,
7 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
No, historian understands that when an angry person says only 4% of southern white families held slaves when 32% did, that person is wrong.
But historian also understands that historians would agree that the American economy was built on slave labor.
But historian also understands that historians would agree that the American economy was built on slave labor.
I mean, there's a pretty significant literature on the connections between slavery and the origins of American capitalism.
These blurbs from Eric Foner and Ed Ayers, two of the most prominent 19th-century US historians, captures the prevailing view well.
These blurbs from Eric Foner and Ed Ayers, two of the most prominent 19th-century US historians, captures the prevailing view well.
Those blurbs are for a recent edited collection that captures some of the best new work in the field: SLAVERY'S CAPITALISM, edited by Brown's @sethrockman and Harvard's @Sven_Beckert, two other leading historians in the field. upenn.edu/pennpress/book…
In addition to that volume, @Sven_Beckert won the Bancroft for his brilliant book Empire of Cotton and @sethrockman racked up three big prizes of his own for his terrific Scraping By, on wage labor and slavery in Baltimore.
amazon.com/Scraping-Survi…
amazon.com/Empire-Cotton-…
amazon.com/Scraping-Survi…
amazon.com/Empire-Cotton-…
Lots of other prominent historians doing prize-winning work on this topic.
The Half Has Never Been Told, by Cornell's @Ed_Baptist, won the Craven Award. amazon.com/Half-Has-Never…
The Half Has Never Been Told, by Cornell's @Ed_Baptist, won the Craven Award. amazon.com/Half-Has-Never…
Or Harvard's Walter Johnson, who won a raft of prizes for River of Dark Dreams: Slavery and Empire in the Cotton Kingdom amazon.com/River-Dark-Dre…
Again, that's just a sampling, but as you can see, the historians are pretty much agreed here -- in terms of the works we're writing and the ones we're awarding the profession's top prizes.
