This detailed analysis of slavery in the antebellum South was written in 1975 in response to the prior year's publication of Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman's controversial Time on the Cross , which argued that slavery was an efficient and dynamic engine for the southern economy and that its success was due largely to the willing cooperation of the slaves themselves.
Noted labor historian Herbert G. Gutman was unconvinced, even outraged, by Fogel and Engerman's arguments. In this book he offers a systematic dissection of Time on the Cross , drawing on a wealth of data to contest that book's most fundamental assertions. A benchmark work of historical inquiry, Gutman's critique sheds light on a range of crucial aspects of slavery and its economic effectiveness.
Gutman emphasizes the slaves' responses to their treatment at the hands of slaveowners. He shows that slaves labored, not because they shared values and goals with their masters, but because of the omnipresent threat of 'negative incentives,' primarily physical violence.
In his introduction to this new edition, Bruce Levine provides a historical analysis of the debate over Time on the Cross . Levine reminds us of the continuing influence of the latter book, demonstrated by Robert W. Fogel's 1993 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, and hence the importance and timeliness of Gutman's critique.
An academic critique of the dissertation Time on the Cross which it is advisable to read first to make sense of this work. Both pieces take a look at black slavery in the United States. The work was written for academics not the history lay person.
This book is a counter to the book Time on the Cross which had two economic writers declaring that slavery was an effective Southern economic enterprise mostly because of the 'willing' participation of the enslaved. Now that book was written about 1974 and this about a year later. This held that argument was false and that the enslaved participate because of 'negative incentives' namely physical punishments and offered other numbers.
I read this 25 years ago and don't remember that much about it but it was logically presented and with a lot of numbers that isn't my strong point. Gutman was not impressed with the other people's argument and was disgusted by the idea that the enslaved were willing participants or shared similar values as those that held them in bondage.
But what really disgusts me, reading this summary again, is that one of the authors was then given the Nobel prize in 1993 for economics. I really hope that it was mainly because of other work, but still, that is very offensive.