slavery – Page 3 – American History to 1877

April 9, 2014

Ask a Slave

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

I, like Thomas brought up in his most recent post, saw Ask a Slave series provided moments of comedy, and simultaneously provided moments of great fear for the knowledge of the American public. The slave character she portrays, “Lizzie Mae,” gives the unique slave perspective often disregarded in the text books. She brings up important issues, such as how the idea of “good” or “generous” slave master was an oxymoron. We glowingly look back at the Founding Fathers like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who were noble in their freeing of their slaves upon their death. She brings up how Martha Washington held onto all her slaves and how Thomas Jefferson has been known to have had relations with his female slaves. She also talks about how abolitionists were not as great as we think, often they have never interacted with African-American slaves, they were mostly in favor of sending the slaves back to Africa, and they were still very sexist.

But as Rebecca alludes to at the end of her post, this series is almost more a commentary about present day views and beliefs than a informative video on the horrors of slavery. Lizzie Mae brings up how out of touch people are and this is evident by how each video starts with a disclaimer of “names being changed to protect the guilty.” Some of the things that stood out for me was how people still buy into the missionary justification today, that the teaching of Christianity was some how a fair trade for a life of hard labor. In addition, many people asked questions about who watched their children and where did they go to school, completely oblivious to the fact that slaves families were often broken up and sold, and their children were working, leaving no need for them to be watched or educated. Also, many people believe that fleeing north and the underground railroad was not risky, and there was just a super highway and advertisements for it that saved slaves by the thousands.

The moment that had the biggest impact on me was when Lizzie Mae brought up the issue of modern day slavery. We think because we do not have a slave in our house that sews our clothes for us in the living room like George Washington, that our clothing comes from well paid workers. In reality, their are child sweat shops in China that we are still exploiting.

April 7, 2014

Misconceptions About Slavery

In the web series Ask A Slave, Azie Dungey draws upon her experience as a living history character at Mount Vernon to expose some surprising misconceptions about slavery. As Thomas explained in his post, Dungey’s sarcastic wit distinguishes this series as particularly memorable, and she takes a lighthearted approach to the often taboo—or at least somber—subject of slavery and racism in American history.

One of my favorite videos was that featuring the abolitionist, a man morally opposed to racialized slavery yet clearly uncomfortable interacting with a black person. While many of the issues Dungey exposed were rooted in modern ignorance, the abolitionist showed an important contradiction at the time of slavery. The abolitionist, although good-natured, came from a town with little to no black population. As the conversation continued, he grew more uncomfortable and felt compelled to defend “good” slaveholders like Jefferson, and he seemed shocked to hear that slaves had no desire to relocate to Africa or Jamaica. As Thomas mentioned, the conversation ended with the abolitionist conceding that Lizzie Mae raised some intelligent points…for a woman.

A shocking modern misconception that Dungey brought to light was that Lizzie Mae’s position was an honorable occupation. Obviously since this is a humorous show, she used the most ridiculous examples at her disposal, but clearly a horrifying number of people do not grasp the concept of slavery. One person asked if she found her position in a newspaper advertisement, while another man actually had the gall to ask if her job was an internship with a human resources department. People asked where she went for vacation and what she did for fun, and a few even expected her to be proud of Washington for being president. When someone commented that she must be excited to meet so many famous people, she flatly remarked, “If you’ve seen one rich white man, you’ve seen them all” (season 2, episode 1).

Even some people who had a firmer grasp on the hardships of slavery acted as if slaves had normal choices and opportunities. People asked Lizzie Mae why she didn’t go to school in Massachusetts and where her children went to school. Someone asked why she couldn’t merely escape through the Underground Railroad. Clearly, some people failed to understand exactly how oppressive slavery was, as if Lizzie Mae could easily escape her situation with a little bit of effort and self-education.

