provide. He promises to make betternwork of it in the larger volume to follow,nbut until then we are left to understandn”freedom” as individual liberty, andn”progress” as the spread of Christiannmorality within a context of economicnmodernization.nAlthough Southerners displayed a decidedlynambivalent attitude toward thenideology of progress, they did ultimatelynembrace it. But, so the argument went,nprogress was possible only where freedomnexisted, and freedom depended uponna stable social order of the kind thatnonly slavery could ensure. It is a contentionnthat Allen Tate repeated in hisnbiography of Stonewall Jackson (1928).n”The institution of slavery,” Tate wrote,n”was a positive good only in the sensenthat Calhoun had argued that it was: itnhad become a necessary element in anstable society.”nThis is not a laughable argument, butnit does oblige its defenders to resort tonNewspeak. According to Genovese, fornexample, the following was the “elegantnformula” of Thomas Roderick Dew,nthe president of William and Mary:n”progress through a widening freedomnbased upon slavery.” Of course Dewnand others like him knew perfectly wellnthat slavery made freedom possible onlynfor freemen. When speaking of slaves,ntherefore, they redirected the discussionnto security. Unlike the iniquitous systemnof free labor—which transformednhuman into commodity relations andncondemned freemen, black and white,nto immiserization—slavery reconstitutednthe organic social relations of the MiddlenAges and allowed those ill-equipped tonsurvive in a heartless world to enjoy paternalisticnprotection. Like Abraham’snslaves before them, these simple folknwere properly regarded as members ofnan extended family.nAs I have already indicated, Genovesenis particularly attracted bynthe Southern conservatives’ critique ofnfree labor and of the free market in general.nNo doubt that is why he betraysnno sympathy for the abolitionist assaultnon the Southern way of life. Then too,nhe knows that it was the likes of WilliamnLloyd Garrison and Harriet BeechernStowe who drove Southerners to upgradenslavery from a necessary evil to an”positive good.” The impression he hasnformed of abolitionist self-righteousnessnand intimidation was heightened, I suspect,nby the endless demands and moralnposes of contemporary “civil rights activists.”nIn such an atmosphere, it is notnsurprising that Genovese evinces sympathynwith the counterrevolutionary caseneven when it was intertwined with a defensenof slavery.nWith respect to the abolitionists,nGenovese could have cited EdmundnBurke’s famous reference to “the delusivenplausibilities of moral politicians.”nAnd yet it does not follow that no politicalnissue is ever moral in nature; onenhas only to think of abortion. If, as Genovesenclaims, “the entire moral, religious,nand social defense of slavery rested firmlynon the notion that the laboring classesndeserved cradle-to-grave security,” thenSoutherners were dodging the real issue—thatnof human dignity. How manynof us, after all, are prepared to defendnStalin’s regime because it produced fullnemployment at a time when Westernngovernments could not find their waynout of the Depression?nThe Southern conservatives who defendednslavery were clearly reacting tonabolitionists, but at the same time theirnideas reflected their fear of a large, suddenlynliberated, black population. InnDemocracy in America, Tocqueville observednthat the notion of hberty deprivednslavery of “that kind of moralnpower which it derived from tirne andnhabit; it is reduced to a mere palpablenabuse of force. The Northern states hadnnothing to fear from the contrast, becausenin them the blacks were few innnumber, and the white population wasnvery considerable. But if this faint dawnnof freedom were to show two millionsnof men their true position, the oppressorsnwould have reason to tremble.” Nonwonder, then, that the latter stiffenedntheir resistance to change.nFinding themselves with their backsnto the wall. Southerners advanced evennlarger and more defiant claims. One ofnGenovese’s subjects, historian WilliamnH. Trescot, maintained, for example,nthat the slave system would guaranteenLIBERAL ARTSnCAVEAT EMPTORnthe South’s rise to world power. But innthe event, as Genovese points out, thenregion’s economic backwardnessndoomed its chances in war. That backwardnessnonly increased as a consequencenof the paternalism Southernersnheld up for emulation. Tocqueville wasnright again when he wrote that “thenblack can claim no remuneration for hisntoil, but the expense of his maintenancenis perpetual.”nThe conclusion is inescapable, andnGenovese has not hesitated to draw it.nIn the aftermath of communism’s collapse,nhe conceded that capitalism hadnproven superior to all alternatives in generatingneconomic growth. Yet like manynof his friends on the traditional right,nhe continues to deplore the cultural andnsocial consequences of a system that hasnbeen “the greatest revolutionary solventnof traditional values in world history.”nThis is Genovese’s own dilemma and,nlike the proslavery enemies of free labor,nhe does not seem to know how to resolvenit.nHe might, however, take heart fromnthe fact that at least one worthynspokesman for the free market, WilhelmnRopke, recognized its limitations. Thenmarket economy, Ropke insisted, “mustnfind its place in a higher order of thingsnwhich is not ruled by supply and demand,nfree prices, and competition. Itnmust be firmly contained within an allembracingnorder of society in which thenimperfections and harshness of economicnfreedom are corrected by law andnin which man is not denied conditionsnof life appropriate to his nature.”nRopke placed his ideas firmly in thentradition of Burke. And so did manynproslavery Southerners, as Larry E. Tisenpointed out in Proslavery, his valuablenhistory of the defense of slavery in America.nUnfortunately, however, those samenSoutherners ignored one of Burke’s mostnimportant insights: “A state without thenmeans of some change is without thenmeans of its conservation,” nThe famous error-filled textbooks discovered in Texas went through four revisions beforenthe “error-free” editions were discovered to have at least “550 substantive factualnerrors.” According to the Gabler Newsletter last March, educational research analystnMel Gabler of Longview, Texas, suspects publishers will “try to sell ‘defective’ merchandisenin other states, rather than the editions corrected for Texas.” Unlike Texas,n”other states do not buy in sufficient volume to require publishers to make corrections.”nnnJULY 1992/33n