Afterwards- Sugar Masters: Planters and Slaves in Louisiana’s Cane World 1820-1860




Richard Follet’s book The Sugar Masters provoked a productive discussion session where the inter class relations of sugar plantations were analyzed as a means of evaluating the correlation of wage labor and slave labor in Louisiana. One of the most discussed questions was what makes Louisiana unique and how do historians go about writing something that may seem as if it were a case study? Professor Rockman proposed the idea of how one goes about writing something like his own book Scraping By or Sugar Masters Is there a way of saying that places like Baltimore and Louisiana are exceptional and rare but extremely important in the broader sense. This made me think of one of our first discussion sessions this semester when we were talking about Rediker’s work. Rediker said that as historians, we should seek out places where there is diversity and heterogeneous people and study and analyze them because they reveal a great deal about capitalism and society. He believes that we should not be hindered by the belief that class can only be tagged in a homogenous people and cannot be assessed to a heterogeneous people. The cultural aspects of class are greatly revealing. You can absolutely look at places where there were violent slave revolt’s such as in Haiti and study why these uprisings occurred. People are more inclined to assess history based on phenomena. But Professor Rockman stressed at the beginning of the semester that sometimes it is greatly productive to study the silent places. Places where there is too much agreement because there has to be something there that is causing this void of struggle. In other words, exceptional places that reveal great points of analysis. By focusing on a local place you can see what is consistent and what is unique and use that to analyze broader questions. In Louisiana, Follet points out that slaves were willing to take short term material advancements from their masters at the cost of the long term advancement. That implies that there was a potential mutiny against the system, however it did not materialize because of the collective willingness of the slaves to accept short term material gains. Although we know that slavery was undoubtedly an exploitive system, despite the horrors of that system slaves were still able to maintain some form of cultural and religious autonomy while the planters simultaneously were able to prevent a collective resistance. However Follet does say that the numerous material incentives had contradictory effects because although the planter class truly bought into the idea of benevolence and paternalism, they also created the possibility for a rebellion by bestowing the slaves with a indisputable share in the economies of sugar plantations.


Paternalism was another facet we discussed while in smaller groups that I found greatly intriguing. Someone posed the question why it was important explaining if the slave owner’s were truly convincing themselves of their benevolence. Lester brought up a point about Genovese and unfortunately Follet’s book does not speak of the importance of paternalism past the fact that it helps painter a clearer picture of how slavery actually functioned in Louisiana. Paternalism not only helps us see how the deeply embedded system of slavery functioned but also how the southern planter class could not be part of a country that threatened this way of life and ultimately led to secession and the Civil War. Was the paternalistic belief of the planter class purely rhetoric that satisfied their conscience and reinforced their power? During the Civil War itself, the North was fighting for an abstract idea of preserving the union, whereas the South was fighting for a concrete idea and for something that was very real and deeply embedded in southern society. Does the fact that the issue of slavery and its extension drove this country into a Civil War justify that the southern planters truly believed that antislavery movements were destroying their way of life or was it to protect their power. Southern planters were the social, economic, and political leaders of the South, but what can we tell from the fact that the union was split and war was waged?


We also talked about the scholarship of the 60’s 70’s and 80’s which generally paints this picture of slavery that does not seem that bad. Rockman urged that although these works are important, they do not adequately portray the exploitive side to slavery because at the end of the day we know that slavery was a harsh and coercive system, and truly coming to terms with our past requires acceptance and recognition of that fact.


Sorry I had to post this early but I will be out of town the next two days. Take care

Print this post