Davis – Page 2 – U.S. to 1877

October 29, 2013

Wilentz Ch. 7 / Davis Ch. 9-10: The Slave-Owner’s Conundrum

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

Sherwood Callaway

HIS 141, Blog post 5

In response to this week’s readings, one of my classmates wrote:

“While I certainly agree that the tension between the nation’s founding principles and the oppression of slavery contributed to masters’ desire to see their actions as a form of paternalism rather than overt oppression, I don’t believe slave owners had any interest in acquiring the affection of their slaves.”

http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/author/alkarout/

I understand this perspective; it is hard to imagine a way in which “benevolence” can be associated with such a horrendous institution. Southern plantation society seems completely consumed by capitalist gain and self-interest— lacking a sense of morality, and malevolent— especially from a modern perspective. This conclusion is accurate, but not entire.

Consider this angle. We often conclude that northerners were more morally inclined than southerners because of they held more progressive positions on the institution of slavery. But the northern colonies also participated in slavery— the difference being that they maintained a “society with slaves”, rather than a “slave society.” I would argue that the north was independent of slavery only out of convenience. If the institution had been more useful for shipbuilding, fishing or commercial activity, I’m sure it would have had greater influence in those spheres. After all, it is reasonable to assume that southerners sought the same thing as northerners: monetary gain. The prevalence of slavery in a particular region seems to have depended solely upon its potential to produce in said region.

The issue of racism in the south, however, is less excusable. We learned from studying the Chesapeake colonies that racism was not necessarily a reason for slavery, but rather a byproduct. White solidarity developed out anxiety and fear—the anxiety of being a minority, and the fear of a deadly slave revolt. But over time, white solidarity developed into an aggressive, indiscriminate defense mechanism. This trajectory— from prolonged fear to aggression— is strikingly similar to colonial perspectives of natives during the 17^th century.

(On a more general note, I think that the innumerable dangers of the “new world” explain the colonists’ aggressive behavior. They seemed to be constantly on edge!)

Ultimately, racism became malevolent, andcontributed to sustaining the institution of slavery. But this isn’t the complete story. Because of their spread-out communities, southerners enjoyed plenty of freedom from both the law and their peers. Their sense of personal liberty was second only to the frontiers peoples’. Also, they were English protestants. They held “good” Christian values, and wanted to save souls by spreading the faith. Southerners likely struggled to marry these ideological and religious beliefs to the institution of slavery. In some capacity, I feel sorry for plantation owners, because they absolutely needed slave labor to compete economically, but the institution was incompatible with their beliefs. Sustaining their livelihoods meant burdening an ideological and religious conundrum.

This is where I return to my classmate’s post. I would argue that “paternal benevolence” likely existed as an attempt to reconcile notions of freedom and Christian kindness with the institution of slavery.

In sum: slavery was perpetuated by commercial interests and malevolent racism, but slave owners were not necessarily without benevolence.

October 28, 2013

Not-So-Benevolent Paternalism

This week’s Davis reading was incredibly gripping. He expanded upon the nuances and contradictions of slave societies that can often be perplexing. He clarified the point that, while slavery and racism in early US history were deeply intertwined, the absence of slavery did not equate to absence of racism. The racial slavery that was characteristic of the US’s slave system had an impact that also affected free blacks. This was illustrated by the existence of a color complex among freedmen—a manifestation of internalized racism created by slavery. Freedmen were ‘eager for honor,’ and did not want to be referred to as any darker than they found themselves, thus showing that, as a result of white supremacy in the US, ‘honor’ was directly correlated with whiteness (180). The case of William Ellison, who was born a slave but became a slave owner, also showed the extent of slavery’s negative impact. The lucrative nature of slavery, especially in the south, could intoxicate anyone—even those who had been its victim— into defying the basic principles of humanity by becoming slave owners.

