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
For me, it was easy to assume that banning the trans-Atlantic slave trade was a moral act, fought for by the noble abolitionists as a first step toward ending slavery. My assumption, though perhaps part of the reason for such an act, was not comprehensive: in “Slave Revolts in Hemispheric Perspective” from “From Rebellion to Revolution” by Eugene Genovese, he suggests that the end of the trans-Atlantic slave trade was, partially, a tactical move on the part of slaveholders to avoid more slave revolts. He points out that slave populations in the American south were already significant and were growing, so slaveholders felt no need for imported slaves. Significantly, however, he points out that imported slaves were more likely to incite rebellion than those that had been suppressed for a l0ng time.
The presence of imported African slaves, however, is not the only reason that slaves might revolt, as Genovese makes clear in his overview of slave revolts and the causes. Though likely not, it feels comprehensive; he mentions causes such as the presence of skilled laborers, slave’s knowledge of firearms, large and concentrated slave populations, real or expected political alliances with other groups or states, religion (especially Islam), and enlightenment ideologies as factors that might foment revolt. Furthermore, he discusses the ways in which white populations might affect the possibility of a slave revolt: the white populations familiarity with firearms, and their access to local and federal militias; the size of the white population compared with the black one; political rhetoric at the elite level, and the discussion of it around the slaves; black expectations about the duration of their enslavement.
CT mentions that he believes that slaves’ ability to use firearms was an insignificant element in determining whether or not slaves would revolt. I believe he is correct–many of these causes by themselves are insignificant. Furthermore, he is also correct in a practical sense: a few single-shot muskets would not turn the tide of battle. I believe, however, that there is a certain psychological element that accompanies the use of firearms, and–though insignificant in the course of battle itself–I believe this would potentially have a large impact on whether or not slaves revolted. Especially, I think, in the American south, since I believe there is a psychological value to meeting your enemy on the field of battle with a parity of technology, and southerners were often heavily armed and trained in the use of firearms.
I also appreciate Genovese’s placement of slave revolt within a broader context. As he writes, slave revolts “contributed toward the radical though still bourgeoisie movement for freedom, equality and democracy, while they foreshadowed the movement against capitalism itself” (2). It is logical that slavery would arise within a capitalistic mindset, as the owners of capital can avoid dealing with labor at all, and simply make labor part of their capital. Luckily, our consciences have pulled us beyond this abhorrent form of torture, and yet, make no mistake that every capitalists attempts to lower wages and shut out unions, reduce benefits and privatize education, are intended to push the working class back toward the dehumanization of slavery, in which the labor (barely) survives and the capitalists reap the benefits.