What do you think?
Rate this book
The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina
In this comprehensive analysis of politics and ideology in antebellum South Carolina, Manisha Sinha offers a provocative new look at the roots of southern separatism and the causes of the Civil War. Challenging works that portray secession as a fight for white liberty, she argues instead that it was a conservative, antidemocratic movement to protect and perpetuate racial slavery.
Sinha discusses some of the major sectional crises of the antebellum era--including nullification, the conflict over the expansion of slavery into western territories, and secession--and offers an important reevaluation of the movement to reopen the African slave trade in the 1850s. In the process she reveals the central role played by South Carolina planter politicians in developing proslavery ideology and the use of states' rights and constitutional theory for the defense of slavery.
Sinha's work underscores the necessity of integrating the history of slavery with the traditional narrative of southern politics. Only by taking into account the political importance of slavery, she insists, can we arrive at a complete understanding of southern politics and the enormity of the issues confronting both northerners and southerners on the eve of the Civil War.
Sinha discusses some of the major sectional crises of the antebellum era--including nullification, the conflict over the expansion of slavery into western territories, and secession--and offers an important reevaluation of the movement to reopen the African slave trade in the 1850s. In the process she reveals the central role played by South Carolina planter politicians in developing proslavery ideology and the use of states' rights and constitutional theory for the defense of slavery.
Sinha's work underscores the necessity of integrating the history of slavery with the traditional narrative of southern politics. Only by taking into account the political importance of slavery, she insists, can we arrive at a complete understanding of southern politics and the enormity of the issues confronting both northerners and southerners on the eve of the Civil War.
378 pages, Paperback
First published October 30, 2000
10 people are currently reading
513 people want to read
About the author
Manisha Sinha
20 books56 followersManisha Sinha is professor at the University of Connecticut and the James L. and Shirley A. Draper Chair in American History. She was born in India and received her Ph.D from Columbia University where her dissertation was nominated for the Bancroft prize. In 2017, she was named one of Top Twenty Five Women in Higher Education by the magazine Diverse: Issues in Higher Education.
Sinha's research interests lie in United States history, especially the transnational histories of slavery and abolition and the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Sinha's research interests lie in United States history, especially the transnational histories of slavery and abolition and the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 17, 2014
In “The Counter-Revolution of Slavery” author and historian Mnisha Sinha presents and defends a provocative thesis regarding the origins and causes of the Civil War. Sinha contends that the political consensus for succession that gained currency in the South over the three decades preceding the outbreak of war was, in essence, an elite-led antidemocratic reaction to the egalitarian ideals of the 1776 American Revolution. In Sinha’s construction, the South, influenced principally by South Carolina politicos under the leadership of John C. Calhoun, reconciled the ancient paradox represented by American egalitarian ideals and the concurrent practice of slavery by simply rejecting the egalitarian ideals that made slavery troubling. No, Sinha has Calhounite ideologues saying, all men are most certainly NOT created equal, and it’s foolish to live under a government determined to pretend that they are.
As the vehicle for fleshing out her thesis, Sinha focuses on four critical events that occurred in the decades preceding the war that illustrate the evolution of these fundamentally undemocratic principles, and how they metastasized into the trajectory-altering political dogmas that ultimately led to war. These were the 1832 South Carolina nullification crisis, the South Carolina session crisis in the aftermath of the Compromise of 1850, the South Carolina led attempt to reestablish the slave trade in the late 1850’s and, of course, the path to session itself following the election of the “black Republican” Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
According to Sinha, South Carolinian aggravation in the 1820’s and 1830’s over the federal government’s imposition of import tariffs designed to protect Northern industries at, in the Southern view, the expense of Southern cotton exporters evolved into discontent over the very concept of majority rule. In the intervening years, this discontent grew to outrage as Southern planters felt themselves increasingly “oppressed” by the will of a majority – expressed principally in disputes with the North over the expansion of slavery into the Western American territories - for which they had mounting contempt. Northern proto-industrialists, the masses of Irish and German immigrants who, in the view of Southern elites, prostituted themselves by working for wages and, worst of all, abolitionists who seemed determined to grant freedom, social equality and the right to vote to slaves constituted the constituency of “unworthies” to which, majority though they may be, Southern elites in general and the South Carolinian elites in particular felt increasingly disinclined to submit.
