Читать книгу The Political Economy of Slavery - Eugene D. Genovese - Страница 7

Preface

These studies have had a long history, longer than I sometimes care to recall, having begun as art undergraduate honors paper at Brooklyn College almost fifteen years ago. Arthur C. Cole, whose kindness and wise counsel I still vividly recall, suggested that I investigate the agricultural reform movement in the Old South. The suggestion appalled me—with typical undergraduate modesty I had proposed to do a paper on “Southern Thought from Late Colonial Times to the Civil War”—but embarrassment and confidence in the old professor’s judgment caused me to yield. When I moved on to Columbia University, I carried a growing interest in the subject with me. Eventually, although the story had some strange turnings, a doctoral dissertation on the same subject emerged.

Some of these studies grew out of that dissertation; others sprung from allied projects. It was clear from the beginning that Southern agriculture could not be studied apart from politics and social structure. Fortunately, neither Professor Cole nor Professor Dumas Malone ever thought that the subject could be treated in any other way, and I escaped having to waste my time doing “pure” economic history. (How astonishing that an age which finds pure women both contaminated and boring so ardently seeks pure economists.) My inclination to study the slave economy as one aspect of a social process received special encouragement from Frank Tannenbaum, whose writings and lectures on Latin America set a high standard. To all of these men I am deeply indebted, as I am to Richard B. Morris, who assumed responsibility for my dissertation when Professor Malone retired and who piloted me through some rough seas.

To David Donald, who was teaching at Columbia University when I studied there, I owe a special debt. His criticisms of my work have always been hard, but his generous support, especially at some difficult junctures in the ensuing years, has been inestimable. He has always retained grave reservations about my method and conclusions, and like Professors Cole, Malone, Tannenbaum, and Morris, hardly shares my philosophical standpoint. Yet, in the best tradition of the academic community, which is nonetheless too often violated by petty men, they always tried to help me find my own road instead of trying to drag me down theirs.

A number of friends helped in a variety of ways at various stages, and I hope that they will accept a general acknowledgment, for I am well aware of how much I owe to others. I have been especially indebted, however, to Ann J. Lane, who read most of these essays at different stages and offered indispensable criticisms of style and content, and to Mr. André Schifïrin of Pantheon Books, who persuaded me to make a number of changes that have improved the manuscript immensely.

Six of these studies appeared previously in journals, as noted in the acknowledgments, and are reprinted by permission of those journals. These have benefited from suggestions of the respective editors, especially the one from Agricultural History, which was then so splendidly edited by Fred Kohlmeyer and has since passed into the able hands of James Shideler. All have been rewritten. “The Slave South: An Interpretation” has been enlarged and revised substantially; “The Negro Laborer in Africa and the Slave South” has also been altered considerably; the others have had rough spots removed, additions and deletions made, and some errors corrected in the face of criticism from scholars, whose assistance is acknowledged in the footnotes.

The other four studies appear for the first time. The two unpublished papers on the industrialists and industry were read by Robert Starobin, whose forthcoming dissertation on slave labor in industry will no doubt tell us much we need to know. His skeptical reaction and thoughtful questions did not change my mind but did lead to some necessary rethinking. The final paper, “The Origins of Slavery Expansionism,” was read to the departmental faculty seminar at Rutgers University, where it led to a lively exchange among my colleagues. Their reactions helped me to see the limits of my argument and, I hope, to put it in proper perspective.

E. D. G.