At the heart of Georgia's secession from the Union in 1861 were two ideological cornerstones―the protection of white men's liberty and the defense of African slavery―Anthony Gene Carey argues in this comprehensive; analytical narrative of the three decades leading up to the Civil War.In Georgia; broad consensus on political essentials restricted the range of state party differences and the scope of party debate; but Whigs and Democrats battled intensely over how best to protect Southern rights and institutions within the Union. The power and security that national party alliances promised attracted Georgians; but the compromises and accommodations that maintaining such alliances required also repelled them. By 1861; Carey finds; white men who were out of time; fearful of further compromise; and compelled to choose acted to preserve liberty and slavery by taking Georgia out of the Union. Secession; the ultimate expression of white unity; flowed logically from the values; attitudes; and antagonisms developed during three decades of political strife.
#2362182 in Books 2003-10-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x .60 x 6.00l; .82 #File Name: 0817939423212 pages
Review
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful. An scholarly analysis of the GULAG systemBy NickThis is a scholarly analysis of the GULAG system; which takes a look at the economics of political repression in Stalin's Soviet Union. In short it is an economic analysis of Stalinism; which is long overdue.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Good but somewhat blinkeredBy R. L. HuffThere is a library of Western works dedicated to the rise; operation; and fall of the Soviet prison-industrial complex as known by the official acronym GULAG. Thus; despite Solzhenitsyn's claims; the system had been known and studied in the West from its inception: his revelations were hardly that; even for the general Western public. More recent surveys; such as Anne Applebaum's; are simply rehashing twice-told tales. This particular; relatively slim; book brings together various Western and post-Soviet Russian scholars who examine the system in its purely economic aspect.Its main purpose was to channel labor into remote but resource-rich regions where conventional wage labor was not cost-effective. Soviet penal labor was also instrumental in massive state construction projects; such as the Volga-Don and Baltic-White Sea canals; where local free labor was in short supply for such undertakings. These developments are outlined case-by-case from the early timber camps of Karelia to the ore mines of Norilsk. Although philosophically parallel to Tzarist katorga; or hard labor; the system as designed by Stalin was a complement to the emerging Five Year Plan system. It thus bears the same half-relationship to the former as American slavery to the convict lease system of the "New South." Whether the American system served as a model is unknown; but certainly the rise of Gulag under Naftaly Frenkl; a NEP capitalist of the 1920s; points to a similar conceptualization.The authors contend that the GULAG system was therefore not a mere extension of Soviet repression. Beyond that they seem unwilling to connect certain dots: for instance; criminalizing kulaks into convict laborers was not done in other Communist states; the reason being that Czechoslovakia or East Germany did not have a vast; resource-rich hinterland needing to kill two birds with one administrative stone. GULAG was thus not a creation of political repression; producing surplus prisoners for whom productive use must be found. Rather; repressive laws were designed to create a captive labor force already under plan. "Feeding the Gulag" with successive waves of the politically repressed certainly points to its use as a dumping ground; but the original intent was economic; a rationale which finally ended it as too expensive for its limited returns.But the authors seem to over-rationalize the Gulag system in light of market economics. Valery Lazarev in his concluding chapter writes that such rationality should have meant high wages to attract productive free labor. The problem; however; is that the Soviet state budget could not have granted enough carrots-over-sticks to the necessary number: sharing the budget between highly-paid labor and the state administration was as beyond its means as its will. After all; maximizing management's share of the return through the cheapest labor possible has always been the favored route of capital accumulation; in free-market or state-socialist form. (Ask any Wal-Mart worker today.) This is especially true where local labor is non-existent; and holding migrant labor in place for further development is problematic.The Gulag system may have degenerated in Stalin's tenure into a dumping-ground; but the very success of the larger Soviet economy eventually doomed such primitive expedients. As the authors rightly show; the rising costs of a more prosperous Soviet economy made the administration of Gulag not worth its keep. And since released survivors were forced to remain put after their terms in forced exile; a local free labor force was on hand to be used at greater profit. This may have been part of the original intention; and explains why the NKVD; Gulag's parent; was so willing to let it go. The NKVD augmented this free labor via early prisoner release in the postwar construction era demanding more and better-skilled labor. Administrative coercion in the Soviet workplace - except for extraordinary circumstances; like suppressing the mass strike at Novocherkassk in 1962 - had become counterproductive to a skilled-labor economy.The primitiveness of the Russian economy; its devastation by external and civil war; and the "need" of exploitable cheap labor gave rise to the Gulag; not socialism as such. It was often cited as "proof" by Western Marxists of the impossibility of socialism in undeveloped economies. We've also heard these same arguments as to the incompatibility of forced labor with real "free markets." But such primitive exploitation will be used where and whenever those in power find it cost-effective. The reintroduction of prison-industrial labor in the US may in turn be just around our corner.
