slavery – Page 4 – American History to 1877

February 19, 2014

Freedom at Last?

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

Chapter 7 in Inhuman Bondage discusses the impact of slavery in the American Revolution. Whenever I think of the American Revolution, I think of the colonists and Britain. This chapter helped to gain a new insight- the plight of the slaves. One key point the author was trying to make in this chapter is that the colonists were rebelling against Britain for feeling like they were being enslaved, but yet they were enslaving others. “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” (144) I never thought of it this way. It is ironic that the colonists felt that their rights are being infringed upon, when they enslaved Africans. This point truly is one of the most important in the entire chapter, and it drives the entire revolution. It is really persuasive because America is supposed to represent freedom and a new life, yet it doesn’t.

Warfare is a time of chaos for slaves. Slaves can rebel against their owners and escape, or can be enlisted and fight against their enemies. Why would slaves want to fight if in the end they didn’t even receive their liberty? Both sides tried to use slaves in their favor. The colonists didn’t necessarily want the slaves to fight for them, but they were in need of numbers. Britain tried to get slaves to leave their masters and join them. They said that “all slaves captured while they were serving the rebels were to be sold for the benefit of their captors; but all slaves who deserted the rebels were given an assurance that was hardly clear.” (150) Slaves took this as emancipation, and thousands took advantage of it, leaving Georgia’s economy in ruin.

Granted, some colonists realized the ironic nature behind their resentment of Britain. “The period from 1765 to the early 1790s produced countless numbers of tracts, pamphlets, broadsides, sermons, speeches, and editorials that challenged the basic core of slavery: the belief that human beings could be ‘animalized.’ (156) Because of this, the revolutionary war can be seen as the precursor of the Civil War. The North generally was against slavery, and many states even made it illegal. The South was dependent on it. They needed the slaves for their economies, and it even mentioned they would start a war if the government tried to make slavery universally illegal. It was only a matter of time before the two conflicting sides battled again. In my classmate’s post below Democracy and Slavery, they made a very interesting point that the Civil War could possibly have been avoided if the 1784 Continental Congress outlawed slavery in Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Ohio. While this is an interesting point, I can’t help but disagree because the other regions of the south were so explicit on their desire for slavery, and that is stated within the text.

February 19, 2014

Democracy and Slavery

Achieving American Democracy was not as simple of a process as writing the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution. According to Wilentz there were many obstacles involving class warfare that did not make it a smooth transition. Yeoman, gentleman, merchants, and artisans, whether they are city dwellers or rural countrymen, all wanted their rights protected. To me, a key turning point was when the Berkshire Constitutionalists proposed the plan of equal representation that was not rooted in how much wealth or property you had. Another key for democracy in the reading was Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which put to rest early the idea of an elected monarch for life. As Thomas stated in his post, to really bind the United States Democracy together as a nation, Shay’s Rebellion was instrumental in getting a stronger federal government planned in the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

In Davis’s Inhuman Bondage, I believe his point was that American Slavery lasted longer here than in other countries because they were too weak as a union to withstand abolition in the early years of the country, and as a result slavery was able to take strong roots into the culture. As Thomas also wrote, keeping slavery was a huge contradiction to the American Revolution. I agree with what Olivia stated, that white colonists wanted liberty from a British oppressor and that was the same logic the slaves followed, but they did not receive it. On of the most interesting take always for me from the Davis reading was that the 1784 Continental Congress was one vote away from outlawing slavery in Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Ohio. If that had passed I think the United States might have been better able to avoid a Civil War because it would have divided the Confederacy in a big way. Ultimately, it was the fear of a Civil War for a just born country that led to the creation of free soil and slave holding places. I also found very interesting in Olivia’s post about how it was the act of making slaves property that led to such a strong slave system.

February 19, 2014

The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War?

In Chapter 7: “The Problem of Slavery in the Revolution” of Inhuman Bondage, David Brion Davis adds a new dimension to how Americans understand the American Revolution. Davis analyzes the Revolution through the lens of the institutionalization of slavery in America, arguing that enslaved Africans were acutely conscious of the hypocrisy that the colonists’ rebellion presented with respect to their own enslavement. Slaves recognized colonists’ battle for liberty from the British as evidence of slavery’s injustice, and used the American Revolution as a platform to encourage and attain freedom.

The colonists, however, considered the enslavement of Africans to be a necessary facet of the American economy. While colonists’ opinions regarding slavery differed along regional lines, the Founding Fathers recognized that targeting the slave system would marginalize the South at a time when the unification of America was crucial to its survival. Thomas characterizes Northern concessions to slavery as an essential compromise of democracy, which “manifested itself in the form of Northern ‘protection’ of Southern slavery in order to protect unity.” This system of compromise perpetuated the institutionalization of slavery. Although it is not wise to read history backwards, we know that the “compromise for democracy” was limited. The annexation of new territories in the mid-1800s reintroduced slavery to the forefront of political discussion, eventually escalating into the Civil War.

