An Exploratory Analysis of Time on the Cross and Its Archival Implications

IntroductionRobert Fogel and Stanley Engerman's 1974 publication, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery, was a reappraisal of the fiscal sustainability of institutional slavery. Predicated on the scientific method of quantitative data analysis, the work classified the U.S. slave system as a mutually beneficial exchange of services and commodities between plantation owners and slave laborers. Because of its inflammatory statements, the book quickly gained prominence in popular culture and instigated a maelstrom of public and scholarly debate. Economic historians openly questioned the authors' research methods while social analysts castigated the book's reinterpretation of slavery's cultural impact. Traditional historians were hesitantly diplomatic in their responses; professional archivists abstained from the debate entirely. The sustained absence of an archival response and the continued dearth of literature about the case are inexplicable given the book's notoriety and topical relevance to two important archival issues: the need for diverse representation in collections and the public role of the professional archivist.An example of limited historical data used as conclusive social evidence, Time on the Cross is the worst-case scenario for cultural archives that do not regularly appraise their collections or accession materials to present alternative perspectives to the master narrative. Without inclusive acquisition models, historically marginalized groups are precluded from being documented in the cultural memory. Recognizing the social power inherent in the archival record requires archivists to discard the self-appointed role of neutral observer and actively engage in public interpretations of their collections.As intermediaries between the user and the record, archivists are also uniquely positioned to advocate for the legitimate use of archival material as evidence. However, the absence of an archival response to Time on the Cross and the continued contemporary debate about the appropriate degree of abstraction from the Schellenberg practice model indicates that the scope of professional advocacy is still an unresolved issue in the archival community. Should archivists, in fact, bear some responsibility for the cultural impact of their collections?As a public narrative based on historical records, Time on the Cross has strong archival implications, especially in regards to appraisal and its relationship to collection diversity and professional responsibility. This paper explores both of these topics and, based on the case study, examine the relevant schools of thought and literature that address the archivist's role in creating culturally representative collections and the scope of archival responsibility.Time on the Cross: A Brief Case HistoryIn the collaborative effort, Time on the Cross, Fogel and Engerman attempt to bridge the cleft between cultural studies and the hard sciences by contributing an economic analysis of institutional slavery and its positive externalities. Both authors are formally trained economists and were influential in the burgeoning field of cliometrics, a specialization of economic, social, and political history that gained prominence in the 1960s. The authors introduced the pragmatic methods of scientific analysis into historical research to create impartial analytic data. Ultimately, Time on the Cross was a social science exercise that relied on an objective analytic method to investigate a subjective historical topic.1In the book, the authors stated that compared to the subsequent period of emancipation, slaves experienced more economic solubility, moral indoctrination, and positive reinforcement of traditional social values during enslavement. In addition, Fogel and Engerman asserted that the financial collapse of the southern states was inextricably linked to the advent of the Civil War; otherwise, both the South and all of its inhabitants would have continued to benefit fiscally. …