Regular marked price: $17.95Discount Price: $12.21
Cost Savings: $5.74 (32%)Price fluctuation possible.
How soon does it ship: Normal ship time within one day
Shipping? Absolutely FREE if you qualify for Super Saver Shipping.
Type of bind: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 331.117340973
EAN num: 9780393312188
ISBN number: 0393312186
Label: W. W. Norton & Company
Manufacturer: W. W. Norton & Company
Quantity: 1
Page Count: 304
Printing Date: 1995-03
Publishing house: W. W. Norton & Company
Sale Popularity Level: 371305
Studio: W. W. Norton & Company
Other books you might be interested in perusing:
Editor's Notes and Comments:
Product Description:
This book, originally published in 1974 by Little, Brown and Company, is a sweeping reexamination of the economic foundations of American Negro slavery. Based upon a vast research effort, this volume constitutes an entirely new portrayal of slavery's past. It challenges traditional assumptions about the material condition and management of slaves, their work habits, domestic welfare, and the economy of the antebellum South in general.
User popularity level:
Rated by buyers 
-
Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman's Time on the Cross is an extensive thorough examination of slavery in the antebellum era of the United States using the tools of cliometrics and economics to rethink previous interpretations of the slavery system. Fogel and Engerman took on the monumental task of proving ten points they believed to be true in light of new data compiled and analyzed by cliometric research. The book set out to prove that slavery was profitable and just as profitable as manufacturing operations in the North. The system of slavery was not on death's door and was still economically sound by the beginning of the Civil War. Slave owners had a positive outlook on the future of their slave economy. Slave agriculture was efficient when compared to free agriculture. Slaves were more hard-working and efficient than white agricultural workers and compared evenly to white workers in industry. The demand for slaves was increasing not only in agriculture but industry as well. Most slaves lived in close family units and slave owners mostly kept the family unit together in sales of slaves because it was in their best economic interest to do so. The standard of living in the material form was comparable to free workers of the time period. Slaves were able to keep ninety percent of their income they generated. Lastly, The South's economic growth was increasing and the South had a high level of per capita income compared to not only the rest of United States but also the rest of the world during the time period. The authors mainly used mathematics and statistics which they referred to as systematic data to analyze the records from the time period to prove these ten points they proposed as correct. The authors admittedly attempted to stay away from what they called fragmentary evidence which they defined as "is based on unverifiable impressions of individuals whose primary aim was the defense of an ideological position." (p. 10) However they did acknowledge that sometimes they used this fragmentary evidence when as they stated, "to illustrate and make more vivid results that have been established by more precise methods, and to fill in gaps in evidence where it has not been possible thus far to obtain systematic data." (p. 11) This book was published in 1974 so both authors were approximately in a decade of their professional academic careers when the book came out and apparently they succeeded in achieving through this book a "wide-ranging and radical reinterpretation of American slavery." (p. 8) Both authors have the academic background and experience to write a book about this subject, but never the less it was a bold to endeavor to reshape the entire previous thought and interpretations of the subject of slavery.
Fogel and Engerman both have had successful careers in the academic world. As Robert Fogel stated in his autobiography, "My professional training began at Cornell University (BA 1948) and continued at Columbia University where I obtained my MA (1960), and at Johns Hopkins University, where I obtained my Ph.D. (1963). It was at Cornell that my scientific interests shifted from physics and chemistry to economics and history. The switch in focus was precipitated by the widespread pessimism about the future of the economy during the second half of the 1940s, when forecasts about the imminent return to the massive unemployment of the Great Depression were rife." Engerman graduated from John Hopkins University as well and has been a professor at Rochester University since 1963. Both authors have collaborated on many other works together in addition to Time on the Cross.
Time on the Cross does a superb job in analyzing the data for the reader although at some points in the book it starts reading like a math book, but for the most part the authors were successful in not inundating the reader with technical math formulas. Time on the Cross calculatedly focused on issues of economics and did not delve into the moral ramifications of slavery. According to Fogel and Engerman some people in the academic community were outraged or at least very confused by the lack of treatment by the book on the moral implications of slavery. Fogel and Engerman noted that when they went to conferences some of their colleagues would come up to them afterward and ask, "What are you guys trying to do? Sell Slavery?" (p.258) They answered no to that question because that was the truth, however, the authors themselves seemed to have felt a tad guilty about not addressing the issue of the morality of slavery in the book. They stated, "Perhaps the most serious deficiencies in Time on the Cross is its failure to provide a new moral indictment of slavery that is more consistent with the new empirical knowledge on the actual operation of the slave system, as we understood it in 1973." (p.273) From the perspective of this reader, the best course was to stay away from the moral issues surrounding slavery ... Read More
Rated by buyers 
-
Fogel and Engerman's work turns to primary sources to figure out exactly what the economics of slavery in the American South were like. It turns out that the predominant views are wrong: slavery wasn't unprofitable, slaves were well-nourished and lived almost as long as free laborers, slave families were rarely split up, resistance to slave-owners was rare, and on and on. Farms worked by slaves were 1/3 more efficient that farms worked by free laborers, and slaves received on average more of that higher income than free laborers did. A small proportion of slaves worked as skilled workers in management, engineering, or various crafts. Some of these earned higher incomes than their free counterparts.
