242 / PARADOXES OF FORCED LABOR

rewards were as integral a part of slavery as punishment.
Discovery of the relatively high average level of pecuniary
payments to slaves not only calls into question the tradi-
tional interpretation of the incentive system, but also the
traditional explanations for the relatively low incidence_ of
rebellion on the part of slaves. The failure to recognize the
flexible and many—faceted character of the slave system, and
e widely held assumption that systematic employment of
f ‘roe precluded the use of pecuniary incentives in any sig-
cant way, have led historians to exaggerate the cruelty
slavery. This in turn led them to expect slaves to be
shed frequently, if not continuously, to the point of rebel-
li n. The relative absence of rebellion thus posed a dilemma.
I the attempt to resolve the dilemma, some historians have
s essed the overwhelming odds against the success of at-
tengi/ts at rebellion, depicting, or suggesting, that the South
wa an armed camp. \
A~ailable evidence does not sustain this hypothesis. If
physical power was the explanation for the absence of rebel-
lion, one would expect to see government expenditures rise
With the density of the slave population. Analysis of census
data shows no such correlation. It might be argued that
police power was supplied not by the state but by the
planters themselves. If that were the case, one would expect
to see the number of white males per plantation increase
with plantation size. No such correlation exists. Regardless
of the plantation size there were roughly six white persons
per plantation —— slightly over the average farnfly size. On a
plantation of one hundred slaves, the ratio of adult slaves to
adult white males was roughly thirty to one. It strains
credulity to believe that men armed with just pistols, if at
all, could so cower slaves pushed to the point of rebellion
that they would be unable to act against their oppressors.
White planters and overseers were not supermen. Two or
three strong, young slaves lurking behind some building
surely could have disposed of a brutal overseer or planter, as

 

 

PROPERTY men-rs IN MAN / 243

sometimes happened, without anyone being the wiser as to
the identity of the perpetrators of the deed.

Concern of planters with “abolitionist agitators” was not
paranoia but hard—headed business. Planters were able to
produce the needed force to maintain their system at
exceedingly low costs. A small group of determined revolu-
tionaries might well have pushed the cost of force to pro-
hibitive levels. Similarly, the frequent discussions, in instruc-
tions to overseers, of the need for moderation in the ap
plication of force are not prima facie evidence of widespread
brutality—— proof that too much force was in fact being
applied. As pointed out in chapter 4, overseers’ instructions
focused on the issues that planters considered most crucial
to successful operations. That they would caution against
the abuse of force is no more of a basis for assuming that
slaves were generally treated cruelly by overseers than their
instructions on feeding of livestock is proof that animals
were being starved. Interestingly enough, the instructions
reveal that the main fear of planters regarding the misuse
of force was that it would raise costs, not by provoking
general rebellion, but by leading to the flight of the in-
dividual slaves who were being abused. ‘ _ 4,»

One factor which undoubtedly reduced the cost of the
force required to maintain the system of slavery was the
ubiquity of racist attitudes among whites, and the embodi-
ment of these attitudes in laws which severely reduced the
value of freedom to blacks. For blacks, the alternative to
slavery was not freedom but, as one scholar has put it,
“quasi-freedom.” This term applies to the North as well as to
the South. In both sections of the country free blacks led
a precarious existence. While northern Negroes were usually
spared the th.reat of reinslavement because of infractions of
the law, they were barred from testifying in ten states, pre-
vented from assembling in two, and excluded from voting
in ten. Illinois, the “Land of Lincoln,” banned the migration
of free Negroes into the state. Those who entered and stayed