Unfreedom – Popular Politics in Early America

October 23, 2013

The Unfreedom of "Freedom"

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

Patricia Reid’s “Margaret Morgan’s Story” challenged me to think about aspects of slavery among border states that I had previously never given thought. Her juxtaposition of the concepts of slavery and freedom within the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania ultimately led to a thorough examination of the legitimacy of freedom for African Americans in the early- to mid-nineteenth century. This analysis was supported in large part by Reid’s excellent critique on the personal liberty laws passed in Pennsylvania in 1826. While Reid explains the initial, benevolent intentions of the laws, she proceeds to reveal their myriad weaknesses in protecting African Americans. When compared to the personal liberty laws of New York or Massachusetts, the laws of Pennsylvania had no effect in changing the political voice or power of African Americans – if accused of being a fugitive slave, African Americans were not even provided a jury trial (369). If anything, Reid effectively emphasizes that the political stance of free African Americans was weakened by placing the jurisdiction of their trials into the hands of elite white slaveholders. For many African Americans, freedom was entangled in a convoluted system of unfreedom.

Continuing her mockery of personal liberty laws in border states, Reid highlights the proceedings of the Prigg v. Pennsylvania trial of 1842. When the issue of these laws were taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, the status of Margaret Morgan and her children – previously free African Americans who had been accused of being fugitive slaves, kidnapped, and then sold into slavery in the South – was never addressed, although state laws of both Maryland and Pennsylvania dictated that they were free (373). In depicting the proceedings of the trial, Reid demonstrates that the personal liberty laws of Pennsylvania were wholly ineffective. In this light she also reveals the lack of importance placed on African American issues by the white elite in the nineteenth century – equal treatment towards free African Americans was a non-issue because in the minds of many blacks were not, and would never be, equals. Reid uses the example of the Pennsylvania personal liberty laws as a kind of satire for the entire system by which African Americans were to be protected against injustice. Collectively, I think this writing contributes greatly to supporting her overarching thesis of a growth of “pro-slavery constitutionalism” throughout the middle of the nineteenth century (360)

While Reid’s criticism of personal liberty laws is both detailed and insightful, the first half of her work dilutes her argument. In trying to establish the legal framework for the unfortunate events of the Morgan family and the subsequent Prigg trial, Reid provides readers with a background that is largely excessive. I think Reid could have made a much more powerful argument had she spent more time emphasizing the opinions and perspectives of those directly affected by the liberty laws, freed African Americans. With this in mind, I think the questions presented by Henry and Ian are very important. These questions underscore Reid’s lack of layman perspective in her work. What did the populace think about freed slaves? How did African Americans view personal liberty laws? Reid’s use of quotes from both a freed African American and Frederick Douglass were critical in establishing the black perspective in her argument, but the paucity with which they were used left me wanting more depth in this portion of her analysis (370, 365). Despite her missed opportunities, Reid is still able to clearly articulate that manumission did not imply freedom, and freedom in no means implied equality for African Americans in the nineteenth century.

September 18, 2013

Enslavement by Visible Markings

In “Visible Bodies: Power, Subordination, and Identity in the Eighteenth- Century Atlantic World,” Gwenda Morgan and Peter Rushton comment on how many slaves and black slaves made efforts to change their appearance for the better. By wearing the “cast of clothing” of their masters, or changing their dialect in some manner, runaway slaves were able to better blend into society (45). Yet, there were many markings that slaves struggled to hide, which identified them for who they were. Things such as scars from whips, brands (even on the face), and early tattoos were all legitimate signifiers of a person’s status in colonial America.

These “mutilations” were unique to the person and therefore, easy to describe in runaway ads. Outside of brands being specific only to slaves, Morgan and Rushton point out that tattoos specifically were connected to troublesome individuals of the lower class (49). For instance, in one ad a tattoo is used as the main identifying characteristic of the fifteen year old thief in question (49). Morgan and Rushton also further elaborate on how inscriptions of various sorts (tattoos) were prevalent on the arms of runaway slaves, making them easier to identify. They were not very detailed but, they were the epitome of a sign that a person with one was an individual of suspicion.