Central to Sinha’s thesis is the notion that the conditions for a secessionist revolution were conceptualized by a small band of South Carolinian planter elites led by John C. Calhoun and, over the course of several years, was exported as a cogent ideology throughout the rest of the South. As such, Sinha’s thesis is either a thoughtful examination of the potential for rich and powerful men to cynically and self-servingly influence the course of human events to their own benefit, or it’s a paranoid conspiracy theory.
In order to fully embrace the former, one is required to fully explain a number of things that would have been necessary for this presumed group of egomaniacs to succeed. First, and most importantly, one must understand the means by which the median Southern white – the poor, non-slaveholding yeoman farmer – was convinced to enthusiastically embrace a course of action whose end result could only be the further enrichment of the wealthy at the expense of their own interests and potential, and how this con job could be convincingly sold throughout an entire region of the country. Sinha provides partial answers to some of these questions. In particular, she discusses, at least superficially, the means by which low-country planters won disproportionate representation for themselves through a kind of gerrymandering, how the dissenting opinions of unionists were marginalized out of existence through programs of social ostracism and outright violence, how the opposition political party was effectively thrown out of the state and how media messaging / propaganda was coordinated and disseminated. What she does not address – and what is critical for her in order to conclusively make her case - is an explanation of the processes by which the median Southern white was approached and radicalized to the point that they were prepared in 1861 to leave their families and farms and go fight for un-democracy.
With these things said, the most compelling part of her thesis is that it rings utterly true when contrasted against the dangerously anti-democratic character of America’s contemporary red-state political economy. To characterize the evolution of political thought in antebellum South Carolina as one dominated by wealthy men who sneer at democracy (Koch Brothers & friends) and who use their financial and political clout to limit the franchise (red-state voter suppression laws) and lessen its impact (gerrymandered permanent House Republican majority), control the media (Fox News et. al.), manipulate the courts (Citizen’s United and dismantling of the 1964 Civil Rights Act), ostracize of dissenters (the scourge of being "liberal") tending towards one-party domination (see 2012 electoral map) and cast doubt on the current democratically elected government (Obama snuck in from Kenya in order to infect the country with Ebola) all to convince the median voter that their best bet for preserving their own liberty is to surrender it to a cabal of superficially sympathetic rich guys is to describe the America we live in today.
Sinha’s thesis is compelling, and while she’s left some things maddeningly unexplained, her book nonetheless comes very close to making its case. I now find myself interested in reading more about the antebellum median Southern white in order to understand better what made going to war make sense for him.
Stylistically, Sinha’s work is a history written primarily for the benefit of other historians. As such, it is not a light, breezy read likely to attract and hold the attention of a casual reader. Compelling and thought provoking, it is certainly worth the effort; but - fair warning - it is work to get through.
As the vehicle for fleshing out her thesis, Sinha focuses on four critical events that occurred in the decades preceding the war that illustrate the evolution of these fundamentally undemocratic principles, and how they metastasized into the trajectory-altering political dogmas that ultimately led to war. These were the 1832 South Carolina nullification crisis, the South Carolina session crisis in the aftermath of the Compromise of 1850, the South Carolina led attempt to reestablish the slave trade in the late 1850’s and, of course, the path to session itself following the election of the “black Republican” Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
According to Sinha, South Carolinian aggravation in the 1820’s and 1830’s over the federal government’s imposition of import tariffs designed to protect Northern industries at, in the Southern view, the expense of Southern cotton exporters evolved into discontent over the very concept of majority rule. In the intervening years, this discontent grew to outrage as Southern planters felt themselves increasingly “oppressed” by the will of a majority – expressed principally in disputes with the North over the expansion of slavery into the Western American territories - for which they had mounting contempt. Northern proto-industrialists, the masses of Irish and German immigrants who, in the view of Southern elites, prostituted themselves by working for wages and, worst of all, abolitionists who seemed determined to grant freedom, social equality and the right to vote to slaves constituted the constituency of “unworthies” to which, majority though they may be, Southern elites in general and the South Carolinian elites in particular felt increasingly disinclined to submit.
