African slavery – American History to 1877

February 9, 2014

Racism and Social Stability in the Southeastern Colonies

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

As he describes the development of the Chesapeake and Carolina colonies, Alan Taylor asserts that the rise of racial slavery allowed for improved social stability even as class differences grew exponentially. I had not made this connection explicitly before, but I agree with Taylor’s argument and believe it accurately explains the events that took place in southeastern colonies.

Before African slavery became economically advantageous, planters relied heavily on indentured servants from England, in the case of Chesapeake, and from Barbados and the West Indies, in the case of Carolina. These servants were poor and desperate for work, and they hoped that they might survive their term of indenture and benefit from the generous headright system. As Thomas explained in his post, a society rooted in indentured servitude was often a fragile one, and social rest became common in incidents like Bacon’s Rebellion.

Even before the rise of vast economic inequalities, in the Chesapeake colonies, Taylor describes how the insecurity of those in power led to increased violence and hostility in relations with the lower class. Because so many, regardless of race, had to work for others in harsh conditions, those who achieved some success anxiously regarded independence as a “cherished and vulnerable status” (Taylor 139). My mind associated plantations with the genteel, incredibly wealthy men Taylor later describes, ruling over hundreds of slaves, and I didn’t realize that, initially, the leaders of Chesapeake felt anxious about their “origins, qualifications, and conduct” (139). As Taylor points out, this insecurity engendered brutal responses to criticism and protest. Society stood divided, and the rise of a figure such as Berkeley in this context could only lead to trouble.

Berkeley, as Emma described in her blog post, took the position of governor with the intent of favoring all of his elitist friends. He created a system that bestowed the wealthy with substantial power and wealth, and when the Navigation Acts combined with economic difficulties put a strain on smalltime planters, he refused, for his own personal interests, to support their plan to attack Indians. While I was familiar with the flow of these events beforehand, the context Taylor creates enhanced my understanding of this time period. I agree with the connections that he draws between tension among classes and the resulting instability. Bacon’s Rebellion did arise from the Navigation Acts, but even without the Acts, the uneasiness present in society dictated some level of conflict.

The Chesapeake colonies eventually adopted African slavery in favor of indentured servants for economic, not social or moral, reasons. The economic improvements in England resulted in fewer emigrants to America, more slave traders were present in the colonies, life expectancy of African slaves increased substantially, and Parliament had lifted a monopoly on the slave trade, resulting in more suppliers and lower costs. Although the incorporation of African slaves rose purely out of economic reasons, it dramatically transformed the social landscape of the Chesapeake colonies.

Thomas described how the rise of African slavery and new legislation “encouraged racism and facilitated white cohesion.” In the event of a slave uprising, the support of “armed whites” proved fundamental for the great planters (Taylor 154), and indeed, planters feared a rebellion so greatly that they felt compelled to maintain order with pain and fear. Racism became a tool to justify this brutality, and as it became widespread, the racial solidarity of the colonists created critical social stability. Taylor traces this pattern both in the Chesapeake colonies and in Carolina. I think it’s an insightful observation, and it aptly explains why colonies became more stable despite the large growth of an economic gap in white society.

February 8, 2014

Early Forms of Racism in the Chesapeake Colonies

While disease, access to clean sustenance and Indian interactions certainly played a role in the Chesapeake colonies’ vitality, Taylor stresses that the production of and English demand for tobacco was the most important determinant of the region’s overall success. With the incredible amount of labor necessary for the production of tobacco and the relatively high costs of enslaving Africans in the mid-seventeenth century, wealthy Chesapeake colonists relied on indentured servants to tend to their land. Theses servants were initially drawn to the Chesapeake area due to “unemployment and hunger in England combined with the pull of Virginia opportunity” (142). Taylor notes further that both the prices of tobacco and the economic conditions in England greatly affected the emigration of indentured servants to the Chesapeake colonies throughout the seventeenth century.