I really enjoyed the web series for its humor and shock value, both of which I’m sure were intentional. I sincerely hope the majority of Americans know better than the views portrayed in these videos, since Dungey probably selected the worst questions she could remember. She did, however, effectively expose some embarrassing ignorance, regardless of how far that ignorance extends. Even though I didn’t suffer from illusions that Washington’s slaves held honored and happy positions, these videos still changed the way I think about slavery. I think anyone could benefit from seeing Dungey’s videos, especially given her talent and charisma as an actress.

April 6, 2014

Ask A Slave

The Ask A Slave video series features Jordan Black answering questions she experienced as a living history character at the historical Mount Vernon residence of George Washington. To set the context, she wears clothes that female slaves would usually wear, plays 19^th century flute music, and sits in a simply furnished living room with a framed drawing of George Washington in the back. The trademark of the series is the humor that Lizzie Mae, her character, uses to answer the questions, invoking satire especially through sarcasm. Despite the lighthearted nature, the videos expose that ignorance and underlying racism are still very present in our society.

Jordan Black’s message comes across more clearly thanks to her decision to use questions from only white people. Of course, this reinforces the slave-time separation between whites and blacks, which further help contextualize her video. The choice also underscores that many white people are either completely ignorant or simply uneducated about slavery. No example highlights this more clearly then in one of the women’s relentless questioning of how Mrs. Washington gets her tea in the middle of the night since the slaves are sleeping. This not only shows a deep misunderstanding of a slave’s role, but also exposes the woman’s misunderstanding of slave treatment. A further, more direct commentary on present day racism occurs when a different girl asks, “do you have any white friends,” exposing the fact that our society is still inflicted with deep lying color awareness. In the context of the video, this reality is a poignant reminder that while slavery is conquered, racism is not.

Olivia’s excellent post about Wilentz’ discussion of abolition drew my attention to Jordan Black’s method of commenting on the abolition movement. Thanks to Lizzie Mae, we get a unique perspective that, at least in some ways, that brings history into the present tense, meaning that, unlike any historical book, the commentary is not marred by the influence of time. Thus, Black chooses ignores any exploration of the difficult odds that abolitionists faced, instead choosing to undermine the abolitionists’ supposed moral enlightenment. To do this, she shows the abolitionists discussing the sheer amount of black people in Virginia and how uncomfortable it makes him. The abolitionists also compliments Lizzie Mae on her good point, “even though she is a woman.” Lizzie Mae responds by saying, “one thing at a time,” alluding to the fact that she freedom was first on the agenda, equality second. Olivia discussed a similar attitude when she talked about the decision many leading women’s rights activists made “to put the anti-slavery movement to the forefront” during the Civil War.

March 24, 2014

Religion: A Historic Aside to Jackson, Natives, & Slaves

Quick aside: There’s a great scene in Season 2 Episode 8 of House of Cards where Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is meeting with a group of American Indian Tribal Leaders. When they enter the room they notice an Andrew Jackson portrait on the wall and ask “If he’ll be joining us in the conversation.” Frank says surely not, this is a terrible oversight, takes it down, and then when the Tribe’s representatives leave he puts it back up and spends a considerable amount of time ensuring it’s not crooked. Read into that as you may.

Alright, now the real post.

Jackson held presidency in a time of great change. Another religious awakening was changing the social landscape and greatly increasing the number of American church attendees. There was somewhat of a moral uprising with Presbygationals insisting in the participation in secular leadership for upholding moral principles. Southern Evangelicals were pushing to convert enslaved people and began to enthusiastically press against slavery in some circumstances. Others were proselytizing to native populations and were able to, in their minds, “assimilate” many of the people into farming, christian communities. All this is fine and well, but in the end none of it mattered. Politics, not religion, remained the dominant force of the time even with what seems like an overwhelming majority of citizens to consider themselves Christian and the dominant theory of the time relating to moral theology, Slavery still held strongly rooted in the south and Indians remained exactly the opposite.

Jackson’s view and belief in state’s rights and the precedent set before him allowed southern states like Georgia not only to continually support the institution of slavery unhindered but also to begin annexing land held by natives in the name of states’ rights. Georgia, being the prime example, begain eagerly removing the Cherokee people and were prepared to stand up to National military force to do so. However, when the national forces were pulled back, it condoned the action of annexing and moving native lands farther and farther west. This continued until Jackson’s pro-removal policies were put into place slowly and surely, using vaguely worded laws in order to legitimately dissolve Cherokee Governments and hasten removal if necessary. This is directly related to Michael Dunbar’s post on Jackson’s supposed moralism. While it was somewhat a staple of his presidency and certainly of the religious times of the nation, I agree that it is an inherent oversight to gloss over the tragic and inherent racism that constituted a large part of his presidency and even legacy, as the House of Cards illusion can certainly suggest.

While there was a rise in moralist teachings of the church, ultimately these are powerless in politics. Whether this speaks to a depressing reading of the human condition or rather to the cold, Machiavellian politics of the time is unclear. However, in this circumstance, the popular religious teachings of the day could not change the harrowing times of the Jacksonian era for Natives and even Slaves.

March 19, 2014

The “Golden Rule”

Thomas Jefferson “trembled” on behalf of his country when he remembers God’s just nature; he abolished the international slave trade on the first date the constitution allowed it, and all the while refused to veraciously stand against slavery (Wilentz, 114-15). Many wealthy northern politicians did exactly the same, and even many areas on the fringes of slavery condoned it as a “necessary evil,” despite not directly benefiting from it. All the while, southern plantation owners were claiming its “benevolence” and remained aggressive with the rhetoric of protecting and civilizing the slaves from their own bestial nature. Therefore, there came two forms of the “golden rule” being played out in the slavery argument, one of the plantation owners claiming benevolence, and the others of the non-slave owners who condoned the practice or did not actively fight it because those who have the gold make the rules.

There is no question slavery was extremely economically valuable and that, overall, the country benefited economically from the practice. There is similarly no doubt that, purely on an economic standard, new western states would benefit from slavery. With the addition of Maine, there was an imbalance of power that swayed towards the northern political sphere. More delegates for northern free states than southern. As Charlotte points out in her post, these political divides became more about geography and less about political philosophy, instituting a slave state gave more power to the south and vice versa. The question then becomes who the north was actually fighting for. It is convenient (and perhaps uplifting) to assume that the northern politicians were fighting for the abolition of slavery in new states when perhaps a complication of that reading could entail the northern politicians fighting for political power on the playing field of slavery with morality as the central argument.

Therefore, the Missouri Compromise was not so much a compromise on slavery, but rather on power and money. There was no compromise on slavery; slavery won. So long as slavery was still a part of the southern states and they maintained at least equal power on the senate floors, slavery was still an economic cornerstone of the south. Thus, the “Era of Bad Feelings” commenced with this unsettling notion that it was not a compromise but rather perhaps a delay of the inevitable. This ties neatly into Davis’ reading and again to Charlotte’s point that there were no innocent sides in this debate. It may have been a political one just as much as a moral one, albeit played out on a moral battleground. Underneath it all, however, was the addictive promise of wealth, cotton, and trade that was inherent with the slavery society.

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.

February 19, 2014

The Paradox of American Democracy

America has long been celebrated as a country founded upon individual liberty and universal equality. However, as freedom expanded in early America, so did slavery. Exploring this paradox in their respective books, The Rise of American Democracy and Inhuman Bondage, both Sean Wilentz and David Brion Davis explain why this happened.

Davis highlights the apparent contradiction of the American Revolution by referencing Samuel Johnson’s quote on Americans during this momentous period: “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” While the Americans attempted to promote liberty and free themselves from British “enslavement,” they also protected the institution of slavery of Africans (Davis 144). This paradox appeared in the drafting of the Constitution in 1787 as well, as slavery was intentionally avoided in the final draft. As the author of “Democracy and Slavery” mentions, slavery persisted in the early history of the United States because the infant government was not in the position to abolish it completely. Doing so would mean alienating the southern states whose economies depended upon the dehumanizing institution. Therefore, compromises had to be made if there was to be any Union at all (Davis 155).

The specifics of the compromises are covered well in Wilentz’s book. The delegates who met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787 decided that the federal government had no say on slavery in the states, deemed slaves three-fifths of a citizen for the purposes of representation in both the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, promised slave owners the return of their runaway slaves, and guaranteed the transatlantic slave trade for another two decades (Wilentz 14). As a result, slavery became deeply embedded in America and would cause numerous problems in the near future – two points touched upon by the author of “Democracy and Slavery.” Davis brings up a fantastic point that if these compromises were not made, “the Founding Fathers could take no immediate and effective actions to secure America’s borders, or strengthen the nation’s shaky credit, or attract foreign investment and diversify the economy” (Davis 155).

In sum, both authors explain why the Founding Fathers compromised on slavery. For the most part, they were not the self-interested hypocrites that history has made them out to be. Instead, they were men who made a calculated decision to delay the emancipation of slaves in order to strengthen the Union. The rich political history that both Wilentz and Davis offer is something that has been noticeably absent from Taylor’s narrative.

February 19, 2014

Early Division Between the North and South

The opening chapter in Sean Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln offers a description of the general state of the colonies in the 1770s. Throughout the chapter, Wilentz establishes his central argument that as a result of the Revolutionary War, Americans became enthralled with the idea of democracy. In particular, patriotism and democracy, two influential ideals that emerged during the Revolutionary War, inspired many people of middle class status to become involved in the political process. Wilentz notes that, “The Revolution’s democratic impact forever changed the context of American politics and culture and brought ordinary Americans into public and political life, which fundamentally altered how they perceived themselves and each other” (11). Wilentz goes on to categorize one example of this newfound middleclass political involve as being Shays Rebellion of 1786. In response to overbearing financial policies imposed on middle class workers, Daniel Shays led a group of similar working-class people to revolt and interfere with the local court system. While this example displayed the unregulated nature of democracy, Shays ability to create a formidable uprising at the grassroots level clearly shows the impact that even working class people had during this time.

While colonial political power extended to the common white man and wasn’t left solely to aristocrats, there certainly existed a divide between the northern and southern colonies. As Olivia highlights in her blog post entitled “The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War?” the rift between the two sides was clearly attributed to slavery. As we discussed in class yesterday, however, it is possible that other factors may have been at play during early colonial independence that formulated the division between the two regions. Although southern delegates eventually were allowed to continue slavery under the education, a source of division between the two sides could also be attributed to the Revolutionary War’s key events occurring primarily in the north. For example, while Wilientz highlights the increased democratic processes that began to take shape in everyday colonial life after the Revolutionary War in the north, similar events in the south were not recounted. While there most likely are examples of the increased sentiments of democracy seen in the south as well, the lack of evidence in Wilentz’s text begs the question as to whether a grassroots uprising like Shays Rebellion would have had the same effect in the south. If not, one could make the argument that the ideals of democracy did not permeate as deeply in southern colonies as they did in the north which, in addition to their varying opinions of slavery, would further divide the two sides.

February 19, 2014

The Paradox of the Revolutionary War

Both in chapter 7 of Inhuman Bondage by Davidson Brion Davis and chapter 1 of The Rise of American Democracy by Sean Wilentz, the authors outlined the struggle and strife in the colonies during the Revolutionary War. Calling out for freedom, British colonists fought for freedom under the oppressive British rule and started forming democratic ideas for the future. As Wilentz describes in his chapter, it was not an easy transition from a split social system to equal democracy for all.

