Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life

by Stanley Elkins

This third edition of Stanley M. Elkin's classic study offers two new chapters by the author. The first, "Slavery and Ideology," considers the discussion and criticism occasioned by this controversial work. Elkins amplifies his original purpose in writing the book and takes into consideration the substantial body of critical commentary. He also attempts a prediction on the course of future research and discussion.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Race

328 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1959

About the author

Stanley M. Elkins was a historian of late 18th and antebellum America. He attended Harvard University and Columbia University, where he earned his doctorate in 1958. He was an assistant professor of history at the University of Chicago from 1955-1960 before becoming faculty at Smith College in 1960, where he was the Sydenham Clark Parsons Professor Emeritus of History until his death.

Reviews

[David Nichols · Rating 3 out of 5]

This seminal work attempted to apply the insights of modern sociology, psychology, and intellectual history to the study of African-American slavery, a field of inquiry which by 1959 had already, according to Elkins, reached a historiographical dead-end. Kenneth Stampp had several years earlier (in THE PECULIAR INSTITUTION) resolved the old argument with U.B. Phillips about whether slavery was a benevolent social institution or an exploitative labor system, but had not suggested new avenues of inquiry for scholars to follow, which Prof. Elkins here proposed to do. First, Elkins recommended comparison of North American slavery with its Latin American counterparts, arguing that North American slavery's origin as a capitalistic institution gave paramount rights to slave owners, and barred slaves from appealing to institutions, like the church or the state, which in Spanish America might protect them from some forms of exploitation. Second, Elkins re-opened the question of why, if North American slavery was so cruel, slave revolts were so uncommon, and suggested that the brutality of capture, the Middle Passage, and plantation discipline, combined with the absolute legal power of the master, resulted in the creation of an infantilized “Sambo” personality similar to those of “German concentration camp” inmates (87). Third, Elkins asked why the United States never developed a powerful abolitionist movement akin to that of Great Britain, and argued that the nineteenth-century U.S. lacked the kind of strong, mutually supporting national institutions – an established church, national universities, a hereditary ruling class – that gave British abolitionists the socio-political infrastructure for their movement. Lacking such a national “cultural matrix” (198), American abolitionists remained atomized, their attacks on slavery limited to peripheral issues like “free soil” or the right to petition, or to small-scale campaigns like colonization.

Elkins's book is still quite readable today, thanks to the author's clear writing style and intellectual fearlessness, and while its conclusions now seem dated SLAVERY had quite an impact on the historical profession at the time of publication. In the 1960s and '70s historians applied the term “Elkins thesis” to the author's assertion that slavery essentially destroyed slaves' personalities and turned them into Sambos, and scholars like Stampp, Blasingame, and Genovese crafted learned replies to that controversial second part of Elkins's book, arguing that slaves developed numerous ways to resist the dehumanizing effects of the institution short of armed rebellion. Elkins lost this particular interpretive battle, but clearly succeeded in his larger goal of inspiring debate and stirring up controversy.

[Jason Palmer · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read the second edition. I'm not sure what to make of this book. Why did he need to focus on the "Sambo" figure and social psychology in order to demonstrate how damaging slavery was psychologically? Also, why did he need to make Latin American slavery sound like a paradise in order to make US slavery sound like hell? I did appreciate his argument about the difference between Latin American slavery and US slavery being one of institutions wherein LA had multiple institutions to water down the power of the slave master while the US had none. That makes sense and the greater amount of statuses that slaves held in LA (whereas in the US they were simply slaves and nothing more, not even fathers) also helps explain LA colorism today verses the one drop rule in the US. However, he claims that there was absolutely no "sambo" figure in Latin American discourse and I know from personal experience that there was, and in fact still is, an infantilized "sambo" figure in Latin American perceptions of Black people (just google Memin Pinguin from Mexico or El Negro Mama from Peru). In fact, the word "zambo" comes from the Latin American caste system. As an anthropologist of Mormonism, I did appreciate his lengthy depictions of 1830, the year the church was founded. He doesn't mention Joseph Smith, but he paints a context of Joseph Smith's rise that I hadn't considered. Unfortunately, the main thrust of this book is that enslaved people at the time of the US Civil War were nothing more than hapless trauma victims who were completely incapable of emancipating themselves. This contrasts directly with the definitive work on slavery, Black Marxism by Cedric Robinson, which proves that enslaved people liberated themselves. This book paints abolitionism as if it were an entirely white concern and completely ignores the Black Radical Tradition.

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hopelessly outdated, this book is valuable as a historiographical snapshot of a turbulent time in research on slavery, but it could misinform readers who are not familiar with more recent work. The book has four fairly disconnected sections. The first is a discussion of the historiography of slavery up to the time of publication and does a good job presenting and contrasting Stampp and Phillips. The second part discusses the institutional development of slavery, often contrasting it with Latin America. This section is largely based on Frank Tannenbaum’s work, which has been largely undercut, and it inherits the problems of the source material. Degler’s “Neither Black now White” is better on this comparison. In particular, I think Elkins dramatically overstated the role of the Catholic Church. The third section is the most famous and controversial, the “Sambo thesis.” While provocative, it is not true - Blassingame and Gutman have good work pushing back on this framing. The fourth section discusses the intellectual history of the abolition movement. It is not particularly novel or interesting.

Elkins is a great writer, and the book is, along with Stampp’s “Peculiar Institution,” critical for understanding the state of research on slavery between Phillips’ “American Negro Slavery” and Fogel and Engerman’s “Time on the Cross.” However, it should be read more as a historical document, than as a work of history.

[Charlie Castleton · Rating 1 out of 5]

A book I had to write an academic review essay of for a module in first semester, first year.

My feelings condensed, ultimately this is a very dry academic text from the 1950s. It is very outdated due to Elkins' consistent use of racial slurs and at times racist infantilisation of African-Americans. Furthermore, his writing style is not engaging whatsoever. Whilst I didn't enjoy reading this book, the debates which the book raises are interesting and enjoyable to discuss, albeit to a limited extent.

That being said, the only real purpose of reading this book is to engage in historiographical debate, and that debate has concluded firmly against Elkins.

[Kyra]

stanley elkins, my beloathed >:(

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

An eye-opener, particularly when talking about the differences between slavery in the US and in Latin America. One of those books that I strongly recommend to Americans to understand the US and our history, culture and experience.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Still thought-provoking, especially the exploration of the correspondence between slavery and the concentration camp experience.

[Spencer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this at the University of Wisconsin in 1966. All I remember is the comparison to slave behavior and WWII POW behavior.

[Morgan]

Quite possibly the most racist book I've ever read.