this is the book I mentioned that he had just come out with when he delivered
the Gettysburg address in which he apologized for Time on the Cross. The apology
was in the speech, but he was trying to distance himself from Time of the Cross
and seemed to think that his work on Without Consent or Contract was part of his
attonement.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Pugliese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:7859] Re: RE: chinese exclusion acts/query on Stanley
Engerman
Without Consent or Contract: Markets and Production
2 vols.
Robert William Fogel Stanley L. Engerman
from '92. W.W. Norton publishers.
Is this the apology for Time On The Cross?
Michael Pugliese
-----Original Message-----
From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 8:32 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:7847] RE: chinese exclusion acts/query on Stanley Engerman
>yes, he apologized for T on the Cross. Specifically, he apologized for the
uses
>to which it was put, which he tried hard to distance himself from.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 9:03 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:7842] chinese exclusion acts/query on Stanley Engerman
>
>
>Which earlier work ? _Time on the Cross_ ?
>
>
>Charles
>
>
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/06/01 06:17PM >>>
>deja vu all over again...Fogel came to Gettysburg when I was there, he got
the
>Lincoln Prize or whatever they give for civil war related work, his wife
was
>there, he had just received the Nobel... he basically apologized for his
earlier
>work ... really wanted to distance himself from that
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 3:16 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:7824] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: chinese exclusion
>acts/query on Stanley Engerman
>
>
> BTW, Robert Fogel's wife is black, which
>when he was pushed on _Time on the Cross_
>was one of his defenses.
> He and Engerman always defended the book
>as being a response to the kind of dreamy revisionism
>of the Old South romantics who argued that the Civil
>War was not necessary because slavery was not
>profitable and would have just naturally disappeared
>on its own if everybody had just left all those nice
>people on the plantations alone to run their own affairs.
>Fogel and Engerman argued that, no, war, or at least
>some extraordinary political effort, was necessary to
>end slavery. The only non-war alternative would have
>been to have the federal government pay the slaveholders
>to free their slaves.
>Barkley Rosser
>Barkley Rosser
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 2:57 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:7819] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: chinese exclusion acts/query on
>Stanley Engerman
>
>
>>At 11:30 AM 2/6/01 -0800, you wrote:
>>> >and Engerman was some sort of New Left firebrand, right?
>>> >
>>>Heh, do I detect irony?
>>
>>no, you don't. I believe Engerman _was_ a New Left firebrand but then
"grew
>>up" (as ex-leftists are wont to say). I just don't know the details.
>>
>>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>>
>>
>
