> One criticism from the left was the apparently possible subtly
> implied approval of slavery. If it was profitable, then
> somehow that might mean that it was good. Needless to say
> F&E strongly rejected this argument.
Uh-uh. The criticism--and not just from the left--was of several unsubtle claims that did make slavery look, if not good, at least not so bad. * That whipping and other forms of corporal punishment were rare. * That slave families were very seldom broken up by the slave trade. (With typical sensitivity, F&E noted that most of those who were separated from their families were young men at an age when leaving the family was normal.) * That slaveowners worked hard to inculcate a "puritan ethic" in their chattel, i.e. didn't rape them and encouraged them to defer marriage. * That slavery was not only profitable (which I don't think is controversial) but profitable because of the diligence and motivation of the slaves. (I can't provide quotes because I don't have the book in front of me, but I'll dig some up this weekend.)
It wouldn't really be right to say that these claims were refuted, because most of them were specious to begin with. For instance, the claim that whippings were rare is backed by the diary of a single slave-owner, Bennet Barrow, which is quoted so selectively as to really be falsified--e.g. F&E claim that most slaves were not whipped at all during the several years covered by the diary when it has a number of references to "general whiping frolicks" and to whipping every fieldhand. (Anyone curious about this stuff should check out Slavery and the Numbers Game by Herbert Gutman.)
The only one of their claims that was the subject of serious debate was the last; as I recall the literature, the consensus that was eventually reached was that slavery was more efficient than free labor only with crops that were susceptible to tightly-disciplined gang labor.
It's interesting that in their follow-up work, Without Consent and Contract, F&E drop almost all the claims that got Time on the Cross into trouble. They don't even use the word cliometrics. They do quote Eugene Genovese (who Fogel personally expelled from the CP) to the effect that slaveowners couldn't have been all *that* harsh to their slaves, but that's about it.
Josh jmason at aflcio.org