A Sphinx on the American Land: The Nineteenth-Century South in Comparative Perspective

Welcome to another instalment of the Walter Lynwood Fleming Lectures. This year's lectures are by Peter Kolchin, best known for his comparison of American slavery and Russian serfdom. While not as illuminating as previous lecturers Eric Foner (Nothing but Freedom) or Drew Gilpin Faust (The Creation of Confederate Nationalism), Kolchin has provided a fascinating introduction into the historiography of the American South. His very readable lectures are extensively documented, giving the reader an introduction into the latest historiography of the region. Kolchin's first lecture deals with comparisons between the North and the South. How much did the regions differ and how much did they have in common? Despite the many debates American historians have had over the last century the answer to this is actually rather simple. They differed enough to fight a civil war, but had enough in common not to try to fight a second. Kolchin correctly argues that slavery marked an essential difference between the two regions. He is very acute in how slavery created a distinct and ultimately weaker Southern economy. Although southern growth rates in the decades before the civil war was higher than that of the North, the growth rate in every Southern subregion was slower than in every Northern subregion. The reason for the higher growth rate was that more Southerners moved to the richest Southern region. Likewise, in urbanization, industrialization, mechanization and education the South was falling further behind the North.Kolchin's second lecture looks at the Many Souths within the South. What is a typical southern region? For certain purposes, tiny Delaware or the Mississippi Delta can serve as a useful example. Kolchin also looks at comparisons within time, over gender, and over age. He discusses the question of popular support for the Confederacy. Given that few of the third of the population that were slaves supported secession, Kolchin points out that only in Texas did secession have the support of a majority of the population. By contrast the much maligned Reconstruction governments were able to win, for a time, majority support. Kolchin goes on to discuss the differences between and within freedpeople, ex-slaveholders and Northerners. He also points out how white Southern Republicans consisted of ex-Whig slaveholders leaders and ex-Democrat yeoman unionist voters. Finally Kolchin's third lecture looks at "other souths." He notes the Elkins debate over whether slaves were treated better in Latin America than in the American South. He looks at the construction of Confederate Nationalism in context. In a way the essence of Southern nationalism, like that of American nationalism, and soviet nationalism, was loyalty to an idea, as opposed to language or religion. Jews and immigrant Catholics could be welcomed to the South, as long as they supported the ideology of slavery. Kolchin goes on to suggest that even if the South had been victorio