In addition to our U.S History course, I am enrolled in the 300-level history course, Civil War and Reconstruction. This course has sparked my interest in studying the development of slavery in America and identifying the point when Civil War was inevitable (if it ever was). I believe that the constitutional arguments regarding slavery, particularly slaves as property, shaped the slavery debate and served as a justification for Southern states’ secession and Lincoln’s decision to abolish slavery. Davis’s reading corroborated my claim, as he outlined how both the British and colonists manipulated the slave’s status as property to benefit their respective causes. Specifically, both sides contemplated the use of slaves as soldiers in the war. The Continental Congress enlisted and armed 3,000 slaves from South Carolina and Georgia under the pretext that the British army would utilize the slaves if they did not. The slaves were considered property of their slave-owners, and the Congress feared that seizing property would undermine the rule of law and cause dissention among slave-owners (Davis, 148).

The arming of slaves during the American Revolution mirrors the Civil War, in which thousands of fugitive slaves escaped into Union territory seeking freedom. This brought the question of slaves as property to a head. If slaves were indeed considered property under the Constitution, then it was imperative that the Union returned slaves to their rightful owners. Since the South was a “belligerent nation,” many Unionists argued that Southern slaveholders’ constitutional rights as American citizens were void, and their slaves should not be returned. Similar to the fears of colonists during the Revolutionary War, Unionists recognized that returning slaves would ultimately aid the Confederate’s war effort, as slaves would be used for the Confederate cause. General Benjamin Butler named fugitive slaves to be “contrabands of war,” who would remain in the Union so as not to benefit the Confederates. In order to legitimize Butler’s action, Congress passed the Confiscation Act of 1861, which ordered that “confiscated” slaves were not to be returned to their owners but had to participate in the Union war effort. Again concerned with the notion of slaves as property, President Lincoln clarified that slaves from border-states were exempt from the Confiscation Act, recognizing that marginalizing the border states would impel them to join the Confederacy. The similarities between the use of slaves in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, particularly with respect to slaves as property, illustrates the political complexity of slavery in America. The Revolutionary War had enormous influence on the institutionalization of American slavery, and as a result, in-depth study of the war is necessary to understand the causes of the Civil War.

Davis, David Brion. Inhuman Bondage. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

**Information also taken from Dr. Sally McMillen’s lectures in History 346: Civil War and Reconstruction.

February 19, 2014

Breaking with Britain

Between 1760 and 1820, there were many changes that occurred in Europe and United States in terms of land ownership, conflict between peoples, and, most importantly, slave trade. After the American Revolution, the United states was able to further expand because of its freedom from Britain. Also, the allies of the US gained back land that they had previously lost to Britain before the war when the colonies were rapidly expanding. Many other countries and their respective colonies broke out into civil war and revolutions, resulting in massive reformation in North America and Europe. The French Revolution occurring shortly after the American Revolution as well as the Latin American wars of Independence continued the conflict among these European nations, and then led to many different treaties being made to monitor slave trade among each of the different countries. After these revolutions, slavery rapidly expanded, but by 1825, the US and Britain outlawed their Atlantic slave trade and had made treaties with other countries such as France, Holland, Spain, and Portugal that made the only legal slave trade be South of the Equator, in transportation of slaves to Brazil. Needless to say there were many illegal trade routes still going on and flourished for years.

As Thomas points out in his post, the division in the US was only made worse by this continuing of slave trade. The North had limited its use of slaves where as the South only relied on it more for production and making a profit, causing an even bigger divide in the newly found nation.

Davis really covers a lot of boundaries in this reading; he does not only focus on one revolution, one certain area and what happened but the broad spectrum of events that occur simultaneously and how slavery and slave trade was affected throughout all of these processes. He also incorporates the many cause and effect scenarios that led to the redistribution of land to all of the countries involved in the many revolutions because of alliances and treaties made.

February 17, 2014

Welding Democracy

In Thursday’s reading, both Sean Wilentz, in The Rise of American Democracy, and David Brion Davis, in Inhuman Bondage, explore the discrepancy between what the ideals of the American Revolution represented and what actually occurred.