Tasimmons mentioned in their post that “the American preoccupation with being liked by their slaves and being ‘paternalistic’ was a result of the disparity between the institution of slavery and the principles of liberty and freedom.” While I certainly agree that the tension between the nation’s founding principles and the oppression of slavery contributed to masters’ desire to see their actions as a form of paternalism rather than overt oppression, I don’t believe slave owners had any interest in acquiring the affection of their slaves.

Masters were only willing to consider accommodating their slaves in order to instill the absolute minimum amount of docility as to not create an uprising. The slave codes of southern states showed that “bondsmen were human beings who were capable of plotting, stealing, fleeing, or rebelling, and who were likely to be less ‘troublesome property’ if well cared for under a program of strict discipline” (Davis, 193-194). The welfare of slaves was only desirable to the extent that the master’s economic interests were protected. Even then, the submission of slave rebellions was more often achieved through psychological torment (for example, the threat of separating enslaved families by selling off relatives) than by appeasement (Davis, 183). The portrayal of slave ownership as benevolent paternalism was nothing more than a condescending infantilization of blacks and an overall poor excuse used to perpetuate the lucrative institution of slavery.

Personally, I am not convinced that nineteenth century figures are above criticism for their faulty morality. It’s unsettling that some people can look back upon great acts of systematic oppression with an apologetic tone. Perhaps it’s easier to attribute the lack of humanity of the ruling class to their misguided systems of belief, but after reading Davis I can’t help but think that southern American slavery came from a conscious decision to place profit above humanity.

September 18, 2013

Slavery in the North, Virginia, and South Carolina

Slavery took on distinct forms in the various regions of America. In the North slavery was not as commonplace as in the South, but slavery in some areas was still the primary backbone of physical labor, and unlike the South, Northern slaves were more directly in competition with working class whites, but at the same time had more elements of their own autonomy and were often quite close to their white owners. In Virginia slavery underwent several transformations. Slavery saw its roots initially in Virginia as very similar to indentured servitude, with some slaves finding freedom after working for a master for a set number of years. The beginning years of slavery in Virginia showed a surprising degree of egalitarianism between freed blacks and whites, with some blacks becoming planters and slave owners themselves. As time went on however, and more slaves entered Virginia, the elites among the society grew upset at the idea of this near racial equality and worked to enshrine black inferiority into the laws, resulting in a vast removal of the rights of freed blacks and of those of slaves. In South Carolina, a interesting dichotomy emerged, slaves were crucial to almost every aspect of South Carolina life, from working the fields to fighting Indians, and the slave owners profited greatly from the slaves’ skills and labor, but the slave owners were greatly fearful of the possibility of a slave uprising, as they were outnumbered by their slaves and instituted harsh slave codes to attempt to prevent it. But in spite of this slaves had a greater degree of cultural autonomy than within other portions of the American colonies.

September 18, 2013

Comparing the Colonies investments in Slavery

Even in his first sentence, Davis is determined to breakdown our misconceptions about slavery in Colonial America by pointing out slavery was more deeply entrenched in American lifestyle than the usual history books might lead us to believe. He wants us to be aware that slaves in North America were not just cotton pickers on Mississippi plantations in the 1850’s. This chapter focuses on the development of slavery, racism, and societal integration of Africans in Colonial America. I found that I could follow Inhuman Bondage better than American Colonies because of how Davis arranges his discussions. Although not truly chronological, Davis likes to go through the timeline of one colony and then give the timeline of another colony, and as a result allows us to compare the two and makes his arguments easier to find and understand.

As other classmates have pointed out, it was surprising to read that Virginia and Maryland contained over half of all the slaves in North America in 1775. Davis points out that with exception to South Carolina, English-started colonies were not planning on having a slavery society. In fact, when slavery first cropped up in Rhode Island, the locals banned the practice of enslaving for life, and instead forced owners to release their slaves after 10 years. This is also shown in Pennsylvania, when Quakers sent a petition to a local meeting in Germantown arguing that slavery broke divine law. A point that I think Davis might be making is that English colonialists were not the only perpetrators of slavery, as he points out the Dutch used slaves to settle New Amsterdam. At the end of Dutch rule, Davis says, “Black slaves would constitute about 20% of the population of New Amsterdam…” (Davis 127)

This is very similar to what Sylvia talks about in her post, that because the Dutch didn’t have the economic, religious, and other problems that were present in England, they needed black labor. Further on Davis says that a third of all labor preformed in New York City in the 18th century was done by blacks. However, he points out that more of the black population was free in New York, 75 out of the city’s 375 black population, than in southern colonies.

