Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
Stephanie Camp’s work in Closer to Freedom is important and unique, because in a field of slave narratives largely aimed solely at eliciting sympathy and horror (Camp notes the prevalence of this leading up to the civil war, citing Theodore Weld and Angelina Grimke’s American Slavery As It Is, but I would argue it remains prevalent today). Unlike authors and historians who wish to either atone for wrongs or induce guilt, Camp appears to have a simple goal: to restore agency to a people who for so long have been robbed of it in the historical narrative.
Andrew points out in his response that Camp shies away from using the word “slave,” preferring the terms enslaved people or bondsmen/women because those terms grant more agency than the static idea of a slave. This is a very deliberate choice Camp makes, and she clearly explains in a footnote to the introduction that the term slave “risks flattening the complex history of slavery and essentializing the personhood of bondspeople” (143). In this way Camp perceives an important point that lends credibility to her entire goal – it would be quite difficult to demonstrate the agency of a marginalized population while using the language of their oppressors; a word that connotes complete lack of freedom.
Camp’s decision to focus on women is also unique, and serves as an effort to fill in some of the gaps in the historiography of American slavery. I will freely admit that I am no expert in this field, but the books I have read (and even the movies I have seen) tend to largely, if not completely, focus on the experience of enslaved men. Camp’s work led me to realize that this imbalance likely stemmed from the fact that men were much more frequently able to successfully and permanently escape. Women, hampered by more familial and social responsibility than men, made do with smaller bursts of resistance through absenteeism and secret gatherings (37). She even notes at several points that even this seemingly small form of resistance proved quite dangerous for women in particular, because they were rarely granted passes to move outside the plantation boundaries (72).
A particularly interesting section of the book, especially in regards to women, is the discussion of slaveholding women and their treatment of enslaved people. Camp asserts that slaveholding women were more violent and impulsive than male slaveholders and overseers, due to the strange idea that “true manly mastery exhibited control, not passion; honor was not satisfied by the meting out of vindictive beatings to social inferiors” (132). This idea does make sense, but I think it is interesting to point out that this idea of mastery through levelheaded control is almost completely discredited in any popular media portrayal of slaveholders, in favor of “masters” who seem irrational and governed by strong emotions. If this was indeed the disposition of most male slaveholders, why is there such a disconnect between history and popular culture?
I also thought the section on slaveholding women was interesting Taylor. Both men and women were involved in punishing enslaved people, but the women seemed to have more passion and less order. It is important to remember that there were some women, like Mrs. Young, who might have convinced her husband not to be so harsh (Camp 96, 111-114).
Maybe the disconnect might have something to do with memory. Like you said, women are not always remembered or recognized in the story of slavery, although they were active participants on both sides. I think also popular culture tends to create simplified and limited stereotypes that imply that “masters” are violent and enraged instead of controlled.
Pingback: Closer To Freedom – Response #2 – Readings in 19th Century American History – Fall 2016