This depiction of body art as another identifying characteristic of slaves struck me as something that has continued into our culture. Though we do not have slaves, it is a common thought amongst many in our society that visible tattoos are associated with lower class individuals. For instance, many tattoos in inner city areas are used as identifiers for various gangs, just like they once were associated with slaves. As I myself have a piece of artwork on my back, I have a problem with scholars connecting tattoos to criminals in such a negative way. Yet, after thinking about it, I realized that my choice of placement for my piece was influenced by these societal conceptions of tattoos. I did not want my body art to negatively influence my image in any walk of life, which is why I hid it on my back. With my own decision in mind, I recognized that our culture has not changed much in terms of physical alterations. People still look down on tattoos, with many giving disgusted looks to individuals with visible artwork. It must be a demeaning feeling for these people, just like it was for the slaves of colonial America, with their skin color being their first “mark.”

In Mr. Benjamin Hartshorn’s response for this week, he comments on the idea of different degrees of freedom in reference to the enslavement the colonists and British felt under their government’s oppressive taxes. After giving this some thought, I realized how both these people’s feelings of enslavement is not too different from the feeling people with visible tattoos experience. Though at first glance, this may seem like a stretch but, if you look at it in a certain way, the idea is made clear. Both the British and American colonists were free people but, they suffered under the weight of excise taxes placed upon their goods. A restriction was placed upon what kind of goods they could buy “freely,” which dictated their choice of purchase. Though tattoos are a voluntary act, they also carry a similar weight of “unfreedom.” People with visible tattoos are discriminated against in office settings, primarily being forced to cover up their markings. Also, thanks to society’s idea of what these tattoos mean, the people with them are continually watched by the citizens around them. In both groups, the people themselves are “free,” in that they can make their own decisions. Yet, their amount of freedom is limited by the forces around them which they have little control over, creating a feeling of enslavement.

September 18, 2013

The Usage of the Word 'Slave'

After finishing our readings for Tuesday of this week and comparing them with the early chapters of Thomas Slaughter’s, The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution, I noticed contrasts in the use of the word ‘slave’. In the first chapter of Slaughter’s book he states, “During the seventeenth century (in England), opponents denounced the excise tax as ‘the Devil’s remedy’ and the ‘high road to slavery’” (13). Later on when the American protests against the Stamp Act are being discussed Slaughter writes, “Some Americans believed that when Parliament sought ‘to establish stamp duties and other internal taxes’ for the colonies, it threatened to reduce Americans to ‘the miserable condition of slaves’” (21). These quotes, from both English and American men, are very interesting when put looked at next to the very real use of the word slavery in our previous readings.

Almost all of the runaway slave advertisements use the world slave. They are publishing reports of their missing property and referring to them as slaves. Therefore, it is striking that, presumably similar, men would describe their situation involving Parliament and internal taxes as a threat to “reduce them to the miserable condition of slaves”. My first thought is that the men who used slavery to describe tax conditions where simply using hyperbole. They were trying to drum up support against the oppressive government and using the word ‘slave’ was striking enough to grab attention. I figured that this was probably true for most of the situations where the slavery was used in Slaughter’s book.

Mr. Michael Lamoureux, in his blog, discusses how the slaves were described as property and objects. Slave masters described human beings just as I would if I lost a cell phone and described it as an ‘old, white, iPhone’. Michael does a good job discussing the ambiguity found in some of the ads. He makes an excellent point that with some of the ads, it seems very possible that any black man could be returned to an owner for a reward. This could, unfortunately, very well happen to a freed black man. Michael’s thoughtful and creative argument led me to think about the levels and degrees of freedom that we discussed in class on Tuesday.

As I continued to think about our talk in class about ‘unfreedom’ and the Gwenda Morgan and Peter Rushton article and David Waldstreicher’s piece, I realized that there may have been more to the usage of ‘slaves’ by white men than just hyperbole for effect. We discussed how there were people in America that were not just free or enslaved, instead there were degrees to people’s freedom. Most people were in a constant battle to protect whatever freedoms they had against an ever-infringing society. Using this rationale and line of thinking, it seems more plausible that some Americans truly did believe that losing the right to local internal tax levying could very well lead to a form of slavery. An American, Stephen Hopkins, argued that allowing Parliament all of the central authority would, “threaten the property and hence the freedom of the colonists. They who have no property, can have no freedom, but indeed are reduced to the most abject slavery” (22). It seems that some Americans were afraid to lose money unfairly to a government and in turn property and in turn their freedom. So while it seems ironic and self-centered for a white man to use the term slavery, it is very possible that they were truly afraid of becoming enslaved (to a certain degree) by British Parliament and excise taxes.