gious instruction for their slaves. Theyrnencouraged Southern legislators to repealrnthe literacy laws, which forbadernteaching slaves to read, for by denyingrnthem that skill, they were denying themrnthe Bible. They also called for the legalrnrecognition of slave marriages and slavernfamihes so that planters could no longerrnbreak up de facto families. Genovese recognizesrnthat many, if not most, plantersrntried to avoid this practice, but he alsornnotes that it happened more often thanrnmany Southerners at the time were willingrnto admit, since the temptation tornmake a good profit by a particular sale oftenrnproved too strong even for Christianrnslaveholders. The Southern divinesrnwarned their congregations that suchrnsales not only violated the sacred institutionrnof the family but provided occasionsrnfor slaves to commit adultery. The reformersrnalso urged their faithfid to allowrnslave testimony in court, and to enactrnlaws to punish cruel and neglectful mastersrnand to prevent the seizure or sale ofrnslaves for unpaid debts or foreclosures.rnThe object of this last measure was tornbind slave families not only to a particularrnpiece of land but also to a particularrnowner. As Genovese points out, the sumrntotal of these reforms would have transformedrnthe master-slave relation into “arnmore humane system of personal servitude.”rnNeedless to say, there was little reformrnalong these lines either before or duringrnthe war. Genovese addresses the questionrnof why a predominandy churchgoingrnand Bible-reading people did not dornas their pastors urged them. As he pointsrnout, Southern reformers cast much blamernon the Northern Abolitionist movement.rnThey constandy complained that it wasrndifficult to persuade planters that theyrnshould be teaching their slaves to readrnwhen the Abolitionists were sparing norneffort in smuggling into the Southernrnstates inflammatory literature whichrnurged the slaves to rise up and slit theirrnmasters’ throats, among other things.rnThe palpable hostility and antagonismrndisplayed by the Abolitionists toward thernwhite South, their calls for a bloody slavernrebellion, and their unrealishc demandsrnfor immediate and unconditional emancipationrnundoubtedly made slavery reformrnmore difficult by producing resentment,rnfear, and a siege mentality amongrnthe whites. Although Genovese does notrnmention the fact, many Northerners (includingrnSen. Daniel Webster, SupremernCourt Justice Joseph Story, and Princetonrntheologian Charles Hodge) condemnedrnthe Abolitionists for actuallyrnworsening the plight of the slaves and forrncreating hostility and distrust betweenrnthe Northern and Southern people.rnGenovese probably imderestimates therncomplicity of the Abolitionists in blockingrnreform, but he is correct to point outrnthat Abolitionist fanaticism and conspiraciesrndid not absolve Southern planters ofrntheir responsibility for fulfilling theirrnChristian duties to their slaves.rnThe second important question thatrnGenovese examines concerns thernlikely future of the peculiar institiition inrnthe event that the Southern states hadrnwon their independence. He reveals thatrnmany prominent Southerners, includingrnchurch leaders, statesmen, and writers,rnadvocated gradually transforming slaveryrninto a system of bond labor in whichrnbondsmen would be granted certainrnminimal legal rights of property, personalrnliberty, and full legal recognition ofrnmarriages and parenthood. Those whornadvocated such a change included thernPresbyterian theologian James HenleyrnThornwell, Confederate Secretary ofrnState Judah P. Benjamin, and novelistrnWilliam Pendleton Kennedy. Genovesernstresses that the reformers were not willingrnto consider adopting the free laborrnsystem of the North; rather, they all insistedrnthat “a stratified social order based onrnthe strict subordination of the laboringrnclasses and the legally enforced personalrnresponsibility of a master class towardrnthose who labored for them” be maintained.rnIn Genovese’s opinion, an independentrnSouthern Confederacy would havernshrunk from such radical reform, which,rnby removing the planter’s absolute controlrnover his labor property, would havernreduced the profitability and productivityrnof Southern agriculture and hencern”promised to turn the South into a second-rnrate power” and its planters into “thernclients of Northern capital.” Genovese isrnsaying that, ultimately, members of thernplanter class had three choices availablernto them: first, to maintain the profitablernbut harsh system of chattel slavery, whilernincurring God’s judgment; second, to reformrnthe institution and save their souls,rnthough dooming themselves to decliningrnwealth and power and eventual Northernrneconomic domination; or, third, tornemancipate the slaves and create a freernlabor system which would have led torn”rapid industrialization” and the imitationrnof the worst and most un-Christianrnfeatures of Northern society. “One wayrnor another,” Genovese writes, “the slaveholders,rnhowever metamorphosed into arnnew class, faced a decline in their classrnpower and an end to their dream of an alternaternroad to modernity.”rnHe may be right, but it is at least possiblernthat an independent South mightrnhave enacted the reforms urged by herrnChristian leaders and thus avoidedrnfalling into a state of economic backwardnessrnand dependency. After all,rnSoutherners consistently valued suchrnnon-monetary goods as country living,rnpersonal independence and libert}’, andrnan harmonious and rich social life at leastrnas much as mere wealth and material accumulation;rnand independence mightrnhave created a more favorable environmentrnfor Christian reform of their laborrnsystem. Southerners might have introducedrna smaller and more humanelyrnscaled industrialization to provide somernmeasure of industrial self-sufficiency,rnand black Southerners might eventuallyrnhave achieved legal equality and propertiedrnindependence. In other words, anrnindependent South could well havernfound an alternate —and more Christianrn—path to modernit)’. Thanks to Mr.rnLincoln, we shall never know.rnPerhaps the least satisfactory portion ofrnthis otherwise excellent book is Genovese’srnbrief discussion of racial thinkingrnand racial policies in the postwar South,rnwhere he argues that the Southern divinesrnfailed to build a scriptural case forrnracial segregation, anti-miscegenationrnlaws, and Southern support for Westernrn”racial imperialism,” all of which he condemns.rn”No postbellum defense of racialrndictatorship and segregation,” he writes,rn”compared in biblical scholarship andrnintellectual power to the defense of slavery.”rnThis may be true, but it is also truerntliat Southerners did not think that such arndefense was necessary. Even in thernNorth, only the most radical Republicansrnquestioned the necessity or morality ofrnsome form of racial subordination of thernfreedmen. Perhaps the tables should bernturned around to face the Northern liberals,rnwho have never bothered to formulaterna biblical argument for their egalitarianrnprinciples and policies. In short, Genovese’srncriticism of the postbellum Southrnseems uncharacteristically unfair andrnanachronistic. On the whole, however,rnthis important book is marked by meticulousrnscholarship and profound insight.rnJULY 1999/33rnrnrn