Political Moralizing About the History of Slavery
In their book Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery, Robert W. Fogel and Stanley L. Engermen analyzed various elements of the slave economy including the role of slave traders from New England in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the profitability of slave labor, and material conditions on Southern plantations including the health, diet, and general lifestyle of slaves. For embarking on this study of economic history—first published in 1974—they were accused by progressive academics of being “amoral” and “trying to sell slavery.”
Although they rejected the accusation that their work was “amoral,” Fogel and Engerman later conceded that their critics were right that they had “failed to deal with moral issues” arising from their study and therefore “seemed to be diminishing the moral horror of slavery and providing (no matter how innocent the intention) an apologia for centuries of exploitation.” They admitted that, being economists, they had not “immersed ourselves in the history of the religious movements that spawned the antislavery ethic or in the history of the political struggle against slavery.” They acknowledged that “understanding the economics and demography of slavery, or even slave culture, did not by itself provide an adequate basis for coming to grips with the moral problem of slavery.” They accepted that one would need to conduct a religious study to understand “the role of religious inspiration in the shaping of the antislavery ethic.”
Although this “afterword” to their book written in 1989 was by no means offered as an apology, and did not retract the study but merely addressed the moral concerns, the tone of their comments vaguely echoes the apology of the President of the American Historical Association after his abortive attempt to reject “presentism” in historical analysis. When he was denounced for being amoral and “harmful” he said:
My September Perspectives on History column has generated anger and dismay among many of our colleagues and members. I take full responsibility that it did not convey what I intended and for the harm that it has caused. I had hoped to open a conversation on how we “do” history in our current politically charged environment. Instead, I foreclosed this conversation for many members, causing harm to colleagues, the discipline, and the Association.…
I sincerely regret the way I have alienated some of my Black colleagues and friends. I am deeply sorry. In my clumsy efforts to draw attention to methodological flaws in teleological presentism, I left the impression that questions posed from absence, grief, memory, and resilience somehow matter less than those posed from positions of power. This absolutely is not true. It wasn’t my intention to leave that impression, but my provocation completely missed the mark.
What lies behind these mea culpa statements by academics who fail to meet the moral standards set by the history police? The notion that slavery discourse must be exclusively concerned with brutality may appear to be morally sound, which may explain why Fogel and Engerman decid
Article from LewRockwell
LewRockwell.com is a libertarian website that publishes articles, essays, and blog posts advocating for minimal government, free markets, and individual liberty. The site was founded by Lew Rockwell, an American libertarian political commentator, activist, and former congressional staffer. The website often features content that is critical of mainstream politics, state intervention, and foreign policy, among other topics. It is a platform frequently used to disseminate Austrian economics, a school of economic thought that is popular among some libertarians.
