Customer Reviews

The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The historiography of secession is a complex one. For much of the last century there had been a tendency for historians to underplay the importance of slavery as a cause of the American civil war. Certaintly neo-Confederate apologists have sought to euphemize the cause of the conflict to an issue over tariffs, to matters of states rights, or to the "extremism" of the abolitionists. It is quite clear that these excuses will not survive a reading of this book. Sinha clearly shows, in her examination of South Carolina secessionism from nullifaction to fort Sumter, that slavery was the essence of its concerns. To show this she looks at the nullification crisis, the Mexican war, the Compromise of 1850, the South Carolinian movement to reopen the slave trade, and the secession crisis, based on exhaustive research of no less than 137 sets of private papers and diaries.

But Sinha wishes not simply to refute the academically unimportant group of neo-Calhounites. She wishes to argue something broader. The South Carolinian defense of slavery was not, as many serious historians suggest today, simply the working out of the Southern American view of liberty. Increasingly, Sinha argues, South Carolina pro-slavery thought was not the expression of Southern Republicanism, but increasingly its very negation. It was not a coincidence that secessionism was strongest in South Carolina, the only state by 1832 where presidential electors and the governor were not popularly elected, where the legislature was crudely malapportioned, and where local offices were limited by the state government. It was also not a coincidence that slaves were a majority of South Carolinians, and slaveholders nearly a majority of South Carolinian whites. And it certainly was not a coincidence that non-slaveholders were noticeably less enthusiastic for nullification, secession in 1851 and secession in 1861.

But although Southern nationalist discourse was clearly elitist and pro-slavery, does Sinha show that it was counter-revolutionary? A certain opposition to democracy was evident after all in the many, perhaps most, of the founding fathers. But as Sinha points out leading Carolinians like Calhoun, Senator James Chesnut and the creepy, incestuous James Hammond all sneered at the Declaration of Independence. She quotes one bravado warping PatricK Henry to declare "Give me Slavery or give me death." Notwithstanding the views of some historians to the contrary the South Carolinians criticized the North less for its oppression of wage laborers than the possiblity that those laborers could vote themselves into power. They did not condemn Lincoln as an intolerant Protestant but as a dangerous socialist and feminist. Moreover, they were not slow to raise the Nativist card against the immigrants who were bolstering the North's population. Calhoun's idea of a concurrent majority was not a thoughtful protection of minority rights, but a way to prevent one minority, his own, from ever being outvoted. Once the Confederacy was set up the elite dispensed with political parties. Looking at South Carolina they also began to dispense with competitive elections, while its ruthless elite certainly did not act sentimentally (or even decently) towards opinions on slavery.

In conclusion there have been many frauds and bullies in American political life: the Nixons, the Hoovers, the McCarthys, the Tillmans and the Bilbos. But much of their malignancy was purely personal and they never threatened the core ideals of the republic. Calhoun was different, very different. Extremely intelligent, he was also utterly principled, and absolutely ruthless in carrying out that one principle. The problem was that the principle, despite all the complications of honor and paternalism, was slavery. More so than anyone else, Calhoun was the greatest enemy of liberty and freedom the United States ever had. Sinha's book is an important contribution to understanding that.

Manisha Sinha's The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina (2000) takes a revisionist stance. Her argument, as stated in the introductory pages, ties two strands together. Sinha states that historians should start having a strong focus on slavery again when studying the Civil War, secession, and the Old South. The second strand of this book focuses on South Carolina as having been the most undemocratic state in the antebellum United States. Compared to other Southern states, South Carolina was very different, for example, in terms of government structures and demographics. South Carolina began a counterrevolution to Thomas Jefferson's and the American Revolution's equality. South Carolina led the South and was the first state to begin secession in December 1860. Only by studying slavery and South Carolina's unique conditions, Sinha states, can historians understand what really happened. When studying these events she takes a "great men" approach (especially when studying John Calhoun). Women, African-Americans (including slaves, despite her stated thesis), and other regular citizens are largely absent from this study.

Sinha's assertion that the South had its own nationalism is intriguing. Sinha reminds readers, if indirectly, that the broad dictionary definition of nationalism does not account for the very real and important differences within a nation. On the note of national and regional differences and similarities, Sinha presents the North and the South as being in exact opposition. The North was fully democratic and free of slaves, according to her, and the South was losing its democratic ways and was a "slave society." Her point of view ignores the Northern opposition to abolitionism and anti-slavery movements and the Northern dependence on slavery. Furthermore, 75% of families in the South did not own slaves.

The usefulness of The Counterrevolution of Slavery is greatly compromised by its numerous weaknesses and departures from the scholarly norm. Perhaps, cultural differences and Sinha's having been born in India can account for some of the following differences. First, she proclaims a broad, groundbreaking thesis, but she does not actually provide a convincing argument. To start, her argument would be more convincing if she demonstrated South Carolina's power by comparing it to other states. To provide one of many examples, she states that South Carolina had strict qualifications for governmental positions in terms of property, slave ownership, and debt, but she does not state what the qualifications were in other States. Information such as this is very intriguing, but it is not built upon throughout The Counterrevolution of Slavery. Also, her stand that South Carolina was the most undemocratic might overlook her goal to return the focus to slavery. Enslaved African-Americans throughout the Old (and New) South were all in the most undemocratic state. Overall, there is a disjuncture between her thesis and the information covered and the title of each chapter. Throughout the book, she is actually less interested in slavery and South Carolina's power (or lack of democracy) than in nationally-based political and military events--such as the Mexican War or the Compromise of 1850. She does show South Carolina as leading nullification and in efforts at reopening the African slave trade. She does not, however, discuss any events led (or not led) by other states. Although other states may be beyond her scope, she has an obligation to prove South Carolina was truly what she proclaims it to be.

Second, when stating her thesis, Sinha is overly critical of previous scholarly works. This critique continues throughout the monograph. Rather than recognizing the contributions of her past and current peers, she asserts, for example, their arguments "quite simply miss the point" (5, see also, for example, 125-6). Without these past interpretations based on research and thought, Sinha (and other scholars) would lack opportunities to make new, and perhaps, more complete interpretations. Scholarship is a process of building. Sinha only believes her interpretation has validity. When past scholars agree with her, she ignores them. Third, Sinha does not define key terms or events (e.g., nullification crisis, sectionalism, liberty, liberalism, tariff, Unionists) and she does not explain the people she mentions (she often has long lists of names). More importantly, she often falls to differentiate between Carolina/Carolinian, South Carolina, and North Carolina.

Fourth, Sinha's writing style is very unusual, at least to the typical reader in the United States, thus making her book very difficult or impossible to follow. Again, she does not define key terms and events. To use one of many examples: "according to the republican school of southern political historians [an undefined term and school coined by her], secession was an allegedly democratic movement and the outcome of a widespread republican fear of enslavement rather than a bid to save slavery" (3). What does this mean? What does republican mean? It seems it has at least two different meanings in this one sentence, and by the context it seems neither one is a typical use. Republican has at least three distinct and established meanings in United States history.

Much could be done with the ideas started in The Counterrevolution of Slavery. The ideas are very unique, even if they lack grounding, and these ideas should provoke interesting research by future scholars. For example, occasional statements about South Carolina's tendencies toward a more undemocratic society are thought provoking. Given another, say, fifty years and successful independence, would a king have arisen in the South or South Carolina? Overall, The Counterrevolution of Slavery asserts many good ideas, but it neither proves them, nor provides a clear explanation outside of the creative epigraphs.