The last point I found very interesting in the chapter was the distinction that Davis makes about how societies develop into a slave society. He separates the northern “societies with slaves” and the southern “slave societies” as different because of the way slavery played into colonies’ economies. Where southern colonies had cash-crops such as cotton, tobacco, rice, and sugar, the northern colonies did not have a crop that depended on slave labor and thus were just societies who also had slaves. I think this is important as it eventually factors into which states were pro-slavery (the south) and those opposed (the north) in our civil war.

September 18, 2013

Inhuman Bondage: Chapter 6

In chapter 6, Davis discusses slave culture and social norms along the Atlantic coast. Rather than the arguements Taylor put forth, showing the similarities and differences between the three geographical regions, Davis makes the case that slave culture and treatment differed along lines that were by no means geographical. The differences between how black slaves were treated, he points out, is far too complex to be grouped into distinct categories, and even within small regions slave social norms take on unique identities. He points out an example from the mid atlantic colonies, where a graveyard of 23,000 dead slaves were found buried, but within the same community slaves were allowed to eat the same food at the same table with their white masters. As in the nature of the text, Inhuman Bondage dives deeper into the story of African American’s lives as slaves, and how many of them worked the system to become free men. Davis discusses how slaves would spend time learning about christian culture, and use it to their advantage in order to bargain to for their freedom, or in most cases half-freedom. Davis also makes the argument that a major reason for the difference in the number of slaves was due to the number of indentured servants available to work in the particular region. He states that many of the northern areas had less slaves because many vagrants and criminals from Britain were being shipped over in order to work,and that slavery boomed when the labor pool of indentured servants dries up. Overall, I enjoy the more focused writing of Davis, and his ability to condense large ideas into concrete writing that paint an alternative picture of slavery in colonial america

September 17, 2013

In Chapter 6 of Inhuman Bondage, Davis attempted to demonstrate how African slavery differed from region to region in the New World. He explored the origins and development of slavery in the northern, Chesapeake, and southern colonies.

Slavery initially generated significant resistance in the northern colonies. Davis cited a clash between slavery and religious ideology, particularly from the Puritans and Quakers. While antislavery sentiments existed in the English settlements in the north, the Dutch lacked the white labor supported by an influx of immigrants, and therefore looked to Africa for slavery from an early stage. Davis conveyed that although the northern colonies had low percentages of slave populations, a significantly greater percentage of labor came from African slaves. However, Davis’s central theme pertaining to the North was that although slavery existed, the North did not rely on slave labor like its southern counterparts.

Davis depicted a chronic progression of slavery and racial relations in the Chesapeake region. Initially, Africans experienced a form of servitude very similar to white laborers. However, as the proportion of white servants declined, African slavery increased at a remarkable rate, and racial distinction became more prevalent. Davis noted the distinguishing factor of Virginia slavery consisted of the dramatic natural increase in slave population. While this growth benefitted planters economically, the resulting fear among whites had a tremendous social and political impact. Essentially, whites of different status began to unify over race in resistance to the growing black population. Davis then cited an Edmund S. Morgan argument claiming that racism played a vital role in forming republican ideology in America.

The South featured a totally unique brand of slavery. At the outset, slaves experienced more freedom and equality, as Davis mentioned a source that implied blacks possessed the ability to vote at one point. The South, expressed vividly by South Carolina, relied heavily upon slave labor. In fact, slave population significantly outnumbered white population in the region, resulting in more social and cultural unity among slaves than in any other colonial region. However, slaveowners, particularly in South Carolina following the Stono Rebellion, subjected their slaves to extremely harsh treatment.

