Caitlin C. Rosenthal didn't intend to write a book about slavery. She set out to tackle something much more mundane: the history of business practices. But when she started researching account books from the mid-1800s, a period of major economic development during the rise of industrialization in the United States, Rosenthal stumbled across an unexpected source of innovation.
Rosenthal, a Harvard-Newcomen Fellow in business history at Harvard Business School, found that southern plantation owners kept complex and meticulous records, measuring the productivity of their slaves and carefully monitoring their profits—often using even more sophisticated methods than manufacturers in the North. Several of the slave owners' practices, such as incentivizing workers (in this case, to get them to pick more cotton) and depreciating their worth through the years, are widely used in business management today.
“How much more do we need to think about our responsibility to people?”
As fascinating as her findings were, Rosenthal had some misgivings about their implications. She didn't want to be perceived as saying something positive about slavery. On the contrary, she sees her research as a critique of capitalism—one that could broaden the understanding of today's business practices.
The work is part of her current book project, "From Slavery to Scientific Management: Capitalism and Control in America, 1754-1911," and the forthcoming edited collection Slavery's Capitalism.
The evolution of modern management is usually associated with good old-fashioned intelligence and ingenuity—"a glorious parade of inventions that goes from textile looms to the computer," Rosenthal says. But in reality, it's much messier than that. Capitalism is not just about the free market; it was also built on the backs of slaves who were literally the opposite of free.
"It's a much bigger, more powerful question to ask, If today we are using management techniques that were also used on slave plantations," she says, "how much more careful do we need to be? How much more do we need to think about our responsibility to people?"
Absentee Ownership
According to Rosenthal, the history of detailed record-keeping on plantations goes back to at least the 1750s in Jamaica and Barbados. When wealthy slave owners in the West Indies started leaving others in charge of their plantations, she found, they asked for regular reports about how their businesses were faring. Some historians see this rise in absentee ownership as a sign of decline, but it is also among the first instances of the separation of ownership and management, Rosenthal says—a landmark in the history of capitalism.
Slave owners were able to collect data on their workforce in ways that other business owners couldn't because they had complete control over their workers. They didn't have to worry about turnover or recruiting new workers, and they could experiment with different tactics—moving workers around and demanding higher levels of output, even monitoring what they ate and how long new mothers breastfed their babies. And the slaves had no recourse.
"If you tried to do this with a northern laborer," Rosenthal says, "they'd just quit."
The widespread adoption of these accounting techniques is partly due to a Mississippi planter and accountant named Thomas Affleck, who developed account books for plantation owners that allowed them to make sophisticated calculations and measure productivity in a standardized way.
Tracking this information allowed planters to determine how far they could push their workers to get the most profit. Using the account books, slave owners could see how many pounds of cotton each slave picked and compare it to their output from previous years—and then create minimum picking requirements based on these calculations.
Looking Forward
This led owners to experiment with ways of increasing the pace of labor, Rosenthal explains, such as holding contests with small cash prizes for those who picked the most cotton, and then requiring the winners to pick that much cotton from there on out. Slave narratives describe how others used the data to calculate punishment, meting out whippings according to how many pounds each picker fell short.
Similar incentive plans reappeared in early twentieth-century factories, with managers dangling the promise of cash rewards if their workers reached certain production levels.
Planters also used group incentives to encourage honesty, doling out a barrel of corn to each hand with the caveat that if anything was stolen from the farm and no one turned in the thief, double the value of that corn would be deducted from each of their Christmas awards. Collective penalties would later be adopted by salesmen and companies like Singer Sewing Company to encourage workers to police one another.
Rosenthal says the rise of the railroad is often credited with creating new units of production, including the cost per ton mile, but slavery's comparable "bales per prime hand" unit was developed earlier in the nineteenth century. Comparing the number of cotton bales that different types of workers produced to similar workers on other farms, planters calculated the worth of each slave. A healthy 30-year-old male, for instance, would be considered one worker, known as a hand, whereas a child may be recorded as half a hand, and an older slave might be three-quarters of a hand. Figuring out the total number of "hands" on a farm allowed owners and overseers to compare their results.
The concept of depreciation is also credited to the railroad era, when railroad owners allocated the cost of their trains over time, but Rosenthal notes that slave owners were doing this before then. Starting in the late 1840s, Thomas Affleck's account books instructed planters to record depreciation or appreciation of slaves on their annual balance sheet. In 1861, for example, another Mississippi planter priced his 48-year-old foreman, Hercules, at $500; recorded the worth of Middleton, a 26-year-old top-producing field hand, at $1,500; and gave 9-month-old George Washington a value of $150. At the end of the year, he repeated this process, adjusting for changes in health and market prices, and the difference in price was recorded on the final balance sheet.
These account books played a role in reducing slaves to "human capital," Rosenthal says, allowing owners who were removed from day-to-day operations to see their slaves as assets, as interchangeable units of production in a ledger, instead of as people.
Rosenthal is aware that what started out as a straightforward history of business practices could become highly controversial, with some misconstruing her research as a kind of justification of slavery. Instead, she wants her research to inform managers and companies to become more aware of the complicated legacy of today's business practices and the origins of some their day-to-day management practices.
"I got into this because I followed my sources," Rosenthal says. "I didn't mean to walk into this minefield."
Images: The Business of Slave Ownership
These accounts and a letter detail business transactions for slaves and related supplies. They are from the Peace Dale Manufacturing Co. Collection, held at Harvard Business School's Baker Library Historical Collections, which include records that vividly document the business of slave ownership.



