tens ‘iets bch (4) TE the 1890 data ave cortct and if what P+ B report i accurate fellows tht oe of the reat consequence of the reper emancipation was 2 signlcant drop in the age at which southern black women began having (6) But B+ E err in their we of probate records The histrian exnnot tears from a probate record whether the cles ebild in a household isthe Srstoen cil. There sm upsell prcbate second dealing with slave mothers. Plantation birth registers, not surprisingly, show an age ofthe smother atte ith of Sint ld hat comistent wi Use 1UOO data (6) The age found in the probate records convinces Ft Fo that pee- uptialintercoure was rare among enslaved AftorAmericans, But the ge of rothers at the birth of Git child was much lower than F-+ B realiae, and a vast quantity of esidenes show that prenuptial itecourse wat cam ‘mon amoog the enslaved, Suck babavior, of couse, i not eidence of promi (7) Ewidence ia T/C that 2 narrow ge spread weparated most save Inet and wives ala i centeadiced by a vast quantity of contemporary daca, posing addtional quetons about the validity ofthe sourcen used by Fee. (8) The argument that save prostitution didnot exist hae upon a smirepreeotation of what the manuscript census schedules seve and upon the eeaion of» non-ct The Quantity and Quality of Beidence in T/C In the pages that follow, a variety of questions shall be asked about the tvidence ad the argument in T/C dealing with what saves lard. Those ‘questions are appropiate tall hrical works snd tal sort of soil viene. Hive the authors asked the right questien? Fas the question asked lea ansered propery? Have the ight sources been wa? Have the sources wed been properly studied? Are there coespiual ero in the we of the sours? Ate there ero in what quantitative historians eal “excevtienal "computations"? Hat the werk of other hstoeane on simile mbjects been properly ued? Have the arguments of ether Autoriane on tila subject toon propery sumnarsed? How othe new Gegy aneeure agua the published ndings of othr historians ard against other sources not ex inined by the author? What i the relaGonsp between "hard” epiial lings so speculative ifereners snd sims? Te weal farthermor, wo indicate at dhe start sme of the overall tae ‘ions in the evidence presented in T/C. The evidence, fie of all, is quite uneven in quantity. Thiny-eight pages in volume two (pp. 87 to 125), for ‘ample, present supplementary evidence on the angumen'a in chaper four, “The. Anatomy of Exploitation.” That single chapter dacues ot lent ff teen diforent subjects, induding the slave det, slave shelter, slave clothing, slove medical care slave morality, slave morbidity, interacial and iter ‘caus semul contac, slave sexual behavior, save maytl patter, the slave family, slave punishment, short-run dave reward, intermediate slave re ward, longterm slave rewards, and an estate rate of slave "expropris- tion” The evidence offered on thee diverse matters ie greatly skewed. ‘Three-fiths of the evidence in these thiny-eisht pages discuses either the ‘ave dit ora complicated measure of the rate of miscegeation. Second, ‘ch of volume ta it lled with references t sources that are never care {ally deserted Manuscript plantation records and probate records, for ccample are frequently cited, but the name of a single plantation record or probate record examined by P+ I is never recorded in the text of this ‘work. Tha, and perhaps most important, there are sumptions that sip roll ito arrumene ethene surrounded by “average” and "perente ge." P+ E explain at the beginning of volume two: "Is the main wat ‘oe attr to weave thee new fining nto 2 fly comprehensive ne texpretation of the nature of the save ecencmy. To do so we were cliged to foe assumptions which, though plausible, cannot be veriied at pres ‘ent and 1 rely on addtional evidence ubieh i 100 fragmentary wo be sabe jected to sstematie tatsical tests" That is an honest adaision of the ‘weakness of much of the argument and evidence in T/C. Tt shall be seen in the pages tnt follow that tore esentialaeimptions are not stall pss sible anlar, in fact, contracted by vast quae of evidence. I shall sh ‘be sen that fragmentary evidence appears again and again in explanations ofthe belie ard Behavior of both the owners of slaves and the endaved themshes "T/G isa very duappointing book. Although many monographs and spe- clad studies have been written about the eralaved Afro-American, an ote range of cidel ubjects—some inadequately sadied and others sl Isnidied-— needs fresh empiscal examination. New work i needed on *T10, thas 2 rach tubjot tthe slave family and Kinship ter, slave demography, save ‘eligi, slave work hab the sale f slaves, te state texture of every slave life, and, most important, the procenes by which an adaptive Afrm ‘Americas slave cule emorged in do eghioea an nineteen cenien, [New mebiedeogis (ome of ther quantitative) have grealy advanced the ‘wrtngof American social hisoy inthe past two decades but have net been ‘med widely to study enslaved Afro-Americans, T/C is the fist major sty ‘wing such methods and relying primarily on quantatve data. Its authors ‘elebrate the value of such methods nd such data but do not we dove data arf. There i danger, therefor, that their many erors wil tar su dents of the Afro-American experience away from such techniques. That would be unfortunate, beauie nuch techniques are rather vel tools in everthing regularities in sci) Behavior and hereby allowing the sci historian to begin reconstructing neglected or misinterpreted aspect of slave alread dave belt 18Enslaved Afro-Americans and the “‘Protestant’ Work Ethic” We conser fist the most important new “nding in T/C: the eaaclsion that southern save fara and plantations were mich ‘more efficent than southern free farms and nerther farm becawe of the “quality of black Inhor” Summing up what they consider "sere of the principal Gorretons of the waditonal characterization of the save economy,” F +E auert "The tpl slave Gl and wat not lay, inept, and unpreductive. Om average he was haneeswenting anc meme efeent than hi white counter Dart All eskier historia of slavery write a different as U-B. Pil lip, Stenkey Eling and Kenneth Starpp ate severely eitcld fr fling ‘0 understand dhe “fact” dat most ordinary slave worker had interaalaed ‘what F+ Beall the "Protestant work ethic” This propeition about the “quality of Black labor” is much, much more important to the general theme of T/C than FE dcusion of sive material condtons sich a8 food, elochng, sheer, and medial ere and thie diseusion of he slave family" FB explain: "[Mlteial eeatment is (aot) the sae on which the ecomnnie anus of savery turns. Indeed, che resolution of none f the other ies depends on the resolution ofthe question of msteral tretment Sinvery could have heen profitable, economictly viable, highly efcent, ar the southern esonomy could have ben rapidly growing under either a ene) fora mild regime." Tt was instead the productive labor of slaves that exe plain the telative efcency of the plantation stem, ficient Slave Labor Is Not the Same exon Eficient Plantation ‘The author of T/C do much mere thin dese the relative efBcioney of the antebellum plantation system. They stribute that efficiency to the MTG, Kop 45, SVE tip. 210.20 “gulty of Back Inber” and, therfore ate deacing the sia eharater of th enaacd themseves: Dad sod Femi pu it wel: ‘Saperior“fiiney” i... id to have charaeied she work pelormance othe avd sve, a well a the clas of produc craic hut ‘ined them, Wile they are analy dein ts operant so watice that he tapes of esmate invoeg cmnprivons of eecy sre not empirical sconneed. Fogel and eran have wot developed ny indepen uh tates rapport for er proprations regerding te vmparatioe foe! of tienen of the typical save sd fev worker i ape. Toten hey hve trv tthe calsions emaally bythe paces of eliminating ore ther oneneis explanation or the menue fasoe peciy baaage of Staverning agcltre —2uch diferent eens of scale, teil Inowiede ce managerial ail. Tales added * Beonortcians are examining with care the measure by which P+ E figure that “ve fam were X percent mere efirent than fre southern ‘or zonhern farms. David and Temin have begun dhat dicssion and have Peat i Of ied tats toe errr aemerptina hal sretly exaggerate the prodetivty ef ve fam a8 eppned to Fes Fee * ‘The flowing pages eauine in detail the evidence ued by P+}. wo reveal the “comparative pesmal eiciences of the types! save. worker in a= altar” but do not daca the relative ficlency of predetew rpanisaons ‘worked wih slave labor. David's and Temin’s point thatthe "to pet of Matements involving comparisons of efficiency are not empiriallyuneon- nected” is important, but they neglect the crea quantitative data hat F-+ E bare anembled on the rural are wrtan stv cecapatonal stratures, the only new quunttatve data meant to explain why alates worked v0 hard sod well. The Transformation of lave Work Habits andthe Protestant Work Etc P+ Bis meat crucial arguments about the quality of lave labor and much ‘of their last convincing evidence are found in a bref portion of chapter {our ented "Punishments, Rewards, and Expropriation.” A shor but eo twovenial ection, it has atracted the atention of nearly all reviewers and ‘contain data esental to some of F-+ E's most startling conchnions Tt abo wes evidence in ways that stkingly reveal the utter inadequacy of the ‘ldfashioned model of slave vtcety that tarmshes T/C. David ad "Tein vigorously dispute th lw rate of expropriation estimated by F + B, inst "Davi an Tei, “Shey: The PropreniveIitton™ a ital "hae T/C 3 ss, 66,Jing that inacearae estimates indicate bint" "The focus here is diferent Tes on F-+ E's arguments and ther we of evidence to show shat enslaved ‘AlroAmericans worked hard and diigenty because they wanted to apd ‘cate profiemaaimining cwnerssilflly mixed «few Punishments with ‘many rewards i encourage productive dave labor. We examine "punish ments” and "rewards" —the postive and nagaive incentives used by alae ‘umers, especialy planters, to improve save labor and to increase pede: tity F* E do not deny that slaveowners wed plysicalpunishent, but they grey minimie is significance in relation tothe prevalence of posite Inbor incentives, The cattot counted more than the ick: “While whipping vest am integral part of the rer of punishment and reward, i wae not the totality ofthe ster. What planters wanted wes not sullen an@ dco tented slwrs who id just enough to keep ftom geting whipped. