Unfree Markets: The Slaves’ Economy and the Rise of Capitalism in South Carolina

Since the 1990s, historians have devoted intensive study to the economic activities of enslaved people in the American South. How people owned as property bought and sold goods, and for what purposes, reaches to the heart of questions about the conditions of slavery, relations between masters and slaves, and slaves' ability to ameliorate the conditions of their servitude. Justine Hill Edwards's Unfree Markets is the first major study to consider the internal or informal economy of slavery in relation the history of capitalism. Examining South Carolina from the early colonial period to the Civil War, Edwards finds widespread evidence of slaves' participation in market activities. Enslaved men and women sold produce at markets and staples such as rice and cotton to storekeepers. They hired themselves out for odd jobs, earning income that they used to purchase goods and, in a few exceptional cases, their own freedom. Market involvement, however, did not equal freedom. Hill argues that slaves' entrepreneurial activities strengthened the institution of slavery, even as they provided "a modicum of independence" and "a material and psychological buffer" against slavery's harshest effects (15). Edwards's study is thoroughly researched and moves debate about slaves' market activities in new directions. Although some readers may disagree with some of her conclusions, Unfree Markets is an important contribution to the fast-growing literature on slavery and capitalism in the American South.According to Edwards, during the early colonial period, slaves began producing and trading commodities out of necessity. Slaveowners failed to provide adequate subsistence and necessities such as shoes and clothing, so slaves raised crops and sold produce to survive. Over time, enslaved peoples' economic activities increased. Slaveowners did not attempt to constrain slaves' market activities but often suspected slaves of theft and waste, leading to conflict. Still, slaveowners did not limit slaves' entrepreneurship since they benefited from it.In the mid-eighteenth century, slave hiring became more common. After the revolution, it sparked conflict with poor whites. In Charleston, skilled white workers competed with slaves for employment and feared the loss of their livelihoods. Complaints to city officials led to a series of ordinances aimed at regulating and policing slave hiring. These instituted a system of slave badges and fines for illegal trading with slaves but did little to curtail slave hiring and slaves' market participation. As Edwards notes, enslavers and slaves "ignored the laws completely" (53). In later years, continuing conflict over slave hiring and slaves' market involvement undermined white solidarity, but not enough to prompt authorities to take stronger action.The rise of short-staple cotton production in inland areas sparked further expansion of slaves' economic activities. According to Edwards, slaves' market participation became more visible and closely tied to the economic activities of storekeepers and poor whites. Slaveowners used the market shocks of 1819 and 1837 to force slaves to produce more of their own provisions. This led to greater conflict since, as Edwards writes, "for many bondspeople, trade and theft were inextricably interlinked" (96). Slaves stole foodstuffs to counter depravation and obtain goods to sell and trade. Still, the system held. Despite omnipresent tensions, slaves found ways to better their circumstances, while masters limited the costs of maintaining their human property. Edwards argues that this relationship took on new dimensions in the 1840s and 1850s. Slaves recognized they could not earn enough to buy their freedom but continued to engage in market activities as a means of survival. Slaveowners turned to increasingly predatory behavior, "extracting as much labor and profit from enslaved people as possible" while also undermining the economic interests of poor whites (158–59).Edwards's arguments are provocative and insightful. In contrast to scholars such as Loren Schweninger and Kathleen Hillard, Edwards finds slaves' market activities to have been visible and public, tolerated and fundamental to the society and economy of South Carolina. Edwards has mined the historical record thoroughly. Her account relies on a broad range of sources, including the account books of merchants and planters, court records, legislative petitions, and narratives of runaway slaves.For all of the strengths of Unfree Markets, however, the book is not without its shortcomings. One is a failure to distinguish adequately between slaves' experiences in upland areas devoted to short-staple cotton and the low country's rice and sea island cotton districts. Scholars familiar with the historiography of South Carolina will recognize that the labor regimens and conditions of slavery differed significantly between these regions. Edwards is well aware of these differences yet argues that the short-staple cotton boom transformed the lives of slaves throughout the state. She may be right, but the bulk of the evidence she presents comes from upland areas. The question of whether the intensification of slaves' economic activities varied across time and space deserves further scrutiny.A second problem lies in the limits of the evidence. Despite Edwards's judicious research, the body of sources on which some of her arguments rest is limited. Edwards provides excellent context for many of the episodes she relates and mines her sources thoroughly, telling illuminating stories in the process. Still, readers cannot help but wonder if some of the examples are more exceptional than representative. In part, this reflects the nature of the sources, which, as Edwards notes, are fragmentary and mainly reflect white perspectives. At the same time, readers would be right to wonder if the activities Edwards describes were as widespread as she suggests. This is another question that begs for further investigation.Despite these criticisms, Edwards has written an important book. Unfree Markets casts slaves' economic activities in a fresh light. Although scholars have long recognized that slave labor fueled the rise of American capitalism, Edwards calls attention to the way enslaved people's desire to survive drew them into economic relations that strengthened the system responsible for their exploitation, even as it offered fleeting moments of respite.