Central to Sinha’s thesis is the notion that the conditions for a secessionist revolution were conceptualized by a small band of South Carolinian planter elites led by John C. Calhoun and, over the course of several years, was exported as a cogent ideology throughout the rest of the South. As such, Sinha’s thesis is either a thoughtful examination of the potential for rich and powerful men to cynically and self-servingly influence the course of human events to their own benefit, or it’s a paranoid conspiracy theory.
In order to fully embrace the former, one is required to fully explain a number of things that would have been necessary for this presumed group of egomaniacs to succeed. First, and most importantly, one must understand the means by which the median Southern white – the poor, non-slaveholding yeoman farmer – was convinced to enthusiastically embrace a course of action whose end result could only be the further enrichment of the wealthy at the expense of their own interests and potential, and how this con job could be convincingly sold throughout an entire region of the country. Sinha provides partial answers to some of these questions. In particular, she discusses, at least superficially, the means by which low-country planters won disproportionate representation for themselves through a kind of gerrymandering, how the dissenting opinions of unionists were marginalized out of existence through programs of social ostracism and outright violence, how the opposition political party was effectively thrown out of the state and how media messaging / propaganda was coordinated and disseminated. What she does not address – and what is critical for her in order to conclusively make her case - is an explanation of the processes by which the median Southern white was approached and radicalized to the point that they were prepared in 1861 to leave their families and farms and go fight for un-democracy.
With these things said, the most compelling part of her thesis is that it rings utterly true when contrasted against the dangerously anti-democratic character of America’s contemporary red-state political economy. To characterize the evolution of political thought in antebellum South Carolina as one dominated by wealthy men who sneer at democracy (Koch Brothers & friends) and who use their financial and political clout to limit the franchise (red-state voter suppression laws) and lessen its impact (gerrymandered permanent House Republican majority), control the media (Fox News et. al.), manipulate the courts (Citizen’s United and dismantling of the 1964 Civil Rights Act), ostracize of dissenters (the scourge of being "liberal") tending towards one-party domination (see 2012 electoral map) and cast doubt on the current democratically elected government (Obama snuck in from Kenya in order to infect the country with Ebola) all to convince the median voter that their best bet for preserving their own liberty is to surrender it to a cabal of superficially sympathetic rich guys is to describe the America we live in today.
Sinha’s thesis is compelling, and while she’s left some things maddeningly unexplained, her book nonetheless comes very close to making its case. I now find myself interested in reading more about the antebellum median Southern white in order to understand better what made going to war make sense for him.
Stylistically, Sinha’s work is a history written primarily for the benefit of other historians. As such, it is not a light, breezy read likely to attract and hold the attention of a casual reader. Compelling and thought provoking, it is certainly worth the effort; but - fair warning - it is work to get through.
August 30, 2020
The life story of Professor Manisha Sinha is an interesting tale. A native of India, her father was a high-ranking general in the Indian Army. She earned her Ph. D. at Columbia University where the dissertation from this book came was nominated for the Bancroft Prize. Thought she holds an endowed chair at the University of Connecticut, I became aware of her scholarship through an interview about a more recent book, The Slave's Cause about abolitionism.
The present book, though now 20 years old, still stands out as a well-research, well-written, and tightly argued example of historical scholarship. Her argument is not entirely new, to my view, but does put a distinct focus on the nature of politics in antebellum South Carolina. Here, Dr. Sinha argues that South Carolina's planter politicians (her phrase and a good one) were acutely focused on their need to create a state-level and national-level political system protecting their central institution, racial slavery.
