Slavery and the Numbers Game: A Critique of Time on the Cross (Paperback)

~ Herbert G. Gutman (Author) "Just as southern history has its "central theme," so, too, does T/C in dealing with the beliefs and behavior of enslaved Afro-Americans, that is, in..." (more)
Key Phrases: negative labor incentives, positive labor incentives, slave socialization, New Orleans, Civil War, South Carolina (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Gutman has destroyed the mathematical mystique of Time on the Cross, punctured its claims of novelty, accuracy, and understanding, examined the past reviews of the work, and begun a new tradition in his critique." -- American Historical Review

Product Description

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.

Product Details

• Paperback: 216 pages
• Publisher: University of Illinois Press (August 12, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0252071514
• ISBN-13: 978-0252071515
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #971,580 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars good, and yet lacking, June 22, 2007

By	A. Rajendran - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Gutman's analysis of T/C is marked by the same measure of excellence as T/C itself; Gutman's successful venture into cliometrics is obviously indicative of his prowess and flexibility as a historian. Gutman's greatest success in writing his criticism amounts to this: he beat Fogel and Engerman at their own game by demonstrating the lack of uniformity and impotence of the statistics used by the authors, as well as exposing many tenuous claims Fogel and Engerman drew from their data. His criticism, although at times annoyingly tenacious in its attempt to prove the cliometricians wrong, is thorough and a solid piece of scholarship. His persistence, though admirable, is also his biggest folly, for Gutman fails to refute the overarching implications made by T/C, most notably the implication that the antebellum south was capitalist in nature, and was managed by the planter elite, who were, like northern industrialists, driven by economic rationality and the profit motive. This oversight is significant for Genovese, and he quickly addressed the fallicy put forth. He draws directly from Marx (aptly) the distinction between capitalist and pre-capitalist being wholly contingent upon the social (labor) relation between the bourgeois and laboring classes. Because, as Marx deliniates, the social relation in capitalist society is characterized by the presence of wage labor, Genovese rightly rejects the classification of the southern economy as capitalist. Explaining why the Marxist interpretation is more fitting would require a lengthy and tedious review of the first volume of Capital, but if the reader is familiar with Marx, he can appriciate that the advantage the Marxist model offers over the Capitalist (chiefly Ricardian) interpretation (the emphasis here being placed upon the existence of labor markets). Furthermore, Genovese's indictment of T/C places a necessary emphasis on the societal aspect of planter society, pointing out its unique, often contradictory place inbetween capitalist and pre-capitalist societies. He characterizes the south as being merchant capitalist, essentially societies that were heavily influenced by profit motive and raw commodity production, yet still retaining a feudalistic flavor in regards to social, and more importantly, labor relations. Fruits of Merchant Capital by Genovese and his wife offers a much more vivid and deep examination of T/C than the overview I've provided, and a more historically pervasive and satisfactory case for rejecting many of T/C's arguments than Gutman's statistical retaliation. I know, my adoration of Genovese is not well hidden, but the assessment of T/C in Fruits is undoubtedly a stronger and more thorough (while remaining less viturperative) socio-economic indictment than is Gutman's Slavery and the Numbers Game. Read both if you have the time and judge for yourself.