Few today dwell on the significance of republican institutions. In the nineteenth century, however, republicanism was a revolutionary ideology proclaiming the right of all people as citizens to control their lives. While associated with universal suffrage, republicanism was not yet confined to a narrow political sphere, and many still sought to extend its values to economic affairs. They questioned whether citizens empowered to decide political questions should not also make economic decisions that affected their lives, and they warned that governments resting on free citizenship were threatened by concentrations of wealth giving some a disproportionate voice in society’s economic life. What sort of republic, one asked, could survive burdened with “this strange paradox of man split in two . . . subject in the workshop, king in the city”? (Diligent 1910: 5)

The period of greatest socialist strength in the United States, the second decade of the twentieth century, coincided with the final decade of a great wave of immigration. This phenomenon has attracted the attention both of scholars seeking to understand the basis of support for the American Socialist party and of those seeking to address the more general question of the sources of immigrant radicalism (Bodnar 1985; Lipset 1977). Both perspectives pose a basic empirical question: What role did ethnicity play in support for the Socialist party, or, more specifically, which immigrant groups supported the party and which groups opposed it?

The attempt to answer this question has spawned a vast scholarship on the part of historians and social scientists, but a definitive answer remains elusive. Part of the reason for this is that we lack sufficiently detailed and disaggregated data on the political orientations and activities of immigrants themselves. The smallest units of electoral return are at the ward or county level, and information at this aggregate level can never allow us to draw conclusions about individual behavior with any certainty. But it also seems to be the case that the analysis of currently available data has not been taken as far as possible. Previous research has explored the relationship between ethnicity and socialism by examining particular immigrant groups in individual states, cities, or towns (e.g., Critchlow 1986; Gorenstein 1961; Leinenweber 1981; Lorence 1982; Miller 1975; Wolfle and Hodge 1983). Such case studies provide invaluable accounts of the diversity of immigrant politics, but they do not provide a reliable basis for generalization. In this article we take a step back from the wealth of illustrative analysis and try to gain a broader, more systematic, overview of immigrant support for socialism across a wide range of contexts by examining voting among eight immigrant groups—Germans, English, Finns, Irish, Italians, Norwegians, Russians, and Swedes—in the presidential elections of 1912 and 1920, elections in which the American Socialist party received its highest levels of support.

Once a shining light among specialties pursued under the influence of the “new” social history, urban history, after falling out of favor in recent years, is attempting a return to prominence. Having witnessed the departure from the field of prominent contributors, including Richard Sennett and Theodore Hershberg, and noting a decline in enrollment as well as participation in scholarly conferences, a group of historians has formed a new American Urban History Association, with the purpose, as Kenneth Jackson put it in his call to membership, of stimulating “interest in the study of the city in history, both in the United States and around the world.” This effort is but one part of the urban history revival. Following the demise of urban history series at Oxford University and Kennikat presses in the 1970s, new series have recently emerged, at Ohio State, Columbia, and Temple universities. A major conference to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Arthur Schlesinger, Sr.’s (1940) groundbreaking article on urban history is slated for Chicago in 1990. These events notwithstanding, urban historians have much to do to reassert their rightful place among other specialists in American history.

These papers were among those presented at a conference entitled “The Atlantic Slave Trade: Who Gained and Who Lost?” held under the auspices of the Frederick Douglass Institute of the University of Rochester in October 1988. Social Science History has been publishing some of the papers from this conference, and the full set of papers will be published as a volume by Duke University Press.

Studies of the history of the Atlantic slave trade in Africa have focused on demography and within it on the number of slaves exported from Africa (Curtin 1969; Lovejoy 1982, 1983; Manning 1981). Seen from the perspective of African history, the question of the number exported is a window on larger fields of inquiry and an area open to research, but it is only a small part of the larger question of the impact of the trade on Africa. Working out a reasonable estimate of the number exported does not give us the number lost, for we can only estimate the number killed in wars and raids or the number who died while being moved toward slave markets. Even if the demographic question were the most important one, the most crucial aspect of it would not be the raw statistics of exports but the question of reproduction (Gregory and Cordell 1987). Reproduction involves a host of variables: nutrition, disease, agricultural productivity, security, political stability, and quality of life among others. Most of these are not amenable to precise answers. Furthermore, the question of reproduction leads us to the larger questions of political, social, and economic relationships. This article examines the effects of the slave trade on the institutional structure of Senegambia and the western Sudan and the reproduction of the societies involved.

If the best-known aspects of African slavery remain the horrors of the middle passage and the travail of plantation life in the Americas, recent work has nonetheless provided some important reminders of the Old World ramifications of slavery (Miller 1988; Meillassoux 1986; Miers and Roberts 1988; Manning in press-a). Millions of slaves were sent from sub-Saharan Africa to serve in households and plantations in North Africa and the Middle East and suffered heavy casualties on their difficult journey. Millions more, captured in the same net as those sent abroad, were condemned to slavery on the African continent. The mortality of captives in Africa, therefore, included not only losses among those headed for export at the Atlantic coast but the additional losses among those destined for export to the Orient and among those captured and transported to serve African masters.