Davis pointed out a key characteristic regarding North American slavery. With the exception of South Carolina, no colonies formed with the intent of exploiting slave labor. It appeared to be a gradual and fairly universal movement in the colonies. While the slavery differed among the colonies, several important and somewhat surprising similarities existed. For example, contrary to my prior knowledge, colonists used slaves in a variety of ways and a hierarchy formed among slaves.

My least favorite aspect of Davis’s style was the lack of organization within the chapter. While he divided it regionally, I think he could have done a clearer job of breaking up the chapter. In addition, I found it a little confusing as he jumped from one topic to another within a region.

September 11, 2013

Inhuman Bondage 4 & 5

Although I enjoyed the content that Davis presented in Inhuman Bondage, I disagree with many of my classmates, in that I did not particularly enjoy his writing. While he frequently reaches thoughtful, provocative conclusions, following his thought process is often strenuous. Davis tends to jump between time periods and places frequently, and often introduces new subject matter with little to no explanation. Although perhaps his content is more protracted than Taylor, by and large I find Taylor easier to read.

Despite his writing style, much of what Davis relayed in chapters four and five was incredibly shocking. The suggestion that the atrocities committed during the slave trade were too horrible to describe with words was incredibly powerful. Additionally, although Davis never explicitly makes such a claim, the implied comparison between slaves and cattle was also enlightening. Upon further study, I found the linked artist’s rendition to be incredibly revealing and eye-opening. We often have a tendency to whitewash our own history, perhaps to protect our own consciousnesses from guilt, or perhaps to absolve past figures of their indecencies; however, Davis does an excellent job of presenting the unfiltered truths of the slave trade. In approaching this task, Davis writes like a journalist – he, to a certain degree, is free of bias and presents facts at face value. As such, he allows the reader to pass judgement.

I was also interested to learn about slavery in different parts of the “New World.” Traditionally, mostly in high school environments, we focus on plantation farming in the English colonies. However, I was intrigued to learn about the larger use of enslaved peoples in the Caribbean and Brazil. Up until that point, my understanding of the brutality of slave labor was somewhat limited, as I was really only familiar with slavery as it’s portrayed in media. As such, Davis’ accounts have made me interested to learn more about the brutality of that “peculiar institution” in those regions.

September 10, 2013

Inhuman Bondage, Chapters 4 and 5:

While reading chapters 4 and 5 of David Brion Davis’s Inhuman Bondage, I found that I was able to appreciate Davis’s style and delivery of information more than the passages from Alan Taylor’s American Colonies. Although several of my classmates may disagree, I believe that Davis’s writing is easier to read and absorb than Taylor’s.

One of the topics included in the reading that stood out to me was that not all forms of slavery were equal. While learning about the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in the “new world” in high school, there was little emphasis placed on the sharp differences between picking cotton, making sugar, or growing tobacco. Through this generalization of labor, it was difficult to understand which tasks were particularly arduous. In chapter 5, however, Taylor depicts the painstaking process of sugar cultivation in vivid detail. Taylor describes sugar production as having “far exceeded anything slaves encountered when cultivating tobacco, cotton, rice, or indigo” (108-109). Taylor essentially said that if slaves could pick their job, working in the sugar industry would be their last choice.

Another portion of the reading that stood out to me was how the Europeans justified the enslavement of other people. One particular way is the fact that Africans did not practice traditional European religions led Europeans to view them as inferior and worthy of being enslaved. Some people believed that by enslaving Africans and converting them to Christianity, the African people became civilized. Perhaps the most obvious difference between Africans and Europeans was race. Africans dark complexion was seen negatively in the eyes of Europeans, who associated black with “demons, devils, and tortures.” This simple but blatant difference enabled Europeans to frame Africans as the “ultimate outsiders” (79). Perceptions of Africans as inferior and foreign led to the acceptance of their roles as slaves by Europeans and resulted in African slaves becoming a social normality.