Wilentz’s argument centers on the difficulty of creating a common democracy in a country that consisted of such a varied people, geography, and economy. To simplify these complex divides, Wilentz’s considers the difference between what the city dwelling artisans and merchants considered “democracy” and what the rural yeomanry considered “democracy.” These key demographics, though internally, effectively summarize a key divide in the newborn nation based on dissimilar political conflicts. In the country, a population of mainly farmers expected their democracy to mirror the influence their land afforded them, while people in cities were happy to relegate power to an institution as long as it considered policies which encouraged economic independence and trade opportunities. As a result of this, a divided America emerged in which each state, based on its population’s identity, crafted its own political identity. The Articles of Confederation compounded such disunity because the weak government that they created failed to formalize a national identity. Spurred on by Shay’s Rebellion, American leaders called together a Constitutional Convention in 1787 in order to keep their democratic experiment alive.

Here, switching to Davis’ text concerning slavery helps capture the nuances of the regional divide that dominated the Convention. This divide was still rooted in the rural/city division, but, on a national stage, it took on the added scale of dividing the nation between North and South. The main discrepancy between the two, as we know, was slavery. As both Wilentz and Davis point out, by 1787, the North had exponentially reduced its slave population thanks to both economic and moral reasons. Even the Upper South was moving in a similar direction, but the Deep South was still deeply reliant on slavery. At the center of democracy is compromise, which, at the Constitutional Convention, manifested itself in the form of Northern “protection” of Southern slavery in order to protect unity. The concessions made to slave owners were large, including things like the 3/5 clause and the 20-year delay of the slave trades outlawing, yet necessary considering that “any attempt to free Southern slaves by law would lead to civil war” (Davis 155).

February 16, 2014

The American Revolution: An Ironic Conception of “Independence”

In Chapter 18: “Imperial Wars and Crisis, 1739-75,” Taylor outlines the Seven Years War and discusses the ways in which the conflict led to the Revolutionary War. As my specific interest area in history does not pertain to war, I appreciated that the brevity with which Taylor discusses the actual war and its battles. The majority of the chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the global and territorial implications of the war, in addition to an explanation of the colonies’ political, social, and economic climate that incited the American Revolution. Contrary to my high-school history courses, Taylor offers a complex template of the Revolution’s causes. He asserts that the conflict was not simply a disagreement in governance and taxation, but derived from a fundamental difference between Britain and the colonies’ socio-economic structures. This, in turn, facilitated the creation of a collective American mentality that clashed with the British way of life.

Taylor attributes the colonists’ preoccupation with and perception of “independence” as the focal point of divergence in colonial and British ideology. America’s economic structure was unique to Britain, because most white men were able to own land and had the opportunity of social mobility. Even indentured servants eventually gained their freedom, and were provided with a small plot of land as compensation for their years of servitude. As indentured servitude was replaced with enslavement of Africans, white landowners formed a middle-class that was a buffer between wealthy elites and slaves. Conversely, Britain lacked a middle-class. Its social structure was stratified between the very rich and very poor, and left virtually no opportunity for upward mobility. Thus, the concept of independence became synonymous with American society, and colonists resented any infringement on their independence by the British crown and Parliament. In Taylor’s words, “the colonists clung to independence as a precious state in a world where dependence was the norm” (441).

Matt’s blog post, however, recognizes the troubling irony that existed within colonists’ emphasis on independence and their pursuit of sovereignty from Britain—American society depended upon African bondage for survival. While Matt acknowledges the value of the American Revolution in the creation of the United States of America, he makes the important distinction that “it should not be thought of as morally righteous in nature.” Although white colonists were accorded a level of independence that was not as achievable in Britain, their prosperity was reliant upon the oppression of slaves and Natives. Oftentimes history courses glorify the American Revolution as a courageous tale of Americans’ united conquest over an imperial oppressor. This narrative fails to recognize the hypocrisy with which our nation was founded. I do not mean to undermine the Revolutions’ import and do not take for granted the sacrifice of our country’s forefathers that are responsible for my independence and good fortune. Rather, both narratives must be told in efforts to ensure that slavery is not ignored as a minor blemish on American history. Taylor does just this, and consequently, provides an effective and fascinating tale of the precursor to the American Revolution.

Taylor, Alan. American Colonies. New York: Penguin Group, 2001.

February 10, 2014

Introduction of Racism in the Chesapeake Colonies

In this week’s readings concerning the Chesapeake colonies, I found the section on slaves to be quite interesting. Especially after having read Inhuman Bondage and learning how badly the slaves were treated, reading about how some slaves in the Chesapeake colonies were able to own land and vote seems strange. The reading even discusses how the most successful freed black slave named Anthony Johnson took his white neighbors to court after they had lured away his slave (154).