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible slaves who identified their for tunes with the fortunes oftheir masters Plarters sought o imbue slaves with s"Protstnt werk ethic and to transform that ethic from sate of mid ito a high lee! of production. ...Sueh an atinde could not be beaten into aves It nd tbe elcid” Convinced that a system of postive planterspontored labor incentives twisted, F-+ E ao init Ut moet slaves rexponded positively o the re Searls flere them, The very lit paragraph "T/C empaines this pint A bigh Jew! of slave productivity reeled in the prodston of cotta, o- bce, maar, and rice But the “apes of racism” — hati, “myth” —hid this “fae” fom contemporaries and ater historians, Racist beliefs rumed slave high achieve into Uncle Toms The biased bebels of anthlavery ‘dvocates and soiled neoabolidonist historia Kepe hidden from the ‘Amarcan people, and eepecally from Mack Amerizans, tus about how ‘he ancestor of tretiedenntaty AfrnAmericars had been tanstormed a8 slaves into nineteenth-eantury “teonomic” men and women. Sambo realy ‘was Horatio Alger with a Back skin, Bridence supporting such a transformation isnot found in T/C. 1f such transformation tually eccured thet would be a social fact of great i= Portas in undertanding the behavior and beliefs of enslaved Mfo-Arer- fare and of their emangpaced descendant, But most of the evidence in “T/C sbovt this input emclaion fs nct inpernive. Mach of 30 ele cumstandal; none of ft auton; most off is quite tradional; hardly ‘ny of i comes fom new sourees; and, when wed, such sources ate often Smpreciely and sometimes willy exaggerated. To transform means "to change something toa diferent form,” a change “in appearance, conton, 4 Davi sa Tein “Slvry: The Pq Taton?” ace, Tye, Upp tea; Tp, He 11/6, Gps ature, or character” Transformation, therfore, i a social proces and ‘has to oeur ever time. Something happens to someone. Shves are rade ino “ficient” workers. The F-+ B model, however, state and abseil FLEE never consider who was being transformed. Because there i m9 ie cusion of who the dives were arid how well they worked atthe beginning ‘of thi social proce, it hardly pouible to describe » trcaforzaten, Jae ‘ead of thot kind of needed and ssefol analy, imporant evidence — ‘specially shat dealing with punishments, rewards and mobility — isso badly fwd that i cats considerable and diturbing doube upon the entire sequent, Scant Evidence on Negotive Labor tacentves (or Slave Punishments) Negative labor incentives, or punishments, are treated witha single and great misinterpreted quantitative example: Appendix © ("Misconduct and Ponihmonts: 1910-141") in Edin Adams Davis, o2, Planttion Life fn the Florida Porshe: of Louisana, 1896-1846, as Rafected in the Diary of Bennet H, Barrow.” Toe historian Davi apparently gathered cans of tate risennduct and panhment from the eet planter Rerrew's dis The Davis study contin: one of the few easly accsblequantative sources wed by BF. Clometrc theory i not needed t9 examine it Analysis does ot Aepend upon computer technology” Ordinary readers of T/C should ex amine thre dats, and draw ther own. concladens about how accurstey they have been med. My on ana fellows “The Barrow punitment record verves to cteate a prewdowatisic dat imines the inpertance of slave whipping. Thi record eth oneidence ‘dealing with slave punishment, 9 fc serves to tvialoe plantersponsered ‘erative labor incentives. Aer a bref paragraph whic tls that “whipping could be either a md or a severe punishment (an indisputable but hardly original generalization), a critical four-sentence paragraph based entirely to the Davis appendix Fellows: “Reliable data onthe fancy of whipping {s exremely spare, The only ptematc record of whipping tow avalale for an extended period comes from the diary of Dennet Harr, = Lesnar planter who believed that to spare the rod sea to spoil the slave is plan tation murbered about 200 slaves of whom about 120 were in che labor force. The record shows that over the coure of two yeus a total of 160 ‘whippings were administered, a average of 0.7 whipping» per hand pee year About half the bands were ot whipped at all dusing the peio.™ 1 New York, 194, yp. 43-40, {The ene vehine oes ve other wel appends, wh a6» i tat ‘Muninaing ech of Brow he per pcr and Bar ary et or 186 m 186, yp. 7238 STG Lp 1,Figure 40 — ented “The Distsibation of Whippings onthe Bennet H. Base row Plantation during a Two-Year Period Begiming in December, 1810" — trhich accermpanis thae few sentence, and which is rependuced ete at “Table 1 merely strates what the writen word reports “Tame 1. Daan oF Warr trae Bets H. Baan Para sin 4 ‘Whipping Pera tng Who ° ‘Om ; 10% 2 ned 5 * "The to bref paragraph which follow the one quoted shove da not lange upon thee “Findings” but examine whipping generally and eer some “comparative” obervations® The data drawn fem the Barow diary, then a te ealy less of asd din dealing with negative bir incentives, How the Hitorian Meares the Brequency of Slave Whippings, gute 40 ‘The seaence —"The secocd shows Wat over the cours of two yaur & tora of 160 whippings sere administered, an sverige of 0.7 whippine pt hhand per year" is examined st. Severs) questions came 10 min Is "0,7 whippiogs per and per yay” aweful average? Have the Bartow diary data andthe appendice hich accompany them been properly wed? Have the sight hsioceal questions been ashed of those data? Tt js assumed for the moment that Barrow owned 200 slaves, of whom about 120 were in the labor force, (R aba be seen below that each nuumber—-200 and 120 — ie wrong) To report "an average of 07 whippings pr hand per year" wing thee numbers i accurate. That isnot, however, the significant average, ‘The sero. question fas been aaked. ‘The Inge reducing this average 4 fo miene in se 16 el reader shat am ade och hie tu of wiping oni write hae eared Nara gy net {he perience (doit cing eqn) of whips ma aa of acing "min the nrg sane” it the midsinetenth cen n gla, Ral, sod cen the Amercam Nor. Dut wha te Brie Bsr B. Cat calle STeausie wip" seadv send pinaeal puutoest in deveing plait 18 vocally Aawed along with the inferences sugested by it. The same logic ‘ald jst a easly calculate the average number of whippings per hand per ‘weck (0018). Its known, for example, that “on average” 127 blacks weve Tpnched every year benroen 1889 and 1800 How does ane se th aver ge? Ame that § milion blacks ved in the United Statee in 1609 and {hse 127 of the were hrched. Ts it wel to Tear that "the record shee an average of 0.0003 ynchings per black per yea 0 that about 9.9907 per ‘ent of Blacks were noe lynched 18892" An accurate average, that 4 ‘anal suatae, Lynching a a form of socal conte cannot be evaluated by dling the number of Macks (or whites) Iymched into the number of Tivng Backs (or whites), The ebsiue number of Iichings in a given tne petod and whether that number sceeo¢ fell ter in tine aie important ‘number. They measure the changing frequency wih whic this particular {nrumeat of socal violence was wed Ils then pos wo study Wat inst rents relative signieance "The same is true with ave whipping. Southern aw permitted dave ‘owners to punish thee chattel, and mest historias agzee that whipping Served asthe mast common form of phseal punishment, iguring a a cen tral device in imposing order over woubiecame slaves and in revealing the sure of authority ina save secety, The ewental tase, thereto, ot ‘the average numbr of whippines per hand per year * Whether by the weck fr the year, such an average doesnot measure the uy of the whip as an Jntrument of socal and economic discipline. I is much more relevant to Jnow how often the whip was wed: on Plantation X with ¥ slaves in Z years, how frequently was the whip use? ‘That information is available i the Davis volume. In 1840-1811, Barrows slaves were whipped 160 times, A slave— "on average" —was whipped every 455 days. The slaves were ‘whipped every two weeks. Among them, sity (57.5 percent) were feral, ‘A male was whipped once a week, and a female once every twelve €21s, ‘Ave thee averages “small” or “lnge"? ‘That depends. And it depends upon ‘uch mere chan whether one isa "neo-aboionist or a “quantitative” hi torian, These ave quite high average, and for good reason. If whippog i wed primarily at an inerument of Inbor dscpline and roto the rote exerci of arbitrary power (or cruly), whipping three dave every 0 ‘weeks means that this instrument of physical discipline hdd an adequate foci vsbilty among the emlaved. Slave mem and women were whipped requent}y enough — whatever the sae ofthe nit of ownership —t0 reveal 8 Vann Wesel, Origin of he New Soh 18771913 (1951), pp. 38-35% 1 Using the ted interes, Genres rakes tee sab Shs bs tren “whe wee Ort re We the pre id te ld Samer tihmcnt © onimacn The hae Henet Hy Bars ef Liana toed hp ary Ge mt stares mere om sping © oath end eny ely cae 2 Sar (Ra orn 97H po),to them (and tows) that whipping regularly served Bacrow as » mezaive instrument of labor diepline. Imagine reading the following argument: Wie whipping wos a ral ptf the ptm of paises and sever, ie was ee the way of the open What fants wate vs not slr en trolled the food supply. The presence of slave garden where slaves often fr feed for family conmompsion doesnot alter the enental point Tesimply make t more complicated, Slaves did not own thee garden poy snd mach pcr ould be taken frm them We need to sty the relator ‘etwcen conta of the feed supply, secial dominance and labor ebiency ‘Much more is involved in lave punishments than an economie™ equation foram empha that dors no more than se the rainal decions of "reo ‘omic man.” F-+ B explain: “When the laborer owns his own human €3 ta form of punishment which imps oe diminish the yale of that expt far ome exthivny hy him. Under slavery, the master deed forms of Punisher eich, while dey impor cet nthe slave, dd with ni ‘mum igairment tothe human etal which the master chned. Whipping irveraly flfiled thee conditions” Thy write, "Whipping. peed the South Beene he en of abating hunger [si] and maetersion for the Ish sean renter forthe alaveciner than fr she northern employer of free labor" So simple an “econamic” explanation hardly does Juice to ‘he complex motivations that shaped planter behavior “Remenber the culate proslvery advocate Jars Henry Hammond insted, "hat 90 ‘Gu roa we dinpene with the mln nachincry of pol police od pubic ‘ours ef juice Thus we tr, decide, and execte the sentence, n thousands ‘of ce, ich in eter countries would go into the cours” Hardy de tached cbserver, Hammcnd was ansiou 19 minimize the hanes impli im masterslave relatonhipe He wrote in antwer 10 Bit ers of n= Hlavement: “If a man eels = piz in England, he transported — tora from wife, children, parent, nd sent to the antpades, infamous, and an outcast forever, though probably be took from the auperabundance of his ‘eight save theives of hi farshing ite oes If ene of sur wel fod Iagrrs, merely for these of fh meat, seals a pig, he gets pesos forty Pipe. Are one cours of yours the mst humane? Tf Savery were oti question, you would doubts say our ik mistaken leit. Pechaps often ad esto gly eal wi somes grow dain 'A South Carina plnter and lawyer who sered in the United States Senate and felt bth northern fee labocers and southern plantation slaves “the vey mda of ties Hammond had doubs abou the wcialwlity of whipping “Steels ee rarely used by private individuals, and confinement ‘tl more seldon,” said the planter, "though both are common punisme's| or whites, all dhe workover. I think they should be more frequently re- sorted to with saves as substitutes for Goggin, which I consider the most injurious and let efeacious mode of panhng them for reroae offences. Te not degrading, and wales excesive occasins litle pain. You may be ile astonished, after ll the Hours that have been made about cart Uwhipa? ey when [sy flogrng isnot the mort degrading punishment in the work How do we ft Hammond's plea that stocks sad jah be wed ‘nore frequently than the whip into a model of planter behave which ea ares the uty of einere punihinents nly by dhe “est” 10 che planter in "nhor ime”? Hammond! sugges the imitations of x0 ecxtcenacous a ‘model sehen he writes that whipping was insufficiently "degrading." We are tnack wo the mec of words and tothe inadequacies of Ue enttal FF E tel To degrade, necrding tthe Onford Bnglsh Dictionary, means to Tower in “rank, potion reputation, [and] character” Why did Hansnond feel whipping to be the lat efetive mee of punishing especially twoulee seme aes? Tt res clear tha the whip —at least in Hammond's estimation id wot have i intended social fet. I fled te lower the woublescre Slave in “rank, pesto, [and] tepstaion.” Rank, positon, and repute ‘ion among whom? Hammond and his fellow platens? Or the ezlaved themmctye? Hantoed surely tant the erlaved. And if that i 9, it Imperative that in measuring the uiity of whipping we understand how the enaaved Interpreted the act of being whipped. On the Barrow plantation, atleast, whipping did et deter misconduct Bartow binslf built a piste jill, And the South Cardtinian Haranced proposed that jail and stocks be ted more commonly than the whip. War i because the enalved fk incarceration to be more degrading than whipping? And ifs, why? A nar row economic eakulus cannot explain so important weal distinction Bennet Barons Perception o Tefen Plantation Labor ‘andthe Distortion of That Perception in T/C We shall turn next to the testment of incentives meant 1 rewant slaves for efcent aber, but fst we shall xmmarie brie what has been learned thst shave puitheenta, Te tagle pict of cumerical evidence (the Bar “Laer Sve” Pro Stvery Argument (1852) pp. 19-138 2sow dng) el the opposite of what FB repos in T/C. The miplemene tary evidence on punibimest light at best, and the general details harly ier fro those empaszed in The Pec Fstitution. (The tone of the Analy of coune, quite diferent) The dscasion