September 10, 2013

Davis, Chapter 4: The Origins of Race-Based Slavery

Sherwood Callaway
HIS 141, Blog Post 3

The institution of slavery as it existed in the American south would have been wholly unfamiliar to someone living in the 15th century. In the early modern world, Europeans abstained from slavery entirely, celebrating the ““non-enslavability” of Christian whites.” Africans only enslaved prisoners of war and debtors. Islamic states throughout the Mediterranean traded captives from the Black Sea area. The ancient Romans had operated similarly, refusing to make distinctions based on race, religion, etc.

In chapter 4 of Inhuman Bondage, author Davis investigates the origins of race-based slavery, a comparatively peculiar phenomenon. Jacob Newton suggested in his blog post that “a revival in classical learning” was responsible for rationalizing this kind of servitude. I would argue that there exists no classical precept that supports such a claim. Even the Gallic tribes, who were considered barbarians and defeated by Caesar, we’re only enslaved as prisoners of war. Rather, it is the Christian tradition, which dominated early modern Europe, that established the ideological foundation for race-based slavery. For example, the biblical “Curse of Ham” set a precedent for racial distinctions. The ancient Hebrewes enslaved their Canaanite enemies, and Europeans felt a similar “need to enslave “outsiders”.” Because of the darkness of their skin, Africans appeared dirty, uncivilized, and foreign. For the Portuguese in Brazil especially, the process of Christianizing these people became a particularly popular justification.

In the same chapter, Davis also supports the ideas of historian David Eltis, who argued that plantation slavery was an economic inevitability: a natural “next step” for the European economy, and a predecessor of “the efficiency, organization, and global interconnectedness of industrial capitalism.” The political and commercial environment of the early modern period made African slave labor a particularly appealing concept. Ironically, if not for religion and morality, the institution of slavery could have expanded infinitely for the want of profit.

September 10, 2013

Blog 1 – Lesson 4

In high school, when discussing the use of slavery through different historical eras, it is always described in negative (and often revisionist) terms that ignore the importance of slavery in maintaining the civilization’s regime. David Davis’ Inhuman Bondage ignores this narrative in favour of a more realistic approach that acknowledges the importance of slavery in the development of the New World. In Chapter 4, Davis describes the use of plantation slavery as “highly productive,” and describes it as the logical successor to the “efficiency, organization, and global interconnectedness of industrial capitalism.” Unlike historians I have been previously exposed to who only address slavery in comparison to the lack-their-of in modern society, Davis uses statistics to support his argument that slavery was essential to the rise of the New World.

As Caitlin identified, Davis’ stress of how the European colonizers viewed Africans as black slaves and themselves as white slave-owners is an important aspect of the master-servant relationship that kept the slave-trade active. These racial tensions and the fact that white Europeans automatically assumed themselves to be intellectually and culturally superior amazed me. I had read about the white European’s inflated view of themselves, especially in comparison to black Africans, but was unaware of the degree to which this existed. What struck out to me most about this issue was the fact that the Europeans were unable to differentiate between different African tribes, seeing them all universally as “black” (described as a complete lack of “pan-African consciousness”).

One interesting section of Chapter 5 was when Davis described in great length the process that went into the harvesting, manufacturing and distribution of the sugar trade. Minute details referring to the “drying of the “heads”” and “crushing of the easily perishable crops” gave me a more complete look into the final product and the labour that was required to achieve this final product (which Davis described as a far more challenging process than the Virginian tobacco farmers).

I was, however, unclear as to why (outside of geographical reasons) that the Portuguese essentially held a monopoly over the Spanish in regards to the sugarcane industry. Davis attempted to explain this, but I was still not certain as to why this was the case by the end of the readings. From previous chapters (especially in regards to other nations’ desires to emulate the Spanish accumulation of precious metals), it seemed as though colonial empires were learning from one another as to how to best sustain their territory. Since the sugarcane industry appeared to be highly lucrative, I thought it would make sense for other nations to attempt the trade.