When slavery arrived on southern shores of the Americas it commanded a vast managerial and accounting regiment fundamental to plantation success; many of these systems increasingly found their way into northern factories. In the first two chapters of “Accounting for Slavery” Rosenthal reasons, through employing these measures, early southern plantations grew exponentially in scale and economy as factories in the north lagged in its enterprise. Using the information garnered in “Accounting for Slavery,” this essay sets out to analyze this occurrence and how it characterizes the historical growth of American capitalism.
Plantations necessitated a complex multidivisional operation, requiring an abundance of records keeping, alongside demanding large swaths of land and human resources. Sugar plantations encompass a variety of labor within a multitude of production stages. Therefore, sugar production required “the careful administration of the labor of a large number of skilled and unskilled workers. Thus, the usefulness of a balance sheet of lives becomes clear: planters needed not only to monitor the increase and decrease of their human stock but also to monitor changes in skill and labor allocation.” (Rosenthal p. 16) Conversely, most early northern industries were able to construct their factories with far less land and human resources. Rosenthal demonstrated how the Pierson brothers built their nail factory by capitalizing on the Ramapo Creek, initially requiring few laborers which meant far less intricate bookkeeping. As their factory grew so did the amount of land, labor, and accounting. Therefore, it is evident that complex record keeping in the plantation south is necessary at all levels of production, while northern factories tailored their records as businesses grew. What may appear to be a lag in scale and economy in the north is a result of the exponential requirements of plantation operations.
The north and south also differed in leverage over their labor which set them apart both in accounting strategies and social standards. As the number of factories and infrastructure increased in the north during the 19th century, businesses struggled to maintain laborers, they undertook in compromises, while the south coerced their labor forces by using brutal punishment on the enslaved people on plantations. Rosenthal argues that labor shortages in the north accelerated investment in machinery, alternatively “when factory owners had grasped the theory of interchangeable parts but were struggling to put it into action, slaveholders had implemented a version of the system. But in their great labor machine, the interchangeable parts were human beings.” (Rosenthal 70-71) Additionally, the south took a larger effort in accounting for their output of enslaved persons and the day-to-day activities on the plantation, which entirely impacted their output; meanwhile, northern factories had far less records to keep as they “depended more on keeping enterprises running than on reducing costs and increasing output.” (Rosenthal 63) Moreover, as slavery became ever more appalling in the north, its protection persisted in the south.
Northern and southern economies diverged during early American years, but they played an equal role in the development of American capitalism. Rosenthal’s argument on the importance of record keeping during this period provides insight into conducting business in these environments. Although the southern plantations had an advantage over the northern factories, with large ownership of land and ownership of labor, northern factories demonstrated innovation and a moral compass against slavey.
A strong post. I’m unclear, however, why you begin by describing “slavery’s arrival on southern shores” since, for the most part, the first two chapters of the Rosenthal book are concerned with Caribbean sugar plantations, before turning to southern cotton plantations in Ch. 3.
You’re right, however, that she’s drawing an explicit contrast between both kinds of slavery and early manufacturing—but what does she suggest was the ultimate impact of the innovations made by slaveholders in accounting and record-keeping on business enterprises more generally, and how convincing is this argument?
You make an interesting point in the last sentence. I would agree that northern capitalism (not just factories) displayed a dynamism that soon outstripped that of the southern plantation economy. But many observers at the time would have disputed the idea that they represented a “moral compass,” even accusing manufacturers of being hypocrites for attacking southern slavery while relying on low-paid workers as “wage slaves.” As we’ll see, this idea was used at times to attack chattel slavery, but also may have undermined antislavery efforts in the North.