of planterspeored ewards t encourage producive slave Ibor is hardy more saistactory. Porto ofthe etal paragraph wed by FE to make the tration fre negative to positive lakor incentives have been printed eater in theve pager, ‘but ere I ecord the entire parautap ‘ite whipping was an tga par fhe ar of puishent nd reward Kena nt the taal of the stem, Wnt pater waned wn et ln ed Aeon saves ho did je row to Rep rom pte we Thy ssmted devoted, hardworking, rpaile siver whe ct Oe or pone ty ea gorge param sy witha "Prettent” woth che endorse hs ee on nse ad ine & igh lel f pede, "My negro have thee mame up inthe nih Terhond” ote Bent Barrow, "for taki re thay eee & they ‘hin Wserer sey do is boer thn sy toy Ele” Sach an ate cold tote een nove Thad tobe Sted ‘Barrow entered that sentence in hs diary on October 15, 1840, and it was crated fist by Davis in his esay and then by F + EB iting the sen- tence ron the fll dary entry, Davie ad then F + E cmmpleely itor meaning, Barrow wat tot praising hi slaves for ideniying the forts ‘wth is fortunes. The fll dingy entry, together with the enries that pe ede i, isa follows:* COcater 1 Made i hands nop & tah een hit ering ‘Quicker 2. Women tzchingcotan en doing tle of every hing, not euch of en thing Ocwber 5 he une ul T evr sav, tome of my youre Hands ar ding very uy Raph Wa Na in Io ey tober 6 ijt al a ping te, Seow drded hie pte to comping tar ‘he prometed competion between individuals. few asters lated ‘hai Iorrs by mating profes sereemets wth them The promt of peri eit fos the lar rtne wan ll tbe fn o neve [Newly every maser caered» pomber of spa olde the mest coomen ‘eng Good Fiidey, Independence Dap "lyigy tine" aed Chis ‘Some went to cansdeable expen and tok great aint ake the Casas oiday peo. ‘record nest F+ E's full dicantion of “thor nun” rewards Much of the managerial ate of planes was feed the press of movaing their nnd To chloe the dated reponse they developed icone en of vac Seen nt er wate ‘hore performance Taclided im this eatcanry were pies for the Bee ee eis ee eee ‘Born week, "The wie wete ich ems or cling, tobacco, and wikey femnetines the pa wat cach. Good ined pxfrance wa a rewarded fri uracheded Bla oe with tin to town on weekend. When elvee Sorted at times nonmall et ade fr rest hey eerie extra pay —ostally rent and atthe rate peli the ei for ied late Shiv who wert feforming well were permed 10 work on thei onn account afer noma our at sch nr a making shingles or weasng fesse which they euler the mses o fare he nego ‘This paragraph dos not improve upon Stumpy escet in susesng that “planters. developed a widesanging syitern Of reward” But Uh. para Statpy, Per Ensaio, pp. 164170. OTe hp He sraph elf mee Tatras some of the way in which divene planers fhnght to spur sie productivity. Such examples Bary show that planters developed (“eaused to evalve” “brought into being,” “peneated”) a se teas Ch corel dy cf ectics 's Gases eee Berea ‘xdure") of pave labor incentives. We Sint need to know bow 1357 Planes weed tach devices and then how regulary they were ame. ‘Then we fan wit of a “spate.” These are important matters 1 be explored in onde to eolarge our undentandiag of the behavior of slaves apd thar owners, ‘Once more, i regularities that count. And there x no hint in T/C that the authers have examined planter practices im onder to uncover such rerulsit Why Thre Exar of Rewards “Over Periods of Intrmdi Duration” Tell Nothing about Changes in Slese Productiiy F-= BY weatment of intermediate positive bor incentives, forherore, is cute firmsy and cant be taken seinsy, "Thee examples of intermediate Serato Re acti prtiaeeerg tere by te Aleta ‘Willams Jemisn (che tae example cited by Stampp in The Peculiar Tas {ation pp. 167-16); the arrangenena by which the Texas planter Julian 1. Devereus marketed the erop that daves gre! on land alloted to them. se then edited itt incvidua ave fare, allowing ther to era eal ‘rio have Deveres “pureate elothing, pot, pans obaeco, or iniar goods for them”; snd, fall, yearend bonuses "pve either i goeds or exch sd “frequently quite wubanti” ‘The Ist of then dhe ations de Serves attention. Once tgain, Bennet Barrow serves the purpoes of FE, but ence again in curious ways, P+ B wrlte: “Benoot Barrow, for example, atte pitts averaging between $15 and $20 per lae fori im both 19 ‘and 1840, The amounts received by particular dave were proportional to ‘hei performance. Te shouldbe noted that §20 was abou «fh of sational per capita income in 1940. A boous of the same relative magnitude today ould he in the neighboried af $1,000" Une F i-E had acer 10 ‘natevi not cluded in the Davie value, Gane suber are all wrong, ‘There ino way to tel fom that work how tay slave fais Hive on the Barrow plantation in 1039 and 140, The tatemest tat gifts averaged be toveen S15 and $20 per slave family" ie therefore, another poeodstattie, So, too, is the coverion of that bonus ($20, not $15) ino 1974 dollars, Davis dascibed the bonuses paid by Trew’ “Dring at lest a part of Ins plansng career, Bazrow made substi] money gilts to his Negroes at Ialiday time. In 109, he gave them 500 and sent them 89 tow, and $700, ‘acho the allowing years ™ The dary vel records the 1898 snd the 1080 ‘bonuses. The 1899 bonus is mentioned in an appendix. The Davis volume, however records no other year-end bonuses betworn 1896 and 1845, «fact, neglected by F +E but one which cass grave doubts on wheter a systema of shortrun of intermediate peste incentives exited on the Burrow plane ‘Barrons diay entrin at the haliday seton ella difetent story from the one mggeted by P+ E:™ 196 ‘Dee 4 neroe wet to Tova foe Chass {Det ® Hour Jeny & neal chained ding Christmas Jer for gn Airing coven peas ean Dex 29 fave the neers inne De. 25. repos went 19 Tove, Dee 25. nope peering frs dinner Dee. $1. nen seme enjoy Crist verry mock ran two of Uncle ste egrr oll Lt nist —for making 2 disturbance — 90 pest "broke my verd Cane over one of thei ale ands went to "Tow payed them lst night over $500, 50, the ngrs behaved nit igh 3 the sper ee. 23. negro went t9 Town t day Torta Over Bscy enue Denis yenery Dee 4 tend citing Demmi davng Chinas om a sexfold in ‘he mille of the Quarex wih red Fann Cp on sree ae peey T Aine dp Des 26 Dee 28 nego preparing fora dinner Dee 20. nero hud quit» Soe sper a nih ‘Dex. 2¢ Gave the neers meney night $70 ll wet to Tose to dy Dee 2. nego peparig fora Diner Jon 3 Gm the near 4 verry Bre dinner yeseray evening atthe Howe and afer inspected thir manner he Ballo sever ced very re atu pt hom Jl Making vp pas for men as Chime presente {80 the never aries poche for them nN. Ores 2 ™ hid wp 83, 104, 138,13, 216219, 29-298, 3190914 Seep IE for viene as 6ne Dee. 28 ave the meas much of Eoy thing 8 a dink ding the liayy a they Wanted tir hard mo bles pve them ‘Bo iar reco ny elation rg hing) ‘Dee 2 ngroncam gute ly De. 29 geting tel of Fy, negro wat om Reading these ents together makes it rather dificult wo suggest shat Iarrmu's behavior indices that he ed developed a aptem of positive errs cunt Ate Ue later 6 Fa ees "Te aly ents frou allow forthe following generalization: The Christ holiday at the Barrow plantation wae celebrated in diferent ways between 16 and 1DI5, Such erate ocurred even though some troxblesre aes spent the edi ince Gal ve ere carci eee oe ing sea. The tines in this ten-jear period iti recorded that Barow rewarded bis hands with Chevriae cash payments, Barew once purchawed fle for his slver in New Orleans. Between 1896 and 1840 the sve vite town at Chriatnas, That did not happea after 1840, In 1887, 188, 1689, ‘and 1840 the saves propa a hlidy dinner for shemselves, but in 1831 Bareow npplie them with fod snd drink. The lt olay recoded in his diary as the 1845 Christmas season. "Geving ted of Helsays” Barow ‘her complained, “egros want oo moc, Human ature” "That it fri rendering f the evidence, No pater exited, ad ie teappverinte fs elect Ges euch cyenes tine cam ol Cah pete Charsciediic types of intermedioterange labor inensves. Tt would be Intersting to lara why Drow fale to pay bis aves cach Boras after 10, Was it beesue busine contin: had deteriorated and made cash ‘hort? That is hinted at in the 1012 entry. Or wae it rene Barron’ lacs had performed ineticienty by his standards? Why waste cash on worker ‘who fai to espn pone torch ili? Evidence isuating plastersposored schomes to improve dave labor fBckeney ik of much importance, but the thee examples ct by FE ‘either support or refte the central tae in T/C eoncering the poe reals that followed the introduction of such schemes. Assuming that they ‘were comineny a sere Hating sll would not tll ws anyhing about dhe tMfecvenen, Did lave paduetivny fereae as comequence of such Schemes? That i a very efferent question from the level of slave. p= Aducivty at a ploen moment. Nowhere in T/C ane pattern of dave rode tivity compared to cme another over tie, F + E have not done move than ‘Kenneth Stampp: they have geen us exsmpls of how savreenes sought 6 to improve aoe elicieny by wing carrots instead of wicks 1 sha to tll jt what sich “example” mean. By way of intcdcing the Deveree ample” F-+ E wte: “Master aleo rewarded slaves who performed sell ‘with paces of and ranging upto afew acres for each fami.” eis well Known that slves over the entire South worked such patches of land. But ‘wer thot bit of land given to slaves ax rewards fer efiient lab or stimu {0 mote efficient labor? F + F asune it happened for one ofthese reasons [No evidence surane ether or both connectins. The save garden patch hs fot yet had its Roan. Soppoe, for example, i tums out that plot wet ‘utomadcally to rox heade of save fae and that this happened over fio: of nee generations "It wat the wniverial custom in Georgia,” o=- plained Ralph Flanders in Plantation Slavery in Georgia, “to allow slaves {ie privilege of rating small crops of their own for which the maser paid cash, or which could be exchanged atthe storercom for anything they chese to buy." There isa great difference beeen “universal custom” anda sective labor incentive. A estom it habitual practice, nothing let than “the uual way of acting in given circumstances" —an established woy of dboing things. 1 wa allowed inthis way, the garden patch hardly werved 8 peste Isber incentive That doesnot mean af course, that such patches failed create ether stisfesone among the enlayed. (Untertingly, the former save Selemon Northup described as a "euston!