Based on the economics of the Chesapeake colonies, and tobacco production being central to its overall success, the opportunities given to indentured servants varied between periods of relative prosperity and financial hardship. As Thomas alludes to in his most recent blog post, however, by 1700 there was a clear gap in economic opportunity between Virginia’s rich and poor, as a very small percentage of wealthy white families controlled a majority of the area’s land. Despite this distinct economic division among whites in the Chesapeake colonies, they were unified socially as the eventual influx of African slaves led to the beginnings of racism and an overall sentiment of racial superiority shared by whites.

Although Taylor observes that racism was not initially noticed in the Chesapeake colonies, he clearly highlights how the increased number of slaves in the area led to legislative changes that ultimately encouraged racism and facilitated white cohesion. An example of legally justified racism was that, “After 1691 no Virginia planter could free slaves unless he paid for their transportation beyond the colony” (156). By providing a financial incentive for owners not to free their slaves, the Chesapeake colonies further divided blacks and whites by keeping blacks enslaved for longer periods of time. Taylor highlights that legislation geared towards restricting the rights of blacks meant that, “A dark skin became synonymous with slavery, just as freedom became equated with whiteness” (157). Therefore, despite the economic inequality that existed between poor and wealthy whites in the late seventeenth century, a sense of racial superiority united all whites and immediately gave them, regardless of their financial status, an elevated position in Chesapeake’s social hierarchy.

Taylor’s description of how the economic conditions in England led the Chesapeake colonies to be based on labor provided by African slaves rather than indentured servants illustrates racism’s roots in the American colonies.

January 27, 2014

More to the Davis’ Story: examining slave resistance and African slavery

Davis demonstrates how there are many sides to every story, shedding the light on information and perspectives that many of us were never exposed to in our elementary studies of slavery, but even Davis is unable to share the whole truth. In his blog post, “Early African Slave Treatment” Dana discusses Davis’ arguments that slavery was present in Africa before European arrival, writing, “Davis shows that slavery amongst Africans was not a new practice and their treatment, in some cases, was much better than it could have been if they were not taken from Africa.” I would challenge this assertion as I do not feel that ever explicitly makes this argument himself. Davis does write “Even the slaves could benefit, it was claimed, since they were rescued from being killed, starved or cannibalized in primitive Africa” (81), however I believe Davis is trying to share a common argument justifying slavery at the time. That said, he comes across as supporting this argument because he does not take the time to address its fallacies. Many regions and kingdoms in Africa have long histories of slavery, but slavery pre-European arrival was very different from the notions of slavery we are familiar with having studied North American history – “chattel slavery” did not exist and slaves were still part of their societies’ kinship systems, affording them the opportunities for social mobility. Slaves were also traded through the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes before European arrival, but even abroad slaves in the Arab world, India and Indonesia slaves worked primarily in the home as domestic servants and their children were often freed and integrated into society. Furthermore, even when African slaves were treated humanely in the Americas, they still had to endure the 6-7 month journey from the African interior to the coast (during which 400-600 in every 1000 slaves died), before reaching the deplorable conditions of the slave ships. I not want to discount the great examples Davis provides of when slaves were treated with some measure of humanity in America, nor do I mean to imply that all African slaves were better off before European arrival, I simply want to address what I see as a gap in Davis’ examination.

I was also surprised and disappointed that Davis did not give greater attention to African resistance to slavery in these chapters. He gives a couple examples, such as slave ship mutinies and Stono Rebellion (Davis 139), but these imply that the only way slaves resisted was through armed conflict, which is not the case. In HIS 168 we discussed how every action from taking longer to perform a task, to retaining an independent culture and language, to running away, can be seen as a form of resistance. Davis seems to make a concerted effort to condemn slavery and celebrate the instances when slaves were treated with respect and granted additional rights, but he focuses on these example from the white American/European perspective praising these cases for their morality, without acknowledging the role that slaves played in advocating for change and better treatment. Resistance is fundamental to slave identity and humanity, to overlook it is to enable the images of slaves as broken and helpless or inferior human beings. I would argue that Davis’ top down, systematic approach the issues and institutions of slavery subtlety and unintentionally perpetuate dehumanizing views of slaves as “the other”, undermining his seemingly progressive arguments.

Works Cited:
David Brion Davis, Inhuman Bondage (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 77-140.