Since this is only a book on the economics of slavery (as the book's subtitle says), it cannot examine the psychological or ethical damage that slavery caused, as the authors acknowledge. They do acknowledge that while slaves received a higher proportion of the pecuniary income they produced as wages, food, clothing, housing, and medical care than free laborers did, they also acknowledge that the non-pecuniary costs of slavery to the slaves themselves was enormous. The higher productivity of slave-worked farms was made possible, obviously enough, by forcing the slaves to do what free laborers could not be paid to do: work longer hours in a more regulated, larger farm. Interestingly enough, the gain in productivity this resulted in, while conveyed in small part to the slaves themselves in the form of higher income, did not accrue entirely or even in the most part to the planters. Rather, about half of it accrued to the consumers of cotton. Since most of cotton was exported (primarily to Britain, where most of the cotton was made into clothing), the primary beneficiaries of American slavery were people who bought cotton goods. This is because producing and selling cotton was a competitive industry, where real profits tend toward zero. Thus, while the planters exploited the slaves in reality by whipping them and forcing them to work in ways free laborers would not, the resultant pecuniary exploitation of slaves was accomplished by capitalism.
But perhaps the most interesting thing the book discusses is how the myth of unproductive slaves has contributed to contemporary racism. According to the contemporary racist view, blacks are lazy, morally degenerate, and immature. Fogel and Engerman show that, under slavery, blacks were none of these things. In fact, the evidence shows that they were harder working and more sexually circumspect on average than their free white counterparts.
What the authors point out as a reason there were not more slave revolts is that, given the fact that both Northerners and Southerners were racists, free blacks had little economic, social, or political opportunity. Free blacks in the North were not permitted to do all kinds of things. It would seem that many blacks rationally decided they were better off as slaves. The slave artisans and engineers, however, who commanded the highest wages, were the ones best able to make a living in the economy of the free North and were therefore those most likely to escape.
The book's last chapter deals with the implications of the findings for contemporary race relations. The book shows, of course, that blacks are not biologically inferior to whites. And, in economic terms, blacks were worse off in 1890 than they were in 1860. This isn't because slavery is always economically better than being free, but because the U.S. abolished slavery without abolishing racism. Blacks remained second-class citizens without the power to better their lot economically or politically. At least under slavery their racist owners had an economic interest in their economic well-being. That is the one thing the book drives home in a thoroughly researched and completely convincing way.
Rated by buyers -
Fascinating book! The comprehensive review of historical data will leave you wondering why so much of what you were taught and thought you knew about slavery was a myth. How could so much anecdotal evidence and political bias be mistaken for fact?
Rated by buyers 
-
First, I will be forthright and say that I am an unreconstructed Southerner. If that makes my review prejudiced, so be it. But I would be willing to wager that all those reviewers who critisize this work and give it only 1 or 2 starrs, while glowingly giving indirect 5 star recommendations to Gutman's works, are just as prejudiced the other way. The fact of the matter is that 'we' rate like we think and no volume of material is going to sway our preconceived or 'brainwashed' notions.
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 yesterday 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 yesterday and politically correct that not even Bill Cosby and address the real problems of the grey 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 grey 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 very 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 very 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 yesterday (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 grey 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.
Rated by buyers -
One of the all-time classics in the genre of economic history, there have been very few more controversial books in the past half-century. There are still those yesterday who call Fogel a racist or (as one other commentator did) an apologist for slavery. These people more than miss the point of this work. The profitability of slavery has nothing to do with the morality of it, as the authors point out. This is a survey and analysis of previously unresearched data. Fogel and Engerman take the very first systematic look at data on slave movement, working conditions, life expectancy, and the economies of scale in both free labor and slave labor in the South.
Fogel and Engerman attack the thesis that slavery was impeding the economic progress of the South and would ultimately collapse under its own inefficiencies. Instead, they show investment in slaves was even more profitable than investments in free labor, and that owners had developed a wide system of incentives to induce quality labor from their slaves. Some claim that this means that Fogel and Engerman support slavery or that somehow this makes slavery palateable; to the contrary, their conclusion lends weight to the idea that only a Civil War would be able to end the evil practice, contrary to the hopes of many abolitionists who claimed slavery would fall apart due to its inherent weaknesses.
This work was originally shunned, but the force of its evidence and arguments has led it to become the mainstream interpretation in economic discussions of the Civil War period. Fogel recieved the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1993 (not solely for this work of course) and his most famous book is still the standard for excellence in his field.
Find other books like this one:
