Davis – American History to 1877

April 28, 2014

Southern Resilience

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

While no side of a war wants to concede defeat, the Confederacy seemed particularly resistant to a Union victory, especially towards the end of the war. Though we have been taught of the importance of slavery to Southern livelihood, Davis in Chapter 15 of Inhuman Bondage further explores Southern dependence on slavery. He emphasizes that “few wars in human history have led to such a radical outcome as the liberation of some four million slaves” (Davis 298). He quantifies that the modern comparison of the South losing slavery would be the United States’ GNP falling by “an estimated $9.75 trillion” (298). Even the North expressed concern that Southern defeat “would spark European intervention in order to protect the crucial supply of cotton” (314). As noted in “Great Britain’s Impact on the Politics of Slavery in the United States,” the South observed the effect of slave emancipation in Jamaica, which severely diminished the country’s production of valuable crops. With this background in mind, it becomes clear why the South pragmatically fought for slavery; without it, their economy would fail.

The do-or-die mentality of Southern leaders altered the Civil War. President Lincoln recognized Southern dependence on slavery, and he even lamented that “if all early power given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]” (306). This observation necessitated the Union approach Southern defeat with caution. Likewise, the South exhausted all resources in attempt to emerge victorious. The Confederacy lost over 260,000 soldiers, which “represented 18 to 20 percent of the Confederate states’ white adult male population” (300). More importantly, the South significantly expanded the powers of its central government. Davis observes, “In both North and South the central governments assumed unprecedented powers, typified by the military draft, which was first inaugurated by the South” (301). The Confederacy viewed the loss of resources and change in governmental power as necessary by the Confederacy in an attempt to win the Civil War-a war that they knew would have vast ramifications on their economy and life.

March 19, 2014

The Politics of Slavery and Guilty Bystanders

Wilentz goes into the complex politics that surround slavery in the early part of the 1800s in chapter 7. However, it is interesting to note that the decline of Caribbean plantations in the 1790s led to an increase in sugar and cotton demands from Southern slave-holding states. This in addition to the recent land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase led to a revival in plantations of the South, which also caused much more debate over laws of slavery in the new territory. Included in this was the heated debate over Missouri.

Through the debate of the terms of Missouri’s admission, political parties (and Northerners vs. Southerners) became increasingly polarized and tensions grew. More than just giving Southerners more political power through the 3/5ths law, the Republicans said that their anti-slavery argument was a “preservation of individual’s rights” and
“strict construction of the Constitution demanded slavery’s restriction” (118). Thus, slavery was not only morally wrong, it was also unconstitutional. The Constitution allowed for future leaders to abolish slavery and prevent new slave states from entering the Union. The North began many anti-slavery campaigns, which created a lot of fear and anxiety in the slave-holding South, where many believed this sort of conversation would lead slaves to rebel and revolt. It was easier to keep track of sides due to geographic location, rather than over other issues (such as War of 1812), where political parties in different locations had differing opinions on the matter. This was presented as pretty much black and white — Notherners verses Southerners.

With Maine being granted statehood, Missouri was then admitted without slavery restrictions. However, an amendment was made that anything within the Louisiana purchase above a certain latitude was not to have slavery. However, even though this “compromise” was reached, the debate over Missouri was significant in its solidifying where Northerners and Southerners stood on slavery.

Chapter 9 of Inhuman Bondage, Davis goes into reasoning as to why Southern states thought slavery in new territory was so important. Because many plantations were expanding westward with the new land, they needed laborers to clear land and then establish the plantations. However, slavery was also such a thriving part of the Southern economy that it must have been hard to imagine a South without slavery. By 1860, two-thirds of the wealthiest Americans were Southern large planters. “By 1840, the South grew few more than 60 percent of the world’s cotton”, showing how the national and international community condoned slavery, even if not directly. Davis thereby adds an interesting perspective to the North verses South obvious debate that Wilentz describes — that maybe the North was not “innocent” in its bystander position.

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.