Carry Me Back: The Domestic Slave Trade

Throughout the course of history, many historians have become committed to studying the condition of slavery in the southern half of the United States. Despite this growth of interest in southern history, one aspect seldom gets addressed: the domestic slave trade. It is in Stephen Deyle’s book, Carry Me Back: The Domestic Slave Trade in American Life that the author submits that there has been a certain level of neglect about the domestic slave trade, and that the slave trade deserves further recognition because the very presence of the trade significantly influenced southern way of life. So much so, that the domestic slave trade even played out in the further divisions of the region that eventually led to secession and thus civil war. Over the course of his book, Deyle notes the rise in the slave trade following the closure of the Atlantic slave trade. Deyle also makes it a point of emphasis to address how the slave trade was preformed, focusing on how much of a common sight the slave trade was, but also examining southern justification of the domestic slave trade. Deyle does this by detailing how southern slaveholders were those who were the most involved in the slave trade, and were in fact involved in the business for the economic gain. Moreover, the slave trade additionally created an almost sectional crisis between the Upper and
Lower South over the retention of the slave trade. This is a massive claim, as Deyle essentially asserts that the slave trade, while controversial even among the southern states, was significant in creating tensions and ultimately causing secession. By far, the strongest point of Carry Me Back is mention of the southern justification of the slave trade, and thus the institution of slavery.
In order to show the positives of slavery, Deyle offers an interesting perspective by devoting a chapter of his book to this point. It is in this chapter that Deyle focuses on the good-natured white planters who themselves believed slavery was an economic advantage to them, as well as viewing their slaves in a paternalistic nature. Additionally, Deyle even offers nuanced perspectives by recounting both northern abolitionist and African-American opinions and stories about the slave
trade. In contrast to this, one of the weakest points of Deyle’s books comes from his lack of mention and focus of on the specific details of the slave auction blocks. This may be a personal opinion, but the stories provided by Deyle about the events that commonly transpired at slave actions, as described by Charles Ball (Deyle 168-169), was an interesting point to make that the author seems to mention in less than suitable detail. Additionally, the mention of cadences was hardly explored in the book, yet the title of the book is a reference to one such song! This topic could prove for an interesting supplementary study, specifically how cadences played into the depictions and life of African-American slaves in the domestic slave trade. To conclude, Deyle’s claim that the domestic slave trade in southern history has been grossly underrepresented and forgotten is an effective thesis. Deyle’s argument can be seen as valid because he provides interesting perspectives of the slave trade, from abolitionists to white plantation owners and even some African-American accounts, but also because the author is able to tie the topic into the impact of the south at this time. By placing the slave trade in a historical context that the slave trade helped shaped southern life, Deyle is able to effectively show how the domestic slave trade is significant and should not be lessened or forgotten.