Enjoy fast, FREE delivery, exclusive deals and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Instant streaming of thousands of movies and TV episodes with Prime Video
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
$18.69$18.69
FREE delivery: Monday, May 29 on orders over $25.00 shipped by Amazon.
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Buy used: $15.99
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
84% positive over last 12 months
+ $3.99 shipping
91% positive over last 12 months
Usually ships within 4 to 5 days.
& FREE Shipping
92% positive over last 12 months
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the Authors
OK
Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Slavery Revised ed. Edition
Purchase options and add-ons
First published in 1974, Fogel and Engerman's groundbreaking book reexamined the economic foundations of American slavery, marking "the start of a new period of slavery scholarship and some searching revisions of a national tradition" (C. Vann Woodward, New York Review of Books).
- ISBN-100393312186
- ISBN-13978-0393312188
- EditionRevised ed.
- PublisherW. W. Norton & Company
- Publication dateAugust 17, 1995
- LanguageEnglish
- Dimensions5.5 x 0.9 x 8.3 inches
- Print length336 pages
Frequently bought together

What do customers buy after viewing this item?
- Lowest Pricein this set of products
Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum SouthKenneth M. StamppPaperback
The Mind of the Master Class: History and Faith in the Southern Slaveholders' WorldviewElizabeth Fox-GenovesePaperback
Editorial Reviews
Review
― New York Times Book Review
From the Back Cover
About the Author
Stanley L. Engerman is an economist and economic historian at the University of Rochester. His controversial writings on the economics of slavery with economist Robert Fogel were some of the first modern treatments of the subject.
Product details
- Publisher : W. W. Norton & Company; Revised ed. edition (August 17, 1995)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 336 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0393312186
- ISBN-13 : 978-0393312188
- Item Weight : 13.8 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.5 x 0.9 x 8.3 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #202,978 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #90 in United States History (Books)
- #468 in U.S. Civil War History
- #630 in Human Resources (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the authors

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviewed in the United States on July 2, 2022
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
In the late sixties and early seventies black-white issues were handled in pop films like "In the Heat of the Night". Today we have movies like "Django". In the earlier film we had Sidney Poitier as a kind of black moral superman who showed the ignorant southern whites what it was like to be a civilized, intelligent and noble northerner who just happened to be black.
More recently the south as depicted in film in Django is hardly an improvement. Django is a kind of horror movie with Leo Di Caprio playing Leather Face. If this is how Americans after three quarters of a century of the civil rights movement are supposed to understand the plantation system in the antebellum South, then we need this book more than ever.
The main purpose of this book is refute the odd notion that slavery made no sense economically. In the last chapter they state that the antislavery rhetorical thrust changed from being primarily religious to being economic in the short period of 1854 thru 1856. Apparently the 'slavery is bad economics' argument was very effective and has held sway over popular and academic thought ever since. But of course it makes very little sense.
Slavery I think is wrong because it's contrary to human biology. I'm a modern secularist so that's how I think. A nineteenth century Christian would undoubtedly cast the same argument in moralistic terms. But the idea that slavery was widely practiced even though it was economically disadvantageous is a bizarre notion.
I would put it this way. Visit the zoo and go to the lion's cages. The lion you see will have a full mane and be large, healthy and crazy. The big cats when in captivity live longer and are better fed than their wild cousins. But many of them pace their small cages incessantly. This is a sign that they are being tortured by confinement. If the cage door opens by mistake they immediately escape. They do not run back into the cage where they were well fed and treated. They want freedom.
You can of course domesticate animals - my cat doesn't try to escape - but animals in the wild want to be free. So it is with human populations. Fogel and Entermann show us that black slaves ate better, and lived longer than their free cousins too. When the gang slave system in the South was abolished by Emancipation the blacks became share croppers for themselves. They then died younger, ate more poorly, and had fewer economic opportunities in the cities than formerly. But they still wanted to be free. Human nature.
Fogel and Entermann make an excellent case that the gang slave system on the big plantations was comparable to similar 'division of labor' strategies in the more industrialized North. In the North artisanal manufacturing was being replaced with 'interchangeable parts' and 'assembly lines'. In the South multiple slave gangs who only did one specialized agricultural task were likewise more efficient. I found their argument to be completely convincing. Slave agriculture was very efficient for certain crops in certain areas.
I think Fogel misses the point however when he argues that the abolitionists who claimed that slavery would soon disappear on its own were wrong. He presents a convincing case that slavery was not likely to collapse under its own weight in only a decade or so. The import of this argument is obviously that the Civil War could probably have been avoided if slavery was on its last legs. I can't argue with his figures but I think he got the time period wrong.
Fogel doesn't so much discuss slavery in general as the specific and particular highly organized slave gang system that existed on large Southern cotton plantations. In fact this system was doomed in the long run. Fogel just didn't look far enough ahead. The slave gang system operated for only a very short period of time at the very end of chattel slavery. There had been all sorts of slavery all over the world since the binning of the Neolithic period six thousand years earlier. The 'Time on the Cross'- America's experience with black slavery was only about 250 years or 350 if you include the Spanish colonies. The actual period for the kind of slavery that most think of when they think of Southern plantations is shorter yet. It is only about a century between Whitney's invention of the Cotton Gin and Rust's invention of the Cotton Picker. The Civil War was about in the middle of this period.
Gang slavery for cotton growing was still the most efficient way for it to be done at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation - but it wouldn't have been for much longer. We know this we complete certainty because the cotton picker introduced in the early twentieth century did the work of forty field hands. This mechanical innovation kicked off the 'Great Migration' from the Mississippi cotton fields to Detroit and California. The slave gang system was going to die but it was probably goings to take much longer than anyone in the North was willing to wait. You could probably have held off hostilities if slavery was only going to last another decade, but not another five or six decades.
Fogel presents a picture of the large plantation as a well run business enterprise - and it is a convincing picture. If I were to run a plantation I imagine I would be humane and paternalistic. Most people probably think they would do the same. But we don't trust some others. Maybe they would be as nasty as Leonardo Di Caprio was in Django. But that's not very likely. Fogel emphasizes that plantation owners had an economic incentive to maintain slave morale through solid family life, suppression of promiscuity, teamwork and justice. Di Caprio rapes and murders his slaves at a whim. Fogel points out that even very large plantations seldom had more than six whites. That would be three white males who maintained discipline largely without firearms. But of course in the Tarantino fantasy plantation where they rape, murder and torture slaves routinely they have dozens and dozens of heavily armed men. These gratuitous gunmen all get shot in the last reel by Django.
The point is that the slave plantation had to be paternalistic and largely self governing. No business could afford all the guards, runaways and revolts as popularly imagined. Cotton is a uniform product. If your plantation is inefficient buyers can find a substitute. Fogel makes a good case that the dynamics of the market strongly favored humane and enlightened plantation management .
But of course there were certainly abuses. You might say that the fatal flaw of slavery was the lacks of lawyers. Slaves had no or almost no rights. If your master whipped you, you couldn't sue. Mere market forces in favor of good treatment were not sufficient.
Fogel writes at some length about racism and he's against it. He accepts without discussion that the nearly universal opinion at the time that blacks were racially inferior was a mistake. He likewise never discusses areas where blacks might be superior. For example, he has a few paragraphs on health and disease. He discusses nurses, doctors, and hospitals available on the bigger plantations. I was surprised to learn that slaves on the better plantations generally got excellent medical treatment by the standards of the day. He discusses the state of medical knowledge such as it was and thinks a slave might be better off without access to a doctor. I agree. Bleeding doesn't help.
Slaves, he shows had comparable life expectancies to the whites of the day. He doesn't mention it, but it's clear from his figures that black slaves in America had longer life expectancies than similar people back in Africa. Slaves got more calories than whites and ate similar foods. They got a lot of meat, vegetables and fruits. Many slaves of course had their own gardens. So if a white man was kidnapped into the slavery of naval impressment as was common in those days he was likely to soon suffer from vitamin deficiencies (scurvy). Solomon Northrup (12 Years a Slave) didn't have that to fear when he was kidnapped onto a Southern farm. American slaves ate well. That only made economic sense since they were expected to work hard everyday and after 1808 they could not be replaced from Africa. Slaves as Fogel points out in the Caribbean or Brazil ate much less well.
But one vital disease issue of slavery is not discussed in Fogel at all. Historically Abraham Piersay in Jamestown found that the indentured white Londoners he brought with him died quickly in the Jamestown fields. He was asked by the colony government to get some black slaves who might last longer. White slaves had also been tried in the Caribbean sugar fields but had again not proven to be able to survive. Amerindians also proved to be poor at being field slaves. I would have liked to have seen more detail on this often observed phenomenon. Blacks seem to have an economic advantage in their greater capacity for hard work in subtropical fields.
But Fogel steers well away from any discussion of issues that might suggest that there are any kind of genetic differences among the races. He attributes the higher infant mortality and lower birth weights among slaves as consequences of slavery. More recently Rushton has shown that these effects are probably consequences of differing r/K biological strategies. Blacks and whites differ on a host of characteristics that stem directly from race not economic circumstances.
Fogel has two personal/professional characteristics that should be kept in mind. First he's a Nobel Prize winner. He also received other honors in his long career. He is not just another self appointed expert. He is one of the founders of 'cliometrics' - quantitative economic history. Secondly he married a black woman and they had two mixed race children. Some critics have called him an apologist for slavery and by implication a racist. I don't think that characterization fits.
Fogel also attributes the common imputation that blacks and white rednecks are lazy to simple prejudice. In fact these common attitudes are probably based on fact. Until the Rockefeller foundation helped eradicate hookworm in the South, both races were lethargic and shiftless. Parasite infestation was a major economic burden in the semi tropical south east part of the nation ever since they were introduced from Africa as part of the slave trade.
Finally I have to warn people about the very inferior printing of this volume. The text is readable if a bit crude but the many graphs and charts are really terrible. Somewhere in the reproduction process all the graphs got printed on dark backgrounds. In many cases they are simply unreadable and even when you can make out what the message is it is very hard on the eyes.
I have read most of the Slave Narratives and I've make a lifelong (I'm 56) study of like in the Antebellum and post-war South, plus I can still remember life in rural Louisiana in the 50's as a small boy and have heard many stories from grandparents born before 1900. I have also read many many works (no longer in print) written right before and right after the war.
First, anyone who believes the Civil War was fought over slavery is just plain foolish and definitely has an agenda and will NEVER learn anything. With that said, and based on all I have read, I believe that the real truth lies somewhere almost in the middle of what 'Time on the Cross' proposes and what Gutman's contradictory writing show.
I believe that before ANY student or academician of this subject can even begin to form an opinion, they need to read the Slave Narratives to form a foundation. Afterall, these were real intereviews, real opinions, from the real people who lived through it. How can any modern author, through the tinted glasses of time, even hope to come close to evaluating this subject without reading these essential compilations? Whether they 'fit' into today's politically correct notions or not, they cannot be ignored (even though they have been suppressed for many years as if they never existed).
Slavery was a terrible thing that happened all over the world, and, I believe that had it not been for the assassination of Lincoln (who believed all blacks should be returned to Africa!), that race relations in this country would have been much different than they were up until 1970. I believe that race relations were hurt terribly by the reconstruction of the South.
Do I believe the United States would be better off today if it was an all-white society? Yes, I do. I believe this not because I don't believe two races can't co-exist (although this is naturally difficult), but because we have become so sensitive today and politically correct that not even Bill Cosby and address the real problems of the black community without being attacked, so how can I expect any better.
I heard tonight on TV that it is 'unknown' why the illigitimacy rate is so high among black teenagers. Well, duh! Simply put, what has happened in this country is that whites and blacks were mixed in the 60's and 70's in order to provide more opportunity to blacks and to raise their standards. Well, this would have been difficult enough to do in the first place since it defies the laws of nature and physics. But, when political correctness and 'race sensitivity' is added to the equation, there was only one outcome.