™ the practice af Lousiana owners "tn allow the save 19 renin whatever compensation he may ebtain Tor weriees performed on Sundaya” If viewed that way by slaves and their owner, this arrangement also hardly counts a8 a postive incentive) Long-Teem Positive Labor Incentives and the Urban and Rural Siose Cccupetionl Srucare: Ness ond Ixportant Rvidonce in T/C “Lorg-eem rewards are the thind and mot important category of pos tive incentives; here —for the int sime in their analin of save ewe and punihinenss—F-+B ue new quantitative dats. So far thee analyst fas been bated upon tional “winiata”” In raggeting that long-term revards were built into the developing save econemny, FF shif to "masi- dat” But che new data—which low F +E to construct slave urban and especially rural occupational ditebutons —are eneely-uncaeincing, which is unfortunate beeswe much of the argument about the internalized slave work ethic andthe succem of planteraporsored incentives in shaping that thie rests upon these occupational distributions and o other evidence. SRB Mander, Plenttion Sacer in Goria (1995), 146 (als added) Geet Ome ey Pt O Ole Mas (1980), 93 ”F+E have greatly eanggeated the sill levels among hay ond ral slaves. Erroneous assumptions, together with misuoed dats, create ia bath Gitrbutons far to many slave artans, deve, id venice and fa 100 few alive aber and ld and Reades should not misunderstand the poges which fll. I is of gene in imnportance to Inow roughly what percentage of slaves had sich ill, Tes of even greater importane to know if thse percentages changed over time An ecupatienal structure is 2 mest powerfl clue for understanding ‘social structure or community. Asa ret, primary, ofthe Mawed analytic ‘mode wed by mot historians of emlaverent, altogeter to litle i yet town about the rural and urban sve commis snd how they changed ‘var tine, If data for sch sties are found primarily in “maxi-scaree” (cons schedules, probate records, and 1m forth), they badly need to be studied to eolange our undemtanding f bow particule ave communiton evened and changed ocr time. The sharp enicms which follow should fot be miconstroed. It nt that FB have erred in ning quite tourer, bet rather that such sources have been wed erroneusly and then ‘wed at supporting evidence for acting “new” but neverteles daly and sometines even quite faxasicalgeneralieations about slave bli and be- fvior "The real quetin,” PE imi, “i whether quantitative mtd have produced a more accurate and complete portraal of slavery than ver peviouly avaiable” That only one ofthe “veal” ution i jut as appropriate fist ask whether quantitative sources and methods have been properly ied in T/C to enlarge, if not alter, our undentanding of slave mciesy end of te ersaved themes, ‘Tht, after al ithe real mas ‘age in T/C; we have miundertond the economic of slavery and, thee fore, misindertood the saves and expreilly the peeve werk esi iter alse by met endnary dave “Tux Unan Stave Ocoursmonas Srmvoroms Incomplete and Inecouate Data ox the Antolin Urban White Occupational Sirucane How FE teat the urban slave occupational structure —and cope cally the place eld init by the artan —is looked at fist. The author: Ibe grey inated the importance ofthe uban slave arian by taking st fue value very dubious snd plainly inoemplete 1648 Chaveton, South (Garotina, private emi and ten comping is data to even more wotrat worthy “aatticn™* Mest slaves of eoure, did not live inci, but i SJL, Davo and H.W, De Smmure, Cena of Charon (1840) De Sores net nerety ale ine T/C oogaphy (De Saaee”). ” remains csenial to vadermand accurstly thir occupational satus, The Aieury that plagues all historians, however, that federal conus eum ators failed 10 eeord the occupations of rural and wurtan saver Other data therfore, need to Ke ed. But te 1850 an 1A6D federal ramsexine fznsuer contain detailed Ustings of eccupations for southern shite and free blac 0 that i posable to seconsrct the occupational distributions of thee two groupe. Nether P+ nor Claudia Galdin, whore work i ‘quoted at reat length in T/C, spparenty knows wery rch about dhe noo Slave sectors ofthe ther uth labor force Goldin’ diertation i ited a Teng inorder to datingish Between demand elutciies for ural and “urban saves. Her sechnieal competence ie not at fre, but the ero that ‘mar the following paragraph quoted by F + E ie characte, there is food renin to guration her conlisions: “Richmond stands out ax the Routers ety with dhe most rable and Tage [ni] inereats in demand for Slaver. Iti ake the city with one ofthe smallest elastcites of demand. Rieke mond was the most industrial ofall the whan ares, and it sear al mot Subject 10 mach iomaigration. Therefore, Richmond's slaves bad few subse tutes and they rere on average, a move sled group than found in ther cites (alice added) # We ignore the way ia which Goin, P+, or anyone, for that matter, ‘an *meanure” the aceupatonsl ditsbution of urban aves in Richmond ot most other southern cites (when the federal census fas to Tat slaves by ‘ceupation) and concentrate instead on the asertion that Richmond was “noe subject to much immigration” Anyone falar with the free white and black occupations sted inthe 1850 and 1960 manuscript censuses knows that this eatement is factually erteneaus. TF the presence (or abuence) of Immigrant workers is essential t a study of relative urban slave demand Ath ai 9 it save oceans and even sive mre, he amc federal cen spay en pore wenden or sre omer: Hisiane FE ‘ee: "Hip wn wt alae oneness. Tea te Thunion of dns in manascig minds ote US. cen Whar teen dete. ‘aed ta ako 3) pect oferta ee were were on ie dating 100. To oe fhe cho Reh, he proponent Te poporin ‘ve vrai rr ren wat oer, emery monn att erent. the se Libr face aa le, temy stout 7.5 pont were om heat ay mento ne ‘Shc hie cnc rary tin nore tan yor, and many were for stseely ‘Sere pete of eh ra hie rama oars ws pak 1 o ercent That hite auction ere poi ener fv time tft (5/01, p 6), The ener vache in vin ome to fer tet aot ow these percentages an be slelated fr data sich dot mare than ge then ‘fan owner awe ea adage And al eet “Enna of the ice ‘ring were mrad by Cla Cll, Commented inter dtd Fab foary 0197S" TEAC, Thy p58). Ave seston epee to ke such dene Geeta Ta pe of ication” tan ait © commie Chebely exe, "Goldin quoted in 6, Thy. 19198 ”“latin” that thes bin serious trouble. The color and verupaton of all fee Richmond workers ed in the 1060 federal amcxpt cen shaw that alle and wonted immigrant were very important component in Richmond tree labor lore. Table 6 laches allie males sed a “a borer” and all fee Richmond bakery, brielayery, blacksmiths, cooper, tachini, painters and shoemakers"” Hf jut the fee white wer are ‘outed i turns ou that exactly Bal ofthe eraftmen and thee out of four of the labore were forga-bor. How can one waite that Richmond ‘was "no subjee wo meh emigration! “Tau 6 Coun no Pace oF Ba oF Au Pte Rice Lanes no Au Fa Free Bate ort 7 cenit St Ee ae ‘Wis Brn inte Nar o 7% tenes oe 4 Steve “Manages” end the Misveading of Rober Staroin FE miscad the Godings and the arguments of the late Robert S Starch, thir estimates enncerning the urban save labor free, P+ E fd whet “1.0 percent of mle saws were manager,” a spect perce ge They deve, im par, upon the pioneering work of Starbin, whe ound Sone examples of lave manager in southern indus fares" The petceni- ‘age is small, but still oo lange F ++ E write: “Starobin agues tat the ratio fone maniger to 30 laves reviled in industry atom plantations, He also Angecs that white minagers ‘vere marca? Alcondingly, we amu tt mong firme wsing slaves, 72 percent of suanagers and Toran were aes od that there war one manager or foreman t every 30 ural hands ‘ther than domertc”™ Starcbin did ot write that “white managers ‘were scarce!" “Native ‘white managers were seatce™ ie what he wrote, Starobin sreaed the iz Portance of the ave minager and foreman, but sluoemphsned that im fant and some nertera) manages paged imperatt roles in southern Indwury. Ary estimate, furthermore, which assumes “tae there was One seg ta at te om he Rh mami em (185) a i Stabe Stalin, edad Sey be the OU Sot (1970), pp 16978, ” manager of foreman t9 every 30 unsiled hands other than domestica” treatly exaggerates the numer of manages and foremen. "When mote {ban tiny saver were employed, peronal supervision wan difial” noted ‘Starein, “since sales, supplies, and bookkeeping occupied the owner's time” ‘That makes good see. But before even the erudestestinate of whan dave manager ad foremen can be made, ncemary to know how many wan firme employed tity or more faves. P+ E do not wit 20 sens 8 em sure, What if mest urnilled hands Inbored in fir that had far fewer than {hiny slave worker? Except posibly for Richmond, shat surly wa the case in mat southern towns and ie, which meat thatthe numberof wan eanngers— black or white and ave or frea— would Rave en very sal ‘Stave Artvens ond she Encomplete 1946 Chareson Census Whatever the umber of manager and whatever their satus or eaor, it isthe urban artis who ate central to F-+ E' thes concerning Have “reward and “mobility.” P+ B rely enely for that estimate upon the 1048 Chaieston cena, one of the few sence that listed saves by eccup tion. They wrt: ur existe of be dissin of eecpsiom in when ara i bed on he ‘Charest cnn of 1848. Te shows that 22 pncet of ll male aves chee 10 rete in erat creme eccuptions The inated hore of hile worker, wg ada males wool hen be percent. “Thee is some petty that the sce of skilled pos in the [ona stave labor force wus het in Chto than in her of ster cis ‘Wesley and Stavay aye ua backs were 80 percent of all owen arc using the antestam en. In Charleston, however, Hes ez ely 1 pce, ofall crafinen.Temay be that it Gvieston white ano were patel ‘ces ining oregon peta for daven!™ F 4 Bare not the fit to we the 1048 census. UB. Philips and Richart ©. Wade used it eae, but nether author mined the censu It hard to know where to startin pointing out the errors in Fh B's few sentences based on the Chureston cxzaue do not have the original Charleston Using nd ive worked instead rem the chart that Philips prepare in his 1907 tssay “The Slave Labor Problem in the Charlton Disenct™® The listed eeupations and numbers which accompany them fx the percentage of ari sans at about 15 percent instead of 2 percent, but that ins mere quibble ‘There are more trios difficulties in dese semteners. The agesion that slave artisan were ks sigiicant in Charleston than i “thereat of sothera Pal Sense Quartets, 22 (Specter 1907), yp. 416-40, 1ite reson no evidence from other sue ches. That Chaeton wi frision preset limit the accupations open to shves i wel ewe. Bat ‘hat happened iether southern ees, too. Wade, fr examp, cid ay 18H ‘Sivannah onlinance that ald Macks could not be opprenticed to the "tad of Carpenter, Mason, Bicker, Buber, or any other Mechanical Art oF Mystery.” That ordinance wa Inter smended to inchale cabinetmsher, fines, ack, tales, coopers, and butchers" I snot owe how ‘well dhat law was enforced, but sheve i «published Savanna 1070 eens ‘at apparent sudyst Ft Ea argument Wat Charleston prably (“sme pon tad relatively fower slave artane than other wouther cies would have teen immeasurably swonger had they examined so esential a source. Instead of sing such evidence, F +B rely ujem Charles Wesley's timate that “sels were 80 pereent ofall oathem arate during the antebellum ea” No strate evidence of any Kind exit to support any estimate ear that reveentge We hall non see how far of tantly i Bt dhe "0 pee ‘Stine alles P+ Bo amet that “Hacks were oth 4+ promt ofall [charleston erfmen” isis added). Te Had to be higher in ther ets only t makeup forthe obvious Charleton “dficency” Even more sxouly, the 1818 Chareten census inl i a thoroughly Libious source, expecially for comparative purposes, That eervas was far from comple, and it incorety counted male slaves snd especially male free Elseks ane whites. That ows at by comparing tt the numer, in the published 1890 Carleton federal census. Only the numberof slaves Tied in 1048 approached the mucaer reported in the 1090 federal cenmut: the approsimate undercount for fre Macks (72 percent) and whi (79 percent) was extraordinarily high 30 much so that Table 7 shows why he 1048 Charleston ceneus cannot be wind to compare the relative importance ‘of save, fc black and white artsans—or any other cccupatoes! groups, {or that mater. Only so incomplete » census matched against the Wesley. ‘Staviaky “estimate” could lead tothe anertion that Carlsen saves and free blaca “were only 44 percent of all eraftanen.” Ever without a com- ‘rion tothe publhed 1850 cenaus = decurene such asthe 18 Cres fon cena which lied only nineteen fee bial laborers and jut a single “superannuated™ free black male, shoukd bave been viewee! as totaly sum pect Instead, this single document allows P+ E to generalize about the ‘Proportion of urban slave artans in all antebellum citi, They inet that the Charleston arians were relatively les important than slave arvasns in oer ete. Hows the Occupational Distribtion among Pree Black ad White Workers Shows That "#4 Percent” of Urban Male Artisans Could Not Have Been Backs Another way — jst a decisive but much more revealing —to see how misleading the 1648 Charlton census ie reults by examining the 1850 CChodlesen menescript census listings of Uack and white Lee workers Be- ‘seeen 1850 and 1850, the Charleston male population charged the free ‘lacs remained fairly constant in numba, and che whites increased by bout 10 percent, but the slave population eeined about 25 peeent, a Shown in Table & Alsough the 1860 manuscript census tls nothing about Save sill i ivalualy describes white and free black occupations. The Si dsibuton among all white and free black Charleston male workers “Tau 8. Cuaneren Mise Foran 1850 1860 Tere Aone Mas re 090 1880 ‘imi Rect Naber a sacs Argonaut: Renee Caren Whe Males ‘ope Carmi = “Madde, Eaedintis Yat Me bg Glave Pee Bick Maes 3388 ‘a certain tes) esa Come em ib Ct (Gaon Slave Make var aoe “or St me Pec ats ms ne Wie st 1.0 ea ‘= Red, Wade, te Ci Th oth, 190180 (106) 9. 