During the Revolutionary War when colonists cried for liberty from England, and while yeomen, artisans, and elites were struggling to find a balance in democracy, slaves were watching and observing these political movements. Learning from the people who were subjugating them to slavery, African Americans learned to fight for their own freedom and liberty. The paradoxical nature of this time period puts into motion the ideas that would lead to the Civil War. Many of the freed colonists realized contradiction of keeping slaves, especially after they too had just fought for their own freedom. Davis’ story about the slave named Prince was the perfect example of this paradox. Having served under George Washington during the Revolutionary War, Prince told his master that it was unfair that the colonists could go to war for their liberty but Prince and other slaves did not have any liberties.

Like Mike talks about in his blog post titled, “Democracy and Slavery,” Davis points out that the United States were too weak to be able to abolish slavery without the destruction of the Union. The South was economically dependent on the use of slaves in fields, and slavery was such a big issue that if the United States were to abolish it at this point in history, the Union might not have formed. Although slavery would last for a few more decades, the Revolutionary War and its aftermath acted as a catalyst for the war by showing the inconsistency in the ideas of the American people.

February 19, 2014

American History from a Canadian Perspective

I found it fascinating to read Wilentz from somewhat of an outsider’s perspective, not being American and having never studied American history or read the American constitution. I have been told repeatedly told by American students at Davidson that I should not be considered an international student because “there’s really no difference better Canada and the US”. Reading Wilentz, the cultural differences and the historical roots of those differences become abundantly clear. Even Wilentz writes, “The Revolution’s democratic impact forever changed the context of American politics and culture and brought ordinary Americans into public and political life, which fundamentally altered how they perceived themselves and others.” Though I share many of the American cultural values including freedom, independence, property rights and class mobility, these values are not tied to my identity as a Canadian, but my identity as human being. I think these values are rooted in American identity because they are directly rooted in the events and teaching of American history, in a way that they are not in Canada – we got our independence in 1867, the last province joined in 1949 and we didn’t have a national flag specified by statue law until 1965.

Of all the texts we have read this semester, the first chapter of The Rise of American Democracy by Sean Wilentz comes closest to what I think of as how American (and North American) history is traditionally told. Each page is peppered with the names of white men in prominent economic or political positions. (I also wonder if this is how American history is told because of the US culture often values individual identity, representation of every individual and the possibility of upward mobility for everyone) Even when the chapter discusses class differences, the discussion is limited to a comparison between the lifestyles and beliefs of urban and rural dwellers. At the end of the chapter, Wilentz does briefly discusses slavery in the context of the Philadelphia convention and summarizes the results as “the final draft avoided explicitly mentioning slavery […] But delegates effective barred the government from taking any action against slavery in the states”. But, Wilentz does not discuss the impact of these events, nor does he mention anywhere the efforts by slaves of free Blacks to fight for and promote democratic values. By contrast, David Brion Davis focuses exclusively slaves and free blacks in this time period in chapter seven of Inhuman Bondage. He details attitude towards slavery and changes to slave ideals of freedom, as well as chronicling the roles slaves played in revolutionary effects and the misgiving of many whites to involve slaves. Davis provides a parallel history that fills in many of the gaps in Wilnetz chronicle. Olivia provides a really valuable analysis of in her blog post “The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War?” of Davis and the role of slavery in both the Revolutionary and Civil wars, demonstrating the value of analyzing history from multiple perspectives.

Still, these chapters were the only historical texts you had read on American history, you would never know that there were Native peoples living in North America. Admittedly, we have moved forward on the timeline from European arrival an early interactions and I don’t mean to imply that Wilentz or Davis are responsible for telling those parts of American history, however having read Taylor with his attention to marginalized populations, I am left wondering in what ways Native people were directly or indirectly involved in shaping the new American state.

Davis, David Brion. Inhuman Bondage. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2005.
*Olivia Rosen, “The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War, http://sites.davidson.edu/his141sp2014/the-revolutionary-war-as-a-precursor-to-the-civil-war/