She argues South Carolina stood out against trends towards a broader franchise in voting, keeping planter control, in a way that was unlike the rest of the southern states. In this regards, her argument reminds me of other works focused on poorer whites that I read recently such as Poor Whites in the Antebellum South by Charles C. Bolton. She actually refers, at least implicitly, to all non-planters as subaltern classes, reflecting, I think, the influence of postcolonial studies and critical theory, which I think has most used this construct in regards to southeast Asian history.
Thus, Dr. Sinha argues, South Carolina developed a discourse or theory of government that was markedly anti-democratic and focused on the advancement of slavery. These ideas were developed by men such as John C. Calhoun and had pointed South Carolina towards a nascent southern nationalism and willingness to break away from the United States at least a generation before the guns sounded at Fort Sumter.
She does not develop as much as I might have liked the influence of South Carolina on the deep south cotton states. A substantial potion of this region's antebellum leaders hailed from South Carolina and had been schooled in these ideas at South Carolina College, later called the University of South Carolina.
Eventually, this brand of anti-majoritarianism and focus on the protection of slavery as a political and economic institution took hold throughout the South, argues Professor Sinha. In the end, this rejection of the American Revolution and its focus on human rights led South Carolina to lead its sister southern states out of the United States, and into the maw of war.
The present book, though now 20 years old, still stands out as a well-research, well-written, and tightly argued example of historical scholarship. Her argument is not entirely new, to my view, but does put a distinct focus on the nature of politics in antebellum South Carolina. Here, Dr. Sinha argues that South Carolina's planter politicians (her phrase and a good one) were acutely focused on their need to create a state-level and national-level political system protecting their central institution, racial slavery.
She argues South Carolina stood out against trends towards a broader franchise in voting, keeping planter control, in a way that was unlike the rest of the southern states. In this regards, her argument reminds me of other works focused on poorer whites that I read recently such as Poor Whites in the Antebellum South by Charles C. Bolton. She actually refers, at least implicitly, to all non-planters as subaltern classes, reflecting, I think, the influence of postcolonial studies and critical theory, which I think has most used this construct in regards to southeast Asian history.
Thus, Dr. Sinha argues, South Carolina developed a discourse or theory of government that was markedly anti-democratic and focused on the advancement of slavery. These ideas were developed by men such as John C. Calhoun and had pointed South Carolina towards a nascent southern nationalism and willingness to break away from the United States at least a generation before the guns sounded at Fort Sumter.
She does not develop as much as I might have liked the influence of South Carolina on the deep south cotton states. A substantial potion of this region's antebellum leaders hailed from South Carolina and had been schooled in these ideas at South Carolina College, later called the University of South Carolina.
Eventually, this brand of anti-majoritarianism and focus on the protection of slavery as a political and economic institution took hold throughout the South, argues Professor Sinha. In the end, this rejection of the American Revolution and its focus on human rights led South Carolina to lead its sister southern states out of the United States, and into the maw of war.
February 14, 2022
More than half of Americans think the Civil War was about states rights and not about slavery. That belief is a lie propagated by organizations like the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy. Sinha's book provides mountains of testimony from the leaders of the movement for secession documenting the centrality of slavery in their ideology of southern nationhood. Their attachment to slavery encompassed a blunt rejection of human equality and even of democracy itself.
Some have argued the Rebellion of 1861 was a reassertion of the principles of the Revolution of 1776. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the title of Sinha's book anounces, secession was a thorough counterrevolutio0n.
The book is weighty in its cast of characters and quotations and thus not an easy read. But its argument is vital to debunking the Myth of the Lost Cause and giving us all an accurate understanding of what the Confederacy was about -- slavery!
Some have argued the Rebellion of 1861 was a reassertion of the principles of the Revolution of 1776. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the title of Sinha's book anounces, secession was a thorough counterrevolutio0n.
The book is weighty in its cast of characters and quotations and thus not an easy read. But its argument is vital to debunking the Myth of the Lost Cause and giving us all an accurate understanding of what the Confederacy was about -- slavery!
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews