Post #3: Slavery’s Capitalism

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The main argument throughout the essays in Slavery’s Capitalism (Beckert and Rockman) was that slavery played a central role in the United States’ economy during the nineteenth century. The traditional economic view of slavery has usually been restricted to the South. Slavery’s Capitalism countered that interpretation demonstrating how the whole American economy relied on slavery for its success. This book, while focused on the economic history of slavery, also explained how slavery influenced the North and the South, the society, the culture, and the politics of early America.

The book as a whole included discussions on the main U.S. regions as well as the international scene. However, it would be helpful to see more juxtaposition of those regions within each chapter. For example, Daniel B. Rood discussed the trade connection between the U.S. and Brazil. I think he could have added more on Brazil’s side of the trade relationship or even about Brazil’s specific economic status. This would have allowed the reader to see the dynamic systems of both countries. Another instance might be in Craig Steven Wilder’s chapter on American Catholicism and slavery. This section demonstrated only one religious perception of slavery and it might have been better if it was viewed in the context of other Protestant higher education institutions also associated with slavery.

The chapters highlighted different case studies regarding slavery’s impact on American capitalism. Case studies are useful for proving specific arguments and analyzing a collection of similar data. Yet, it is also important to realize that case studies cannot necessarily be used for creating generalizations about the country’s overall economic development. That being said, I liked how Bonnie Martin compiled records from three counties each from a different Southern State instead of just one particular case. I also appreciated Daina Ramey Berry’s word choice when she wrote “some cases” or “sometimes,” which meant that her evidence pointed to certain instances rather than a general pattern (151, 158).

Another critique I have of Slavery’s Capitalism is that it quickly deals with the development of slavery in the Civil War and the Emancipation periods. It would be interesting to see what evidence there is, if any, to explain the changes that took place then.

I agree with Sbremer’s statement that “we are forced to rethink slavery and investigate not just its political ramifications, but the ramifications it had on the development of an incredibly important global economic system.” The book gave us the opportunity to reexamine slavery’s role in establishing America’s global status, adding another dimension to Gould’s analysis last week. I would also add though that Slavery’s Capitalism emphasizes American slavery’s Atlantic developments, but mostly ignores what happened in the Pacific and California during that time. Leonard L. Richards’ The California Gold Rush and the Coming of the Civil War is one book that explained Southern political leaders attempts to bring slavery to California.

I noticed that there is no conclusion in Slavery’s Capitalism. Perhaps this is because these stories were meant to be open-ended. The chapters contained recent research, so the lack of a conclusion suggests that it is only the beginning of a new discussion that still needs further analysis. What the book did well was challenge the reader’s traditional perceptions of slavery and encourage the reader to then continue the investigation.