27 2 jh any Cr of te of Sa (88; Wake Sy a ay ido an ha ny aes ade pth 8D pent P+ wake dha cor unin pce 7 pe se (nde, mat oe See sa T/T 24 whee “wir” bene "oy" Citing Sarpy, PE we! "Nor canoe et fem Stamp Suk tha any nha era wre dominated by alae, eve eve accounted fr he nro wate ranein 1060 i indented fn Table 9: two-thids were arian. If ain LA "H percen? of Charkeon’s artiman were bac, there woul! have been bout eleven usdeed adult male dae ara i 1850, That means that tte absolve number of dave artisns would have increased by abvut 40 percent between 1848 and 160 and that two ut of fue saves in 1050 a entrnted to about one in four in 1640) would have tee artaant. And that would have happened even though the adult male slave population fell about 25 percent betwern 1890 snd 1960, If 4 percent a comet stint, moeeover, that meane that rere than fl (about 56 perce) ef fll Charleston ale workers in 1050, neluding the slaves, wer sill wore 3 nary abmard roi ‘Since fairly preie figure exist on the numberof white andl fee Dace tans in 1060, the percent need oe pot aie. Te poe, however, (G net a rae aliens of es teas tocociarer cl dere Steere well a ondinary save labore jn Charleston in 1850. We assume that the Proportion of Charlton save arthane to lave Ibotes fern conan between 1848 and 1860, ut, in accordance withthe drop in that e's save population, thes nue fll by 25 percent, That allow fora cough com patbon of the rulatve imponance af slave Inkovrs and atzans to white i fre black Iaborers and artis. Table 10 shows each rouge relative Importance. Overall, the free and slave Claret woken were neatly crenly divided berwcen alld (45 perent) and void [55 pereet) Swerers, hut the Chrsleton nes had s radically cifernt oceupsions) ‘omposton from either the fee black o the white worker. Tht diflerence is stated in Table 11, Only 19 perent of Charleston's slaves had kl, st contaned to teosthinds of Charles's ite workers and theeeourt of Charlerors fren blacks Tt wry made 2 huge economic ference © le a white ora ee Black worker ss apposed to 2a worker i anteblam CGhaviston. Any suggestion that urban aves shared a ensmon eceupational fracture with ee fre black worker o white worken or that sate aet= ‘sn dominate the urlan anebelus crafts i egregiously taken, =e 2% ne oe 10% Tha ae aed pons wy fal fre wit and Mac worker in Chtenon 1a 380, as ed a te encarta o* “Tar 10, Oscoranonus Sram oF Stats sap Weert sso Fas hace Wot, (Caisson a6 roti same | __t_ mica Haske Ree ‘Sees ees) y fev 1 Wise ne Sea 6% 1% 6% 8y Unie om Be oh eal ame) sao Why Ie1s Wrong to Atet That the “Relatiely Low-Skill Composition ofthe Black Labor Force” Begon Following Emancigaion ‘Those are not mere dikagreements over number at iwe of cour, the slave cot of enslavement t Afr-Americane and whether of not the cralved intemal the nora favored by their owners. tt hard to believe tha the white and free Back workng-las occupational srctare — both ile to Charleston saver — created satisfactions among the enlaved and spurred them t9 work harder, If dhe urban slave eceupational structure da ‘ot differ radically from that of southern free black snd white workers, 4 ‘rong case might be made tnt emlavement — despite its harshnest ad what F +E concede to be is immorality — created satisfactions among the ‘lave by peraiting talented and energetic slaves to become sled work fers. Thats precily one of F + Bs major arguments Same slave of cour, Tecame silled workers. But the absolute number is important: it defines the limits of “opportunity” at a given mement, And the velstive nuater significant, too: if a partclar labor market (Chackston, inthis ens) bad ‘work for given number of artiane and most were cither white or tee ‘lack males, that fat is powerful evidence that enslavement, not x carci of work and not “acim” Lnited epportmity. So far, slave have been canta o (rw worker, cling free back, It also waft combinethe dave and free backs get sre inition ofthe occapatinal dintiba- tion within the anicellam blzek nex slave, eomamurity. Thats nented in "Table 12. In heir eilegue to volume ene (“Implieations for Our Tie”), FB int shat by seine the rear stright on "the Econemics of Americ ‘an Negro Shyer” they ah have begun to pt the postemancipatien dee- Sees ina more Sting hitorial perspective. They write? One oft nae consequence of the tinal nega of alaey it ‘hat hs dived stent fom te atch he materal condo of Wack Ie ht tnk pice daring the decd alg the end of the Cli War. By faggot the seve of avery all hats eee ae i ha been made Spper avo mpronrment over preius condense ea low lel ape red scythe Yells composition of he Bac bor ove these and eter eaten the Pott War dates hve bee Caplin agly tthe anfertente nhrtenc thee of lacey. Wha fer be there wat or the wnat ooo acs fe the Ci ‘War thn ested wit 3 cla which no lager eed (the mater cl), ‘nfrstly, with Hacks theme, ising thet fw year the attention of metric has beso 1 i foo the anes tothe postal a. Whe the fg tht far a ‘serenely tare, the een ht ein cle mare he ‘he tack othe rater eorion of the We of Oc aftr the Cid Wer ‘ano only mee freon nt al pc me at ta ik Tks ee a sto ws tra ee ey had base Beal epee ened ding the save ea. Tali added ‘When compare othe eepatin of Mack ban males in sate ie jn 850, the eruption of Charon Wn n 100 ol tat FE B— i leery arrests va gue wenger eee ae ae Sore with pmo aisha pct 7 pace 8 per conor Opec Cs peel coer ele beens ee TY oe teforeusng apn the 188 Charen bc ow, Pt Bare ake irq comparne dgmerts. The con of whe AlAs Gated 1 Sie Be 9/61 3028. ‘centrated in two dininet time peri: before and after emancipation. Not 2 abred of evidence in T/C mustains even the “extremely tentative” conch tion tht “ibe attack on the material conditions ofthe fe of bach after the Ciel War was not enly more ferecious, bu, in cern respects, mee rue] than that which preceded i" Second, what evidence tls that “the ‘ster cla” daappeaed (no longer existed") aftr emancipation? F + E ‘maggot that elites without rote im the antebellamysiveboling esas came to power after 1065 and bear responibiity for the attack "on the raters condition of the if of backs” That generalization i fae, Third, the hint that it inthe "elometrcian” who is changing eur conception of the pot ‘tla South and of the emancipated Afo-Arsrican is hardly the way ® characierion the dons of egricantreisonit moncpraphs on he postwar [Seth wal om the orcs lows, Ontmeseinan deave price when they ‘compete useful and even original work, Dut the reve views of the post Tell Seuth and the emancipated Afro-Amedcan are not the real of ay “ellemeti revolution” Tt i appropsiate, ally, to mention that in their hasty and drawn, epilogue F + E impropeely Blame the material deterioration of the eran pated wuther black dreily on the behavior of antlavery ics. They Few af the antisavery erin Bad eqaliy of eppernity foe the acest the fl of thee craade Since they cane of ark at embers of a nero Tek evel of cpyataniy Id Ute caning wr ten: Mont epee thet tered Negroes wesld ve to be marae ix vasoos ways i an urd” scetay watts be matin. ‘Wihet antvery eres geeraly objected to wat aot the fit that slavery centri the eppertinities open to aes, bu the for which thew ee bss tock, Whe physical force was coaccepable, legal rearcions were fet Thus many onesie ermders again very at iy by, oF even ol Tabor in pening vero we hich served to Imprve the conoe pon tio ef whites a the exper ef backs. Liem laws lp to queers Macs fut of tme crate Bdvestonal recon helped to elas the fom eter ‘Meanie, sation and focal pices were wed to wafer Income fom ack 6 whites, perhaps move elect, conan moe deze thas had ee psi unde sey 1d, p 264. Se abo dil, p 196, whee FE ste: Ustertaaty, abaiAndover ees were not without Dlemibes and dese jst as severe ‘tod detached an analy at 40 the slavoowners. Many among them were rack, be thre really no seriou evidence that they “eolaberstnd™ fa amin ier lw, ing eduetionl etritions, ad supper tte tion an fecal policies that deprived the former shaves of “eeonemic oppor he ws pau over the entve South i 1085 snd 1066 limiting sDuthern black mobility and opportunity were pased by souern whites "That soc i wellknown an nee nok detain ws. ‘The etal fl ae slavery ideology wan ot it racial sumptions, but i bei that eauaity of eprortiey — that's the “oc tee?” — teal fart eve the cee ‘pated Llc and dat no more war mecesary than to impose the re mat et" upon the conquered South dard Bvecett Hale put it well "The pli he sid in 1085 of the commited to taneorming the South, and epecally the formerly endlaved, "tit nt been 0 make tse people beggan. ‘Aifiwo e Dien Pade? 's their motto. The blac peepe know they must support themselves, as they dave always dane” Hale amd the wor of ove concern that Yankee henevelece promi dependence and rgimertation. Such perone reveled ' general forgetful ef the operation ef the law of supply and derond snder the rime of freedom” Hae explained "Freedom snot bread and Dune, Se not comfort, Ie oe howe and clothe, ti ot a happy lle, icismota cetia heaven, Some ents, scng that the newly ed haves do vet set poses thee Messing teu disturbed, asi feeder were not teres Bat from imply trey te pt thes Dleatagy Tie oie by which te Gesdman select one of apoter course, hie be thinks ‘st sdaped to secure them. Thae is what the proclamation of freedom se “ted” Hale il et deny that ach police promi slferng, but went fins "Where iether noe sallering in this wold? We have never sid tht the block man’s ie should be sued above suring. We have wd that he should be free t9 choose between ineiable resins. This promise we perform" Te is aypreplate to eros this presription for “back achievement,” but ‘hae ere Ir nothing to do with Hale —or mon other antasery cree —ract belief Tt has much more to do with tei naive but deeply Fok that only fining rules which et the “fee sare” operate ("the low of supply and demand .underCredem) warded #0 allow the Foner sloves tre or fallin the grea race for Ife. Tewas nt that most antslverycrtics rejected “equaliy of opportunity” fr the blacks ab the pont of their crude” Ie was caer that thn was (and could cay be) Ct (Oxtoer 188) 9.356, 54.548, thei single goal that so flawed mainstream antialavery prescriptions for the ‘ey emancipated Afe-American.” Let vs return now to the Charleston 1960 bck occupational suctuse ad the sein proposition thatthe “zeatively lw compotion ofthe ‘black labor force” has its orgs in what “took pce during the decades following the end of the Chil War” ‘There i ample evidence from (6) to txt thi proposition, t show it 0 be ertneats, sn to indicate why the Jow-killcomprtin of the Black labor fore had ts origins in slavery so ‘nowhere ce, Data en the 1880 Charesion black eccspatioal scare Ihave not yot been gathered, but the occupations of all adult Moki and Richmond blace males im 183) are mown and mummariaed in Table 13 together with a sample of orcen white Paterson, New Jerey, male workers fee the ate comment Dvd Rothe in hs review of T/C, “Shey in ‘New Lint “Make no male” Rotman prt, “Tuna onthe tor or ot rng” Rtas soni far F+ Ea edge mde wcgh ir sn “We yng a i a nk ‘rw! capitis pote the save m vel ere te Gl Was way 2 Sot proms the Mack quay sf the Cd Wrt™ Chen the “eens eT ‘tick Ton zt slaty ance tof corey hw iin at pe amination conto cnet i eto Simply pntng “he Bors Hea Sete Ar kam pro th ter ne oe can” Rot gi ce faved, br tam enya PCE argent hat ee 18S eg remote the dae, gummed standard vg” 1 tr et tat FSC co wx pant “ompelng ede” uta he ht Te Cove of Bs Siguiente apo daa encom tse Wetman, fet the trate of ee Sneak Sea he oA Nw Vi Shy mn 58 As 17) ‘Bite ode of dave mennton fn ety to wane Kopala he Se Senn te save Hoan Alpe H sho don aguante en Ft se isla opus eg rem eae i tac med now ae apied by te tne mets fat wee ‘hes our iw o savers” ike Rotln, Cac tne he Seva of Fes eve MG ee beg eed ts eve Harter Gntams s ieag the deseo othe ack tb he pos Chi Wse Nor” Tha ee a ‘he en” lL laser informa have mie hi The estes a hat ory ‘rte iced i Harert G, Catan, "Le Phononcze Ii dena: Bem ‘Sion Chios (ly Onser 12), yp 107120, ad