The concept of racism was not fully developed yet during that time, and as Beth Wright described in her post “Power Dynamics in the Southern Colonies”, “slaves [became] a uniting factor with the idea of color rather than wealth [to be] the preliminary divider for status” after the surge of African slaves were imported into the colonies. Due to the increase, African culture became more conspicuous and alarmed the slave masters. Because of this, stricter laws were placed on slaves and the rights of freed slaves disappeared almost entirely. Slavery as we know it today appears, or at least in the Chesapeake colonies, to have come from a more economic view that then transitioned into racism, rather than purely out of hatred itself.

Although class distinction was a large part of the culture of the Chesapeake colonies, the difference between whites and blacks later became the “key marker of identity” (157). As the racial boundaries grew, so did the difference between the elite whites and the poor white. Ordinarily, the richest white families owned the majority of the land and the bottom third of the white population owned none (157). Because of this, the poor families could not compete with the rich white families in production of tobacco because the rich whites had slaves to do the job, only increasing the economic and racial divides.

February 9, 2014

Class and Color in the Chesapeake

Taylor’s piece on the Chesapeake in Chapter 7 definitively traces the emergence of racism in the early colonies. Beginning with an account of the class tensions among settlers in Virginia, the chapter exposes the subjugation of people based on social status rather than race. Among the four levels of hierarchy in society—the king, the provincial government, the county court and the family household—there was an underlying class order whereby the few land elite at the top controlled an enormous portion of the wealth. White landowning men retained a great deal of patriarchal power in the household and also governing power in the community.

The labor necessary to sustain a reasonable crop production for these landowners was dependent on the class of white indentured servants. The cost for a white indentured servant was significantly less than that of an African slave. Therefore, in the beginning of the 17^th century, white indentured servants were almost exclusively the laborers of tobacco and maize farms in the Chesapeake colonies. However, the short terms of these servants (usually only a couple of years) were sufficient to pay off their passage from England to the New World. When the servant completed their term, they were often granted “freedom dues” which were settlement packages of land. Therefore, the name servitude is an apt way of distinguishing this type of work from slavery—which became a lifelong period of service around the second half of the 16^th century.

Due to greater incentives to remain in England, namely higher real wages, the demand of servants in the Chesapeake region went unfulfilled. The farmers had to look elsewhere for laborers and quickly found an alternative in the slave trade. I thought the inclusion of Anthony Johnson’s story provided an effective preface to the drastic change in race relations. This often-overlooked account of a black slave-owner becomes quickly overshadowed by the subjugation of black people in America to a position below even the lowest classes of white colonists. The shift in the servant class, as Dana mentions in his post on February 9^th, permitted all whites to be unified based upon skin color. In using the word “kinship”, Dana seems to illuminate the traces of a central divide contributing to the Civil War. As I expect to see in the later part of this class, many supporters of the Confederacy were united as kin in this acceptance of racism and slavery. Furthermore, Taylor reminds us that racial solidarity accompanied the growing inequality among whites Virginia. To a certain extent, this sense of unification by race diminished the common class white colonists’ concern with class disparity.

This reading provides a very nice foundation for our study of slavery in this class. As Taylor mentions, “A dark skin became synonymous with slavery, just as freedom became equated with whiteness” (Taylor 157). As simple as this observation may seem, it is very telling of the emergence of a new people placed under subjugation. Also it is interesting to trace the underpinnings of racism in America back to this change in servitude caused by a strengthening English economy (see above—real wages increase).

January 29, 2014

Old Traditions and New Progress: The State of the Union

The State of the Union Address given by President Obama last night had a surprising number of correlations with our current lessons. The President talked at length about current inequality and the lack of upward mobility that we see in the job market and in social classes. We recently discussed in class, and Yuxi pointed out in her post “The Necessary Evil,” how slavery and its economic benefits created a system of inequality that benefited producers and extractive economies. She continues this conversation and extends it to show that this system of separation and oppression supported the prosperity of the country and the potential of the “American Dream.” That dream has changed with industrialization, urbanization, and development of new and more equal economies. We also discussed how classes were intentionally separated for social or economic purposes, and this separation is still entrenched in us today. Mobility is much more difficult than many Americans would like to believe. However, I find that the issue is not that class or race that separates us, but that education levels separate us. This is proven by the fact that today we have a well-educated African American as our president. Education has shaped America over the years, and has allowed for not only more economically sound markets, but ones with higher values. It is our hope that this positive trend continues with some of the extensions of education programs and trade programs that Obama has asked. They should help improve this mobility and erase the last true inequality gaps between races, regions, and genders. Obama touched on a few issues concerning “labor insourcing,” increasing the minimum wage, and expanding trade programs so that people do not have to live in poverty. I certainly agree with the fact that the higher levels of human capital that exist in the United States have created an incentive for investment. We discussed how slaves with special skills were often sought after and were worth more for plantations that needed more educated labor. This principle holds true today. During the time of slavery the Americas were a land of investment because of our natural resources and factor endowments including vast lands. Today industry is turning back to us because we not only have the physical resources, but also the human ones necessary to make change.