That outcome is a lowering of standards for blacks and whites alike - not only academically, but socially and morally as well. I know for a fact that in the first half of the 20th century, the moral level of blacks was much higher than it is overall today. Why?
I believe that an environment was created (probably on purpose) where instead of the lower elements (blacks) being elevated to higher levels of morality and academics and socio-economics by whites, that the reverse happened. The standards were pulled down and now today (as evidenced by our high schools) the overall levels of both blacks and whites are lower than either were before integration was even started. It will continue to go lower, I guess, until the US is at the bottom of the list in educational level compared to other countries. Will we ever learn? If we care about all our children, both black and white, are we to sacrifice them on the altar of 'race relations'? Are they to become 3rd rate when compared to countries like China, India, Russia, Japan, and most of Europe on educational levels? Probably so. But, the government and the race panderers will have what they want.
The Southern States use of slave labor made them a, "economic juggernaut" poised to overtake the Industrialized Northern States economically prior to the Civil War. Of course, we can not put any price on a person's freedom and the author does not suggest otherwise.
Top reviews from other countries
It uses cliometric (economic) techniques to investigate the institution of slavery and come up with some revolutionary conclusions.
However, the reader should be aware this work is now regarded as almost completely discredited for many reasons, including sloppy methodology, incorrect source data, misrepresentations, flawed assumptions and outright non sequiturs. In my opinion, it's one of those history works like AJP Taylor's Origins which sets out to be deliberately provocative, cherry picks whatever supports a (politically motivated) preconceived conclusion and ignores contrary evidence to come up with an unconvincing "revisionist" conclusion. Like AJP Taylor's Origins, it received wide acclamation from the general public but severe criticism, even outrage, from experts some of which was published in a detailed rebuttal.
If you want to read it, best would be to read it in conjunction with Gutman's critique:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Slavery-Numbers-Game-Critique-Blacks/dp/0252071514/ref=sr_1_5
Fogel and Engerman attack the historians they regard as economically illiterate, particularly Ulrich Phillips. Phillips believed that slavery was an inefficient user of incompetent labour, financially unprofitable and doomed to failure in competition with free labour, and that it inhibited the economic development of the southern USA. He also argued that the aim of plantation society was less to make money than to control and "civilise" its black slaves and that its leaders were benign patriarchal landlords, not crude exploiters.
Fogel and Engerman disagree on every point. They challenge Phillips' stereotype of slaves as incompetent or inefficient. They also argue that southern farms using slave gang labour were more efficient than northern free farms, and that gang labour was efficient and well managed, often by black managers. Their economic evidence for this efficiency seems credible. However, they also show that gang labour involved forcing slaves to work in conditions in which free labour, black or white, would refuse to work except for wages that would make the plantations uneconomic. The apparent efficiency of gang labour was therefore based on compulsion not purely on economic factors.
Secondly, they argue that the material conditions of slaves were not inferior to those of free farmers, including southern poor-whites. Here, their estimates are based on limited data (often planters' rough estimates) of food produced on southern plantations, or on national, mainly northern, averages frequently from post civil war years. This not only makes their conclusions on living standards dubious, but suggests a less than impartial acceptance of unsuitable data to prove their assumptions.
Fogel and Engerman seem largely insensitive to the human consequences of slavery. They excuse this, claiming that their study is about the economics of slavery in comparison with free farming. This looks like an evasion: Phillips, who they rightly criticise, tried to describe the whole phenomenon of pre-Civil War slavery and these authors' attack on him and others is not limited to economics. For example, their attacks on 19th century accounts of bad plantation conditions, not only from convinced abolitionists, are close to an apology for the plantation system.
Overall, the authors prove some, but not all, of the points they make on the efficiency of slavery, but only in in purely economic terms. However, their optimistic views on the material conditions of slaves and their minimising of its brutality and oppression detract from the value of their account. If you read this book, read it critically, and be aware of its limitations.