ei o Gear Se ny mer cold have epee taefn 1880°" The dssibuton of sil within the Chasleson black community (save and fre) in 1880's al inelded. ‘The Richmond Back commaisy ‘in 1880 had diferent occupational “opportaite" from that in Chaleston, tout there no reason to belive thot the Charleston and Mobile black occupational dissibutios difered grey: The oceupatonsllferences Ibenwten the Richmond and Motile Blacks and the Patron naive whites and Tish are huge The percentage of Trish arian vn at faethe nen treater and that of native white artisans at est four tines pester tha, {he percentage of either Richmond or Mobile aisans. To compare the white and black ceapatonal rrutars in 1600 oe eater i ly to note (he vat teen tates ts ‘What then becomes ieportnt isan explanation for these diferencs, and its here that the 1860 Charlton data have great importance, Ifa Sicsve “statisti” indieatng an unwualy high percentage of southern wan ack (save and fee) arta is aecepted fr 1050 oe eae, then the 180 ra indeed indicate rapid deterioracon in dh rt black il Bevel A tmore acurte estimate, however, geet decline but hardly rep dete ‘ration. Thor ia diference The caus cr that deline ema unknowes, ‘but the antebelism Charleston free Backs, not the Chareston sles af feced tmat from th decline. This ism becauee even. hough sigh more than Sve Ses 8 many slaves as fee acs ved in Charleston i 160, prebsbly abou half of Charlton's back artan: tot year were fee blk "Pi sche ha teal sich Gees saci ge inthe decade and one hal Tolowing emancipation, bet to suggest that the ‘Tama 19, Onowam or Buse Anes Miao Cunseen 1848, Beene sso Moms, 80, sm Neve Wier soo Tow Mates Paeaom, 180, Twine on Cccypatinal Maile, Richmond, Pann, Hoe ace Cand “3 OR hee ‘ites Me Be ae Bee, High Sane em = ‘This eeaer pon the remetn of the nti Rhoda Maile ‘ack comune in 1800 me bad pen the mame fea enn The beepers narrow occupational structure common to all Gilded Age southern ucban ‘lack communities tonk ie shape alter emancipation & entirely miseading “That occupational structure tad ie roots i the urban ante occupational structure Tn “sggesting” otherwise, F-+B substtte ne my for another. ‘That is not the way to begin rewsling Alo-Amesian Istory (or any hi tory for that mater) Tus Ruma Siava Occuranonat Srmverune An Inappropriate Comparivan between the Occupation of Slave Mele: fn 1050 ond AI Mele in 1970 (Tobie BS and Figure 10) FE have abo greatly exaggerted the number of sil rural slaves, specially shove working on plantations, a auch more verow error than the ‘mise ofthe 1948 Charlton ceneue Mot save, afterall, id not lve in Chis, Difeent kinds of errors, however, have been committed in exagge- ing the numberof hands who dil not work in the ede ad who were not ‘omen laborers among the rural saves, errs so severe that they make the ative analysis weless. Te erors,ineidenaly, meal all bias the evidence Pgs ae cases gel fhe centage of dees tes ns wt MA hands and not eommon laborer. These erm then become “eeidence™ in rguing hat endaved Afro-Americans benefited from the “mbit” oppor ‘ait accesible to rural bseks Data on the ave rural occupational trac ture and on how it functioned in the larger incentive and reward system “gnmsored by profichungry ome are xaterd! througout the fr voles 1'T/C but are combined bee 1 do fal justice to all the evidenee and the arguments Swing Irom that evidence. The erica] evidence ix waniearoed in pages 38 t 43 of volume one, and these pages ret entirely om Table BD in volume to (page 40). The exental data in Table B.3, The Derivation ‘of the Occupational Stscture of Adult Male Slaves on Farms, ave printed in Table HL This uble—one of the two or tree mort important in the ‘ctre dy — appear in vache coe iw different form, where i is wre to compare the adult male occupational diribution among saves and free persons. That compation is made on page $9 in Figure 10, a bar chart ‘ntled A Comparion between the Occupational Distribution of Adult Male Slaves (about [se] 1890) and the Oceptienal Disrsbution of All ‘Adult Males (in 1870)- Tt is med for the moment thatthe percentage in Table BS (Table 14) are acetate, ad Figure 10—the cuyparative bar elart — i examine first. (Ie shall be seen below that there is good fesor to deny every pe ‘centage reported in Table BS.) Figure 10 i suaaurized in Table 15, Theio Hog 00% OR Oe 35m Om ee a Rimi 727% 63% 04% MO 8.8% S.0m ‘Tau 15. A Goupnow Beraer sae Osccrsnotar Damen op Asse Mace (on Sie Aad ae Manel nd tenon 70% oy ‘tae an oetomen 1198 310g Siesta 2 7 om ere Bae Som tain Table 15 ean he real in only ane way: Although in “about 18507 dale male slaves were worl laborers and had far les opportunity than free dale males in 107019 brceme “mandgers and profeniona” the per centage of adult slave male arta and semiilled workers hardy difered ftom the percentage of ftce mses with roughly similar sis, Figure 10 allows F +E challenge the “conventional wd! Wile very cle int te oppruiis of Sendanen te sei sie [fe] the fet renin that eer 25 geet ef ane] mals Wee MAME, rofoaansl, cate, sad sebkled workin Thuy the Sonam be irs meld ome ieee eal er oy oie ‘ls elated 1 the eats pyr Meco i fet aoe hes co ot cry Sm Sn releed ocepaeml poten wich tld ately mor interesting aed {ee arduous Ibo but ko yeled eboartaly higher eal inet, a eo couged ll anther overght tha he flr i eon the exaenee Sta Bonble ana aesdingly eve incense stem that operated thin {he trues of Svery. The nto tha veneered on te as le to ponte dace al elicccy ss Mghly mining yh Ine, 4 Freeney [ie] pontine ince in the Frm of marl rear ere 8 a owe ntroment of sonamie and weal sar Although svey reacted ‘cool od cil moi for asks, id me imi = ‘We carefully examine Tablet 14 and 15 and the angumenis whic fellow {rom them. Fin, dae compar between dhe save eeupational dtu in “about 1830" and the 1870 adult ale oeewpatienal distin i utely inapprepriate.F + E themselves appear sous. wncomtortabe wi dat sGempariton”: Ideally, we would have prefered lo compare the occupa tional dribuson of slaves in 150 with whites in the sre year. However, 1070's the fnt year for which an occupational distsbuten af the labor Force ‘sgufienty detailed to permit the esd into the 4 sil eateries weed ‘in gure 10. Unfortunately, the data needed o teparate the occupations of ‘white ror lacks are not nralable fr 1870, Ths imitation is nt as wero 8 it mighe see, soe it uliely hat the occupational distribution of ‘white Inbor would aye been wnuch different frm that of all aboe in 1870" ‘Unconvincing and sctualy quite Lame excuses for using the 1870 "data." they also are factually erronsous, Anyone fniliae with the 1850 and 1960, federat manuscript censuses knows that cecupational distributions are avall- able for whites and fre blacls, Some historians have weed these detaled atn—dnta which can be emily Sled into appropriate shill categories ‘One diniburon — that for Chateton in 1260 —has ben wed in thee ‘mges. It, furthermore, incoreet to suggest that “the occupational di ‘mbution of white labor” Iaudlydifered “ier that of all labor in 1670" Manuscript census schedules for that year (er, for that matter, for 1850, 1860, ae 1800) cffer decisive cvidence sn any southern raza oka area tha the coeupstonaldirbusions of blacks and whites differed radially. ‘That P+ E asset the opposite suggests that such evidence has not been examined in preparing 7/2 That, however, i hardly reason to tll eaders that this evidence is either inadequately “detalled” or “ot evailable™ Com- prions between the white and black occupational structures are badly needed, but not bere a distbution ia 1870 and ene in “about 1850" chat counts only slaves. A weful exmparion must hold the tine factor constant Important changes in the sates of Aro-Amerians, afterall, took place etween 1850 and 1870 which greatly impair any comparison wing these {to mements in tie. The proper comparion i between saves and none slaves in ether 1850 or 1960, And tha comparison shouldbe regional —not ‘ational. twill eval nothing mare than the vast cccupatona differences between saves and nonslaves ‘Asumall but not insiniieant dona caveat about the “il ategoris” [F-+ E use for the 1870 oceupationl distibatone that historians corpor- 21/6, typ 04 990, th 9 3ing whites and blacks need mach more sue and complex occupational Aistinctons than thove wed in Table 13. The sl eategory "managerial fed profesiozal,” fr example, includes landowning fansen.” That is not fan appropri category; it homogenizs too many diferences. The uges {Se tet Sang dprlenmeea? wet thie Gates Se Scene el “tins and craftsmen” surely murprives anyone familiar with Gilded Age American society, IF + F are righ, tat wil only be known afer we are ‘old how various occupations were signed to thar four ail fevelt Av it Mande, the ccupational categories wed for the 1070 lining are of litle snalte we. A Georgia blak farmer and former slave who owned ten acre fended, Ferg Monge Fare bao ocd ete al that "39 perent™ of adult males in 1670 who vere elder “managee!” of “profesional” Consrcting a" Residual Percentage” to Determine the "Number" of Rural Save Field Hands and Laborers ‘Figure 10 nesds to be put aie, and so does Tale 2.3, which so ime portant to F-+ B's central thesis ‘The suertion that “over 25 pecent™ of slave males were “manager, profesional, crafts, and tems work tf fetebed percentage — the coma stata from which Ft write about “a flexible and exceedingly effective incentive stem... within the framework of saver" That pereentage—and no other new empiscal data in T/C — allows them to describe limited but nsverteles important Stie "econemie and sexial mobili.” As shown in Table H, P= E break down the rural slave mile eccupational stvctte iat six vty waful ate gores: (1) “ordinary field hands" (2) save deves, (9) save overeer, (4) tonGeld crafuzen, (2) none senile, snd (6) asta diver. Vexing questions ext about the percentages asighed each category: Over all the pereetages asigned to occupational categories 2 dough © are treatly inflated. Column 1-—“orinary’ eld hands” the met important ‘ccupational grouping (737 percent, ls a residual pecentage, calculated ‘quite simply, Colum 1 isthe difference between the sum of columns 2 through 8 rubeacted from 100 percent and therfore, rts emily ho the percentages in eofumns 2 through 6 ave been derived, for exemple, Ye num of coin ? through Bit 10 percent, emeane that abot 30 percent of rural male saves were “ordinary ek! hands” Tt npoctnt dhe fore, to examine closely how the percentages i esl 2 though 6 weve ssigoed. Columns 4 "noni erftenes") and 5 ("ron smislled") tase upon a sample of probate records are dacuned below. Columns 2 (slave driver), 3 (slave oveneen), and 6 (eave asstnt driven) are ‘ot haved pon any empirial evidence They are merely speculative sed infeesial percentages. They depend upon sumpdons, not evidence, Cy Edimatng the Percentage of Slave Drivers on the Basie of eMinsed “Coneetinal Ratio" Columns 2 and 6 are wrong: the percentage of adult male drivers (65, escent) and anixant rive (3.9 percent) hax been greatly eapeerate LE tll how they arived at thew estimate: "The prebate records thas far procred do not provide an adequate basa for determining the propor tion of slaves on each plantation who were diver. Qur estimate of the share of males over 10 seho sere divers is based on the conventional rato of one diver to every 30 slaves This rato was applied to all plantations ‘with 30 or more slave On plantations wih 11 w $0 slaves, racenal drivers were computed... Since vitully all rivers were male, om plantations with 50 or more slaves, one out of 15, or 6.7 percent of all mals, wore driver. "This peroentage, however, is based upon sn erroneous “conventional ‘ati.” Citations to stains by Ralph Flanders, Lewis Gray, and Wiliara Scarborough allow F +E to fi that "conventional ratio” Flanders, how- ver, fixed that eatio only for che Georgia vice plantations and only forthe 1820. ("Inthe twenties one driver to every thity working bards wat the customary division on the seacoast.” wrote Flanders.” The task system of organizing labor was more common among sie than cotton planes, and {es too facile wo assume thatthe gang system of Iaboe —eomston on cotton plantations —had the same ratio of divert the tak eer, Flanden’ bservaton, moreover, wat not based upon a study of plantation recon. ee cited two published sources, one describing Georgi plantations in the 10650 by FL. Olmsted.) F + B abo seer the reader to Searborouth's 1966 study ofthe plantation oversees: Scarborough wrote: “In generals Uikely that in the re, agar, ad cotton regions ment planters employed an over ‘ser when their teal working feld hands approsched thy. The Figure in the tobacco and grain areas, where saves were utllzd en ial fxs, was probably closer ro twenty. In making generalizations upon this pint ici important to distinguish between the total number of sizes and the total number of field hends —a dsineton wsully not made by carer author- ‘hee (tlc dhe orginal) In the pages FFE cited, Scarborough never mentioned dave drive, but diced the ratio of overseen to slaves F +E apparcty faed 10 see this rather important diference. Meneover, fst Flanders and then Scar- Trough (much more decisively) pointed out that plantation and farm operviony perinnel, daves ang them, were related to the suber of Feld hands (or “working save”), not eo the total numberof alee. Scar ‘borough pointedly rite easier historians for filing to mae that 6 hid yo. 3009. "Mander, Pletton Saar is Gera,» 1. Se. Beartooth, The Oveic” Pintton Management in the Old South (1968). 