City states Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong all part of the racket.
times, but one that every American should be made aware that these were times PAST and not the present.
There is no justification for slavery or treating people badly, but unfortunately, is part of our history.
It's depressing but factual, the productivity accounting processes were developed under such inhumane conditions.
Even more depressing is the fact that currently, the corporate practices of monitoring human productivity and establishing a value on human capital are equal or worse than those practices during the period of slavery; excluding the whipping, rape, under/no pay, etc.
Historic details of tracking human productivity described through this research is a very sad commentary and i applaud both C. Rosenthal for stumbling into this minefield and K. Johnston for bringing this information to the light for all to understand the unwanted sacrifaces and contributions to America made by slaves during that period.
It makes me nauseous that modern corporations are using techniques learned through experimentation with slaves.
This is valuable information and I look forward to reading her work.
Seeing this as rooted in American slavery seems quite provincial.
Similar scenario has and is existing in many parts of India.
Equality and human rights professed by authorities are not seen on the ground and the gulf between the rich and the poor has not narrowed.
A worthwhile study, insightful and disrupting, but adds value to good learning just the same. Thumbs up, Ms. Rosenthal!
History often repeats itself. Although not out in the open, human slavery is still rampant in various countries today. It has not vanished from the fabrics of society. Shadows of slavery can still be seen in how we think and behave in this century - even in the business sphere.
About 2,200 years ago the Roman and the Chinese empires were about the same size, in territory and population, and both kept meticulous, detailed records with standardized units.
The point is that every organization larger than what can be managed by walking around is inclined to engage in record-keeping and analysis, and when the manager must report to an absentee owner or imperial head office the organization is compelled to engage in record-keeping and analysis.
Rosenthal's research does not justify slavery; her research shows that slavery became a large, complex organization with reporting and analysis requirements. The odious nature of slavery or the gulags or the majesty of the Roman and Chinese empires are relevant to our moral view of those organizations, however.
The findings are interesting and worth pondering over.
1. 200 years later today's researcher finds the meticulous science of management in an abhorable practice ("slavery").
2. If we need to not be seen in the same light 200 years down by another enlightened researcher - we need to look at how do we treat our people in today's management.
Hope the prospect of us not being looked at as the next avatar of slave leaders - will make us all look at doing what's right for the broader community, in an much as we all need to build our personal wealth...
"Capitalism is not just about the free market; it was also built on the backs of slaves who were literally the opposite of free."
Are you saying Capitalism only existed recently as when slavery or chattle slavery existed in regions of the americas? Capitalism as I see it has been around since before Western Thinking has been noted. I think you are making a mistake by saying capitalism was built on the backs of slavery. Again Capitalism has been around since way before the Vatican gave Portugal monopoly over African Chattle Slavery. Please clarify or let me know what you think.
I think Frederick Taylor may have arrived at this independently, but the parallels are uncanny. As a proponent for a more humane way of working (=living), I'll love pointing back to the slavery (from a negative sense) ref... THANKS!
In USA, the power of communication and speed popularized those ideas when they were presented as the management (if they were) techniqes. I suspect that Taylor and Ford etc did not learn it from the Slavery System, because there is no record or either of them reading up on what Ms Rosenthall is reading. Many people developed the ideas on their own out of vision or necessity. Just because it existed before, does not mean it is the source of the modern day managerial accounting techniques. That is nonsense.
What frightens me is the new push from CEOs to get the retirement age in the US moved to 70. All well and good for CEOs making millions to force labor to work further into life while they enjoy the fruits of others' labor and retire at early ages with platinum trimmings. While I plan to retire well before 70, it's so that I can move toward activities that contribute social and spiritual value, not shareholder value.
There is however, a mysterious discontinuity between pre and post slavery business in America. For instance, can you name the modern coporation that once owned slaves (Or traded with slave owners)? Perhaps this is what the author is getting at?
of dehunanization of both master and - to a lesser extent - slave. As with the still polluted streams of Pennsylvania, the legacy of slavery continues to pollute our country. A high price.
I only throw this out to caution all of us to be careful comparing business practices with social contracts, behaviors, and philosophies. "Messy" isn't even close to a term I would use when we explore these relationships.
[IMO] This is regretfully correct, and more regretful still that too many detached wealthy/politicians consider people as productivity assets (slaves). Capitalism is a meritocracy system. People that can exploit the system rise to the heights of the gaming-meritocracy. Exploit of a meritocracy system indicates poor governance a/o criminal activities. All meritocracy systems require a fair and equal chance of victory or success for all participants (people). Capitalism as a meritocracy system requires honesty, loyalty, democracy .... Abuse, treason, exploitation ... of a meritocracy system is a form of tyranny and oppression [like slavery].
Traitors / Criminals without repercussions are masters of people without representation.
Then maybe; for me, "Reality is self-induced hallucination." Personal reality need not be actuality.
1. Slave as an Asset
2. Slave as a Worker
In today's world of business, a slave with certain rights and benefits is referred to an as employee or simply just a worker. His/her worth which determines his/her salary and wages is still being derived in the same way we would that of a slave; age, knowledge, experience, health, physical strength, etc! I want to believe that there were different classes of slaves too!
And for many professionals today, where jobs require constant travel and/or 70-80 hour work weeks, the difference between that and slavery is a free smartphone and organic food. Or rather, just the smartphone; slaves had organic food too.