I think that it is too early to consider raising the minimum wage, however. Encouraging investment often requires the premise of potential profit. If we raise the rate before investment takes place, I believe we will see fewer jobs added and more cut as labor becomes too expensive. Slavery existed for the reason of eliminating a major cost. If we desire for more jobs to be created, and for each employee to work for more hours, we must let the economy develop before introducing a new expense. I hold the view that bringing more people to employment is going to help our economy grow and average wages will increase as competition and innovation continue. Along with the additional expenses that the Affordable Care Act has brought to businesses, the addition of other costs for labor would cause more problems with unemployment, and result in more underemployment. An almost $3 per hour increase in wages would render full-time labor often too expensive. We also do not want to see this cause unnecessary inflation levels either. Producers will not be ignorant of the increase in income, and may seek to raise their prices if they understand that consumers can afford them. This could cause a general price spike, weakening the purchasing power of the dollar and perhaps harming rather than helping workers.

Whether or not we like to admit it, much social change is stimulated by economics. Bolstering the middle class and opening opportunities to mobility are attractive for moral reasons, and there are ways that we can make them attractive economically as well. We will encourage investment, both domestic and foreign, by showing our relatively high human capital in conjunction with economic sense. We have seen, as the President mentioned, 8 million new jobs created in the past year. We would all like to see this trend continue. I believe that encouraging employment of more people full-time will stimulate the economy and produce a more productive, innovative, and mobile middle class. Poverty is today’s slavery. It holds us back from fulfilling our potential. We all would like to end it across the world, and each believe in different paths to that success. I will be interested to see if these programs take effect and if they will succeed.

January 29, 2014

‘Opportunity for All’

President Obama’s State of the Union Address was largely centered on employment, economic growth, and “opportunity for all” in America. In light of our class discussion on Davis today, I found myself comparing the job creation mentioned in the speech to the enslavement of Africans in colonial America. In modern-day America, many writers and critics claim that there are still leaps and bounds to cover before everyone is provided with equal opportunities. Leading me to my next point of comparison surrounding inequality. As ‘opportunity for all’ is a major pillar of the Democratic Party and for Obama himself, the President spoke mostly to the middle-class American—a class today that makes up the majority of our population.

In comparing this to the socioeconomic demographics of colonial times, the middle class seemed much more present in the North based upon descriptions in our readings. As Dana mentioned in his post on January 26, life did not seem that bad for enslaved peoples (in comparison). Many were able to gain freedom and even employ their own slaves one day, which I guess could be similar to Obama’s idea of working hard, taking responsibility and getting ahead because of it. This idea of ‘opportunity for all’ may have been more realistic in the North for both enslaved Africans and lower-middle class craftsmen. However, in the South it seems as though the opportunity existed only for the select few at the top—i.e. the white landowning males.

Income inequality in the south was much greater due to the obvious reason of the white farmer becoming immensely rich from cash crops like tobacco while the enslaved Africans underwent subjugation, cruel conditions, and unequal treatment. This notion of hard work being the only thing necessary to get ahead may have been more true for slave-owning landholders of Virginia and South Carolina colonists. Yet, for enslaved Africans their fate seemed ultimately sealed by the time they took their first steps on American soil. It is an interesting parallel to consider Davis’ notion that freedom was achieved through slavery in colonial times mentioning “black slavery was basic and integral to the entire phenomenon we call ‘America'”(Davis 102). Yet the consistent treachery of morals and lack of compassion for human beings of a different color begs the question of how much was too much.

I think the obvious answer, by most standards, is that slavery went too far in its subjugation of Africans creating an immense disadvantage for the entire race. Furthermore, the sheer magnitude of the divide between the rich and the poor is astounding. Moreover, modern day protests like Occupy Wall Street in 2011 demonstrate our contemporary view of inequality, which looks quite meager in comparison to the class disparity in southern Colonial America. Although black slave labor was “indispensable” to the successful boom in growth for America, the short-term costs came at the hand of the black men and women. However, the argument presents itself that the unbearable costs paid by the colonial slaves led not just to the freedom of the white man, but eventually of the African slaves as well—after all, is it not enormously impressive that the man delivering the State of the Union is black. The fundamental aspect of our country, which makes it so great, is the fact that our fates are not sealed, but rather it is indeed a land of opportunity.