99. 88" 6tintin. F-+ E repeat the same err in sting "the conventions ratio of ‘oe driver to every 0 savy,” an error that grey increas the exited, Peentage of sdslt male lave driver and assistant divers. The tagitle ‘Sf that ear ean be isuated by aime example “I we deine the adult Tabor frce a those who ate fifteen yeas of age cover.” write F-+ E about large plantations, “divers lore 122 percent of adult male on the large ‘etates” For example, atime a plantation with 150 saves ll of them Females, Usigg P+ 1s esimaes, 32 peecent were not ye ten year ol land another 18 percent were benecen the age often and forten. That Tenses Ht adult tale and adult feral, We auume that the pln: tation had no superanmanted aes, no anne, no sel workers ro emestie ervants All males nd females aged ten years and olde labored 4 eld hands Thae, of course, grey exageerats the tim of the grup ‘We abe anne tht all fees ad males aged tn fo Fourien cuted #8 halt hands. Even ifthe scaled conventional ratio (1/30) ved, thi 7G this planaton's adult mals were diver, The etinate by F-+ Ei stghuy more than twice te high The dlference between 12.2 percent ate 135 percent —dhat ie, 62 peroent of all adult ve males— nerds to be Shute rom caluname 2 and 6 to calumn 1, “ordinate Randa” the lncrosing F + Ha eidal column 1 (73.7 percent) by sewral percentage ‘point The pecertages are smal, bt the number ineclond ae ite are 1 for example there ware abst 60,000 ra adele mae lars i 1050, the FE etimatr pats the number of driver ond asiatant divers at 5000, The acts! number is mich coer to 4,600, Adult male slot Serpe ee eee eee eee watt ove tthe op" Ectimatng the Percentage of lave Onerivert on the Basi of Erroneous Aussmptons Whick Cresea Large Clas of UnerployedSouthers White Overor in 1550 According i F + E, slave overseers (cura 3 of Table 16) account for nly a tiny percentage of adult black males, 0 percent Buta concep! ror har inflated even that small but important percentage Ut fa log "1 the cde amp fat example 6 epped(ihat al ait mean ‘wen ere ane td wea tat Pe nae he prea ‘ses (11. prem), semis hands (1.3 pre) anna ed an (20 oreo ll alunos) ae seca sod ar sos 5 pete of dst wen ad ‘ai tht the plantation had 1.85 grvem ‘The percentage a alt me ssl Ing a ever sad tnt river thee uy down een fut fom (22 parce tek percent a cele of meaty othe Amoi 0000) al leet Ca ome," according to the FE estimate, ‘veneers That ir significant nunber. I, toy i fat wo large. Lae us oe ‘why. Using the “Paser-Gallman samp of colton plantations, F-+ E Sind ‘hat suring few had resident white oveeers “Among mederst-sned Ioldings (esteem wo ly slaves) las than one out of every six planations ‘ed a white overseer. On lage savebeldings (over fy slaves) only one ‘ut of every four owners wed white overies. Even on estates wilh more ‘than one hundred slave, the proportion with white everees ws just 30 percent, and on many of these the planters were wally in residence” BFE abo report that on 73 percent of lange cotton plantations without ‘ovencers "there were no sons ar ether males who could ave asured the ‘duties of the overeer” An inference of tome importance follow: "The ‘conclsion indicated by thee firings is staring: On a majority of the lange plantations the top nosowrentip management was black." We lave aside the shift in Tanguage fr overseer to “op. managerent” Tater, onthe mime page, FE describe “a sytem’ which prediced “a igh-quality das of dave manager” (jules added), there were as many te four thousand slave overnce itt appropdate to write about them mea Clas, Bu shir atc ent am inference. No empirical dat ext to apport 1 David and Temin properly point out: “WQluite obvious, there are two ‘unstated premises unering the inference thatthe authors draw frm the ‘enrusobervations: (1) they asune a lange plantation could not be prop fly run seithoue an oversea tothe readent cwner, and (2) they suppore the lange plantations must have been wel un — because they were se ecient. Once the later presumption s withdawo, bowever, this piece of inference unravels along with the est of the fabric of Fogel and Engce- ‘nau’s argument" No hard evidence indiestes the preence of "a high quality clam of slave managers” and FE svorry untecesiy about wy “so many scholars could have been 4 bly mised en this sue" In volume ‘wo, F-+ E write: "Some scholars have overestimated the number of free ‘overser employed in the slave seenebeeste they anne tht sll whiter Tied in dhe census at oerters worked on dave platations, However, since the word “ovencer isa mynonya for upervingy it was wind to eaeribe 88, for exile, Rabrt Stringed andes and tn Pesce ‘Acetmatons The Ree st te Howszerate ta Dye Seen in Thor vn Leta Jorn! of Soca Hany V (Fah 171), 988, 6, tam Sad pt "Dovid ed Tesi, “Sve: The Progrive Iti” MG Th pp. 38, 151152 oHow sary white oveneers were listed inthe 1960 federal ceux? No fewer than 37385. 1 tee residence patterns hal not changed greatly since 1250, about 10 percent ved eubide the South. That leaves about 34,000 free white souther overcen im 106. Tf we astame Cand this rely ie ‘prally ecsgqrntal) that Ss the langed fos suther faroy, Ea ‘uth factories, and slave southern facto, that slaves abe 22,000, ‘white oveers avaiable 10 miperse wuther plantatonn Ts that lane ‘rs small umber? Once more, it depends. Searboroarh's study hep 2 fee this question. In the mar ee, and cotton sepons mort platens ‘ployed an oreneer whem the tot number of working field hands sp [proched tity” In etimating the we of oveser, Scarborough init Fb esental to "Uisingish between the total numberof alazer and the total number ffl Rand” ‘About how many saves id a planter have to oun to hire an over? “That depends upon the ratio of dave feld hands o aves About fy saver ‘vere needed o produce reside af thirty field ends!” How many Save- ‘ners in 1060 ond ity ce more save? About ten thew. After make ng the above geneous allowances, abort twery-roo thowand face white plantation everees ved i the Sth i 160, ree than ie the mer ‘eedad to manage thse lasge plantations. So far, no allowance has been trade for ae everweer. Tht nom amined that P+ Baye ene, bat ‘hat two thownd (not four shout, but enough to make for = “eaa”) lave labored ax overeen. That woud menn hat ceht thousand white fventers labored forthe owner: of fity or more saves. And what of the Cher fosters hows? Did they labor far owner of Sewer tha Gy slave tnd, therefore, fewer than shir Geld hands? Were many unemployed in 1064? Or had lage numbers of whites minepreented thelr ocewpatons the census enumerator? The inference tht 0. percent of adult ale slaves labored as eveneers sets on F-+ E's amumpiion that “not” planters did ot ewploy white oveneors und, theefore, had to employ dave oveeer. that wat, what eid mot white oversers inthe Senth do for ing 18607 Rather Un answer that quien, we abo need > put the 03 pee cent aside, TRE anteetlin South had save evercers, battle mimber [Enipnfcan, They deverve study, but thei place in the southern slave oc "Then eared mw love: Te sme hat ale and See hans were eel m mer tat 32 prea (he Pt R iat) wee uncer er (eh ante 15 pect (te Fo Etna) vee te furten ay a a ‘855 pera yer oo al vk inte Slt, at 80 pent of he renaiing ‘omnis FE iat) red i th ed a tha 85 pre of he eae Taga (ihe Ft unas aig alowane rate med ery, et) Inbred Sid hon On ye amnion, hat nes Sot aah ‘Sr al fed hens have costed wae tooth ue yas al ‘oh al ve ane a ite otis or sre woe far tw Bagh cupationalsrueture and plantation managerial sytem needs to be measured ‘more earflly ft. Tei not pole that "within the agricultural sector, bout 7.0 percent ofthe slave} men held managerial poets" "That percents ge is much cloner to 3.0 percent, and nearly all were drivers. There is no ean to ponder over why historians "have bean so badly led om thie inne There inoue, ‘The Mixing Rural Southern White ond Free Black Artin Colusa 4 (ponfld erftmen) and 5 (noni semisilled) of Table 14 ‘re based upon rmoch more bart! evidence than columns 2,8, nd 6 end come from a Htle-sed source, probate records. The authors write: “The sham of shiled and emailed laborers in nonild eceupations on plant Hons wat determined from a sample of $8 esate, sanging in sie from 8 10 08 slaves, rived from the probate records, This sump revealed tht 154 percent of slaves overage 15 were engaged in such occupations. The percentage of lle saves was fat} consant over plantation soe" Met ‘of sch men were artisans (119 perent).F + E make much of this ample, ‘out there aro many difulioe astociated with i. We save for the lat the ines built into » vample of erians drawn from probate records. “The fact is” F-+ B wrt, “that doves. eld a large share of the sled jobs in the countryside"™" That is nota fact. No one has yet tied the number ‘of rural and Vilage white and free black artians in the antebellum South, to estimates of the ratve importance of rural slave arsas remain spec: lative If save arian were a8 commen on plantations a FE mga, ows the, shuld we handle evidence which fnicates that proft-hurery planers hired white artians to do shld planation jobs? Bennet Barrow, for example, di not owm a sive blacksmith. “There is no record” wri his biographer, “of a single major repat job being consigned to a save" {J-€. Siterso's study ofthe Bayou LaFourche McCollam plantation reveal “hat it owner hited extpenters and blacksmiths from the outse — even 10 build slave cabins ™ There i, furthermore, some question shou! the quality of rural slave artkanl shill, Did a plantation carpenter or blacksmith share ‘common sl level with an urbas slave carpenter or blackanith? Tati ‘subject which requires much eatefol stay. In 1950, for example, the Charleston save trader Louis DeSausure advered the vale of four “od carpenters": Stephen, Scipio, Jack, and Jacob, But Jacob war ako decribed F Journal of Southern aery WU (det 190), 929. 