The Irony of ‘Classical Economics’
Dusinberre explains “That the parallel between planter capitalism and free-labor capitalism was always obvious was because no economist-not even Adam Smith or Karl Marx-convincingly though through the subject of slavery. The classical (and sleep-inducing) division into the three factors of production, “land,” “labor,” and “capital,” was wholly inappropriate for analysing rice plantations…”
The classical economists would have used their knowledge to explain slave labor's implication in the rice plantations because it is definitely different from free-labor. The economists' deliberate ignorance of slavery is a major limitation that underscores the flaws of their theories. The classical theories of labor would be inappropriate when analyzing the economics of planter capitalism because the foremost source of labor in the plantations (slavery) is not free, it is coerced.
“Africans in Malarial Swamps”
Dusinberre explains, “Africans, who did not die quite as fast as from malaria as Europeans did, could be put to moving mud in the malarial swamps; and people who would not voluntarily have spent years moving mud (for every winter the embankments had to be repaired, and the canals and ditches cleared) could be forced to do so.”
Africans are not immune to malaria, yet, they are forced to get into swamps increasing their exposure. The slave owners would have been expected to protect them from malaria at least since they would require their labor. Deliberate Africans' exposure to malaria parasites demonstrates the inhumanness that governed the relationship between the white slave owners and the blacks. The blacks’ lives were deemed to be of lower value and, hence, could be exposed to death.
The Irony of Manigault’s Distress (1850)
Dusinberre explains, “What distressed Manigault was not the emergency demands on the slaves but the loss of the whole crop which had been planted in the seventy-eight acres of his best fields-the four newly cleared ones. The departure from Gowrie in December 1850 of the overseer Jesse Cooper, after only three years’ service, probably resulted from Manigault’s dissatisfaction with Cooper’s failure effectively to repair the broken embankment, and thus to save nearly one-third of the year’s crop.”
The distress occurs after an inundation that destroys the rice crop. Rice crop could be replanted the subsequent season. However, Manigault is devastated not by the suffering which the slaves endure after the inundation, but by the crop that he loses. The slaves' suffering cannot be undone, yet he focuses on his produce more than the slaves who are human beings. Manigault does not value the slaves although they are instrumental in the endurance of his capitalist venture.
The Irony of Charles Jr’s Character
Dusinberre writes, “After graduating from Yale, and after returning from the family’s long trip to Egypt, he (Charles Jr.) entered a mercantile house as his father wished-first in Charleston…His family believed his character gravely flawed; but whether gambling, drunkenness, wild adventures, or some combination of these was the center of the trouble remains uncertain. In the winter of 1855-56 the young man became crippled during some escapade-possibly when drunk on horseback.”
Charles Manigault educates Charles Jr sufficiently and nurtures him so that he can become a successful entrepreneur like him. However, Charles Jr. turns out to be the opposite of what his father had anticipated him to be. Charles Jr.’s father’s investment in his education and upbringing becomes in vain, because instead of become a successful entrepreneur, he becomes an irresponsible man. Charles Jr’s temperament hinders him from living up to the expectations of Charles Manigault.
The Irony of Edwin Epps’ Jealousy
Dusinberre reports, “Callousness, not paternalist benevolence, was the hallmark of many American masters’ relation to their slaves. Edwin Epps, a small Louisiana cotton farmer in 1850, brutally flogged a helpless slave woman Patsey of whom he was sexually jealous, and stabled the unoffending elderly slave Abram during one of Epps’s regular drunken fits.” Edwin Epps would not be expected to be sexually jealous of a slave woman due to their divergent social and racial differences. He flogs her because he does not want her to be involved with another man. His ironic jealous confirms that erotic desire can rise above racial differences.