0as 4 “plantation carpenter" What aid that ditinetion mean? ‘There i finaly, some question about the oesupations F + B include unde the ext gory “wonteldsemishiled:"amstet, coachmen, gardener, stewards td house serve" lave gardener, fr example, was wsualy an elery ale retired fom Feld Iaboe Is senkiled the appropriate sil Inel forte & pera? Extiratng the Sic ofan Unkacen Sample of Probate Records ‘That Reseal the Dirbuton of Slave Aticans, ‘The general and porcular we of probate record by F-+ E a a source for etimating the percentage of aye tags i the entire rural rae pope lation meri una cloe attention “These of the samp i corre fine: “38 eats, ranging in see fom 8 to 98 slaves” That bref summary denies uch wo the reader: (1) the nates of thoe eta, (2) their lea tin, (3) the dates these probate wore fle, (3) whether “3 to 8 save reams just adslt rales or all aves, including women and children, and (5) the average see of thew exten I is atumed thatthe average cate Tne ity slaves, 25 perent ofthe adul wales, the enti sample included shout (12 irl lave male, 50 of them “none” craftsmen and [of them “nonfeld”seminlled workers"! Can percentages of slave all itbtont ‘based upon so small a sample reveal very much? Is this smple — 50 rua sthann and 14 seminkled saver adeguate 80 fice the diver of ‘Secupatons among ral slaves? I doubt Contating Percentages of Black Attensa Rural Miicippt County (1800) ond it Four Rural Virginia Counter 1955.1656) “The sample sie is emphasiaed becase the percentage of artant found on these thtrpthre estates far exceeds that found in other manuscript records examined by 1. Rowland and by me. It is bet to work backnatd with sich data from L880 to the Ite antebelm peri An occupational telcos wath iis all roel An Corny Miseips, acute tae males in 163) — nearly three thousand ren shows that 1 percent had ‘etna hil (Table 16) Tworthinds of these few arian were either Cxpentors or Blschamith, Ie might be sppued that this air com. pron Tes pole theta lage saber ef rural Ader County save south (80 Se 132 Thee mal 412 ty P-+ 5 eine to eet sb apponaace mamta of tony (19 pent) and sented wares (33 geen) Tina Adon Cy data ae o's sel fy ode dale Ms aed a the pugs 100 fra ic ” tans quit that place upon emancipation. But f that happened, they dd rot move to neacby Natcher, brea in 1800 that toe bad proposonsty Feats few bck artamnt other scuthern:tnees Tt-a b pone that Joeal white sosthem ara drow the slave arts from dhe Furl Adame (County market flowing emancipation. Butif ¥ + E ae ght sod the aver ‘held alge share ofthe sled job inthe countryside” that evietion wold the bee superhuman task In 1880 more than 90 percent of rural Adare (Counay residents were blacs, and chat county's rural law enforement c= crs vere mos sil ack ‘Data cher i sie to enslavement reveal a diferent occupational di. tefbuen than in rural Adams County, but one that nevertheless shows lower percentage of arian than the Pt E mmple. Two military popu: tion censuses (Montgomery and York counties) ane two Freedmen’s Bureau rmartage registers (Goochland and Louisa counties) indicate that far fewer Virginia slave males had artisanal sil than suggested by the probate sam. ple (Table 17). These data were collected either 1965 or 1885. The ‘ange of sill among theae former aves was rally wer than among the rural Adams County black x deeade and one-half later, Jost over 30 percent Secupain Pecemage ‘Tenant, Shareeropper, Fann Laborer 70% ere 2a tae 3 ‘thom Ovopain 1% s 2.9% “Tam 17 ane a6 Poncenton or Au: Aur Devoe Masts, Visi Coun, teases Con Aes Krom Moctgamery Couey Com rer Yor Consty Cae mbm Gmelin Comey Mariage Regie mea oni ity Bring Rete wera The 1865-1068 data dew fos unpub records in he Vin Peden Iara eid, Rend Croup 2, Natal Asien. ate fate ald ny Femme sy hater ih nin all four counts were either eareotes oF blacksmiths. These cerca and mareage registers were campied to son after emancipation to ind ‘ate that slave sls had deteriorated — for whatever resort —at coma ‘quence of emancipation. (The percentage of arta im York, Goochland, sd Losin unten in somewhat higher tha forthe oveal Mack population ‘1965-1066 because artis tended to be older men, and these thee ee srl ot array eyes bad Soha 4 iar of der es aon ‘hem to be spies) P+ B's error eam be iste in ye another way. Ate ‘condng to their overall timate, 263 perent of sdk male aves bad pi Sieged™ aceupaions We bry examine sch men in Gepiah County, Me ‘mip. In 1850 there wee L651 male alas aged fvemty aod olde Hing ‘Bere, and according to F-+ E's etinates 494 should have had privloged tlave accupaional satus. A Freedmen's Bureau lor register, probably fathered in 1865, give the occupations of 386 Copiah black adult salen Unle eiterpriveged forte slaves had qt that place ra adel don adi of rural Back cecupations bad occured by 1865, about 90 blacks ould have ited privilege sceupations, Si did. The percentage of former CCopih swe with prvleged occupations was 15 peront, not 263 percent "The Copia repistants alo gave thee ages ae ax 8 group were sgnesnaly dee than the adult male slaves Hse in the 1960 federal tanuscrpt eens [According 10 FB, araane and other privileged former slaves tended be clder men. The percentage with privieged eceuptions fn 1866, dere fore, should have Been even seater than 263% percent Bit was far ower 15 percent —a foreman,» Blcksith, and four howe servants ‘The Occupations of 20576 Union Army Kentucky Back Soldiers Contrated sith the BE Estimates: A" Tet ofthe Pb E"Thesi “The fourth set of compartive statisti — and by fa the mast convincing — {eine tov many artzane.‘Too few orto many, that te Feveal accuately ‘he percentage of ates is the sive population st large. Unes the pro ate records examined by F ++ B included thre of repreatative dead young planter, the bist in the age rruesare of male saves ised ge fanly exaggerates the percentage of save artians lite in column 4 in ‘Table 14 (T/C Table BS). There fe no way to el the exact percentage of ‘error, but I nupect the proper percentage quite abit ower than the 119 perent reported by F-+ EA drop, my, 07 percent shift the nonartans ae aeoye eae se og 53 mm a Ome ae oe "mm ae se a e soins teomonethtsis 2% Frese reo et Ea 6 {to column 1 (*ordinary’fld hand’) alongwith the surplus slave “over sears rivers and “asisant drivers.” ‘eannot tell whether the age bia in probate records affected the estimated percentage of semisiled slave worker, parculely howe servants, but fnough has been seen in the errors that infated the peccentages in columns 2,3,4, and Gof Table 14 to raliae that the actual percentage of ordinary fld hands in the rural slave population in “about 1850" prety exceeded 173.7 percent ad vss probably no les than 85 percent. Th an adult male population of about £0,000, that shift inthe residual percentage increases the amber offi ands by atleast 100000 and yeverely weakens F + E's tumerton that “slves hed the oppertnity ta Hac within the meal and eo: ‘ote blratchy thar existed under bondage.” The Key 01/C+ Slave Occupational Opportunities end the Acceptance af PlenterSponored Labor Incentives by the Enlaced ‘What began as dscusion of F+ E's analysis of slave rewards and pun ishments ns shifted for these many pages to a detailed examination of thie ‘eonstretion of the dave eecupational dstlbuon. The roan for that detour neds to be ezphasind. The single et of new quantitative materials tte by Fr Eto argue that incentives i Table B35, the “ndings” about lave upward mobility. We need to return, therefore, 10 theicGscusion of the did category of rewards: thos of “a fong-tcm nae ture, often reqlring a decade or more before they paid off” Bat fn what follows, the reader should keepin mind dhe zy evidence wed to construct, the save eecupationalstsctare. F-+ Beare sninize “freedom though ‘manumision” as a Ing-run revard, "The chance of achieving this reward” they admit, “was, of course, quite low.” Te would have been more accurate to write thatthe chaner of achieving tis reward wa much greater in 110 than in 1960, Manumision became more dificult a slavery grew older and ‘eam more institutionalize, Rather than sess rmumission, F-+ E em ‘phaie the opportunities slaves ado rs within the save stem: "Field Ihands could become artsane or drivers, Arians could be allowed to move from the plantation t0 town where they weuld hive themselves out. Drivers ‘ould move up tothe postion of head driver or oveneer. Climbing the eco ‘omic Inder brought not oly socal vats, and semeines more freedom; ie also had signiscant pay in bere housing, better clothing, snd cat bbonuser™® There was, of coune, always room at the tp in sive society ‘But how much and whether one go there depended, in pt, upon how many 7/0, p18 nempty spot exited. Given the errors in F-+ Ri save occupational dsc {Sas the ractapce fo lave “ccc ia” tly cher A pel ‘would be suh more appropriate How Nett Study Save Mobiity: The Brorin T/C 1 needs alo to be emphased that the discusion of slave motility i 1/C i theoretically awed and eonceptally muddled, A sple occopae “inal Uitebuton [about 1850"), whatever percentage are asigned to Patiala shil Ivey, tels nothing abovt upward or downward moneent ‘Moveent in either diesion murs the pasage of time. That i a base pint Unt there ie eridence on the changing tities of save eeepc Yona — between ay, 1B10 and 1850 its not pose Patter and resultant “payotls” F-+ F, furthermore do rot tacunion of tnve "mebilty” by the inferncee based only wpon the ages of arta. Wiad Gy wie haere 16 be Gace at sc eth oe tenet confusion “Lie ston fs ier een al he vgn neh plate bry were apprenied to erp, Dini o ome vine cafe shea they were tr ca en ae wa plely doe nih ier Poe Ses this appear o have been the exception ae tha here, Anas of espinal dst deed fm pect snd planation cords reveal a ‘oad cuartwien of ages among save aa Sle ther tents ee Sebeatly-umdercprecete, he anes thee Toten and es wee ‘reeprected, Ths age patom wegen that the selection Of ave for eg at a uy ed wl te ed ae ‘Noll ths woad be an uneccomal ply, ice the eer an ves ‘neat sade i cesptional tag he fete yea hve ate to rap ie ours cn tha invent Setery seed tir pute by shin the suber ity derrmine ceopaanlinveemens fm the pret othe mers I, {te welt inhip ually the eimary bf termining beh ee ler acted the vexed inte ofa fret He col, terre, ea ety Ito the il ecupane on pe he want ame by the meee Ahoening, repre of fami tact ‘The exe at pa fot by youn fr ands wh competed fr the oe appen o fare mee ha flit the Jaw retuned the eri period oe wich the xen nen ‘meat vas amined, We do not en co rage that Eni played ne le i the inereseracal traf of lls among dave. We tery wish ‘tran tat he le wat eal eed compe hfe aly mid 4-20, a “This argument in volume one is rpperted in volume two by a table (die cused below) and a quotation from a plantation guide published in 1823 which advied savcowners to choos arthans on the tak of previous per formance” a work ened The Jamaica Panter® Guide and’ published in London, England, F-+ E then pick up the argument put forth in volume Toole ai precluded slave from erin cecuptin, grey reduced the nury of slaves In certain capers, slave scey bas Moe ceed ae fre voit On the ther hand sve mcey apc to hve erm me ee te the enty of any divi lo the reed mcs that wee lowed to dave cay ito ee ecco appears we hive depended es on Lin ‘hip and mire on gerornance thin wat heave in many fee ile "To my tat Hip ply mene role in ecupational mbit doe nt imply ht played morte Wile x stesate cunt hae not yet Do unde: tab, ieappean at ose who held prefered occupations were, a dsp. Pena exten, the ofsping of saves who hel ch oeevpatons = ‘There is plain confusion in thee few paragraphs, The reader lars tha ‘Save sity wut “mote elosed than free sity” ut mare open 16 the entry ‘of any individual ino the preferred cceupaticas. allowed to slaves” More ‘open than wha? More open than free wiety? Hardly sa, We have seen how {eww Charleston saves had artisan silk. The Charlton fore blacks were far fewer in number than the Charleston slaves, but Charleston bad more free black than slave araas i 1860. F ++ , however, ray rea that slave ‘society was more open than abolitionist eres dared adit, bu thats hal ‘uefa analytic point. Ths i 1975, not 1B15. We need to know how open that society was. "More open" is nt a usful concept. Nor is their diseusion tlatife by introducing "hinahip” as the alternative source of ill por tuites. Kinship is greatly minimined in volume one s the source of slave fille in order to argue that owners treated ills a “piace” In volume tw, however, daves “who held prefered occupation were, to a disproportionate extent, the ofspring of saves who hel such occupations” It cannot be beth sways. “What do you mean by that?” said the Caterpillar stely. “Explain yourself? “T can't exphin myself, Pm afta, si” sd Alice, "bese Tm ‘ot myself you see” *T dont see” said the Caterpillar. “F'n afraid Tea pt iemor leary.” Alice replied very polity Why Stave Artisans Tended to Be Older Men: Am Alternate Explenation and ts Sccil Implications Some ofthis confusion ruts rom the fact that the probate records have ‘nce again sled F +E, That is clear if we Jk carefully at Table B10 7/6, Thy 18