The overnight comments on treason, slavery, and African Americans:

 

From David Kiracofe:

A comment on Anne Pemberton's post:

Thinking over Jeff's assertion that those who were enslaved should not
be described as "African Americans", I hit the following passage in this

book: Foul Means, written by Anthony S. Parent, Jr. on pg 152-55.

The author describes one of the many attempts by blacks to win their
freedom from slavery. The plot came to light in March, 1709. The plot
was determined to have spanned several counties. The supposed leaders
were rounded up and tried before the oyer and terminer courts of the
respective counties.

{{was a curious charge for an

enslaved laborer who owed no allegiance to the state.}} 

Admittedly, this took place before Virginia joined the US of A, but if,
as Jeff asserts, these people were chattels from the beginning, and
could not therefore have been British Subjects, or after 1783,
Americans, how could they be found guilty of high treason? Can a cow be
found guilty of high treason? How about a horse? A pig maybe?

Seems as if the courts considered them citizens of Britain when it
suited them, and as "chattel" when it suited them.

The critical distinction here is between citizenship and subjectship:
slaves would not owe allegiance to a state if that state assumed
allegiance based on citizenship.   But colonial Virginia based
allegiance on subjectship -- and everyone was a subject of the King.  In
a monarchial system, the top of the social order is bounded by the
person of the King (or Queen), but there is no "bottom" to the
hierarchy: from the mightiest aristocrat down through the ranks to the
penniless pauper or the chattel slave, all were subjects of that King.
It was not a selective application of the treason law at all, but a
general one. During the Revolution there was a case in which an enslaved
man Billy was accused of high treason and found guilty by a similar oyer
and teminer proceeding, but an appeal from Mann Page and others for
acquittal was presented on the grounds that a slave did not -- and could
not be expected to -- owe allegiance to Virginia.   The terms of
allegiance had changed.

Billy was released to his owner so I think this case doesn't resolve the
question of "chattels as Americans" but it reinforces the point that
Parent makes in Foul Means -- that the system of slavery did not simply
evolve but was a deliberate creation, a deliberate denial of rights to
one group of people by another.

 

From Jeff Southmayd:

You are mixing up the status of African Slaves under British law and
American Law.  They were never anything but chattel under the American
Constitution, as adopted, according to Dred Scott v. Sanders.

It is true that initially African Slaves were treated like other (white)
indentured servants, gained their freedom, married freely (including
white women), etc.  However, by the early 1700's those days were over,
Virginia and the other colonies passed stricter laws.  A good read on
this can be found in Children of Perdition by Tim Hashaw, among other
works.

 

From James D. Watkinson:

I would only note that if one examines many of the county records in
Virginia, one can always -- and easily -- find examples of Madison's
dicta. Slaves DID have rights -- as did free blacks.? But, at least in
my research (mainly on the poor), those rights were so circumscribed as
to be non-existent. Again, in my research, and as I told a student
today, if one was an upstanding black in the community, the chances
one's (Madisonian) rights would be respected were reasonably
substantial; if you weren't, probably not. 

Moreover, let's not forget that slaves were valuable and the loss of
even one was feared, no matter that compensation might forthcoming. In
the late 17th and early 18th centuries, blacks were regularly put to
death, while others -- perhaps more valuable -- were spared. At that
time, death seems to have been a proper sentence for recalcitrant black
folk, and it was carried out regularly. By 1800, not so much. It
probably was not right(s), but worth, that spurred law and consciences.

 

From J. Douglas Deal:

It might please you to find out that the story of Anthony Johnson, at
least, is told in nearly every college-level US history textbook now in
use, as well as in most scholarly monographs that treat the subject of
slavery in colonial America. Among the authors who have written the most
about Johnson are T.H. Breen, Stephen Innes, Tim Hashaw, Ira Berlin,
John Thornton, Linda Heywood, Edmund S. Morgan, and yours truly.

 

From Anne Pemberton:

There was another case that Parent cited a few pages later, in which the
law was changed to make slaves who tried to gain freedom guilty of an
attempt at rebellions, with the same penalty as high treason.

But, in essence, you are absolutely right. Parent presents an excellent
case that slavery did not just "happen" to lead to racism, but that the
was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Great Planters, First
Families, or whatever you choose to call them, to increase their own
wealth by depriving others of not only wealth but also freedom. William
Byrd II of Westover was quoted very often in the book, saying he
understood why the slaves would want freedom, but it was his intent to
make them too afraid of the consequences to try.

Althought Parent does not make such a statement, it would be appropriate
to note that in the northern states that later put an end to slavery,
never got into the racism game to protect their "property". So those who
claim that all states at one time allowed slavery, so it wasn't any
worse in the southern states, are dead wrong. There was a huge
difference between the slavery practiced in the north and the slave
societies that were formed in the south. The northern states never
formed "slave societies".

Perhaps if we focus on the differences in the formed "societies" north
and south, we can come to a better understanding of why the north took
up arms rather than allow the south to continue their "peculiar
institution."

 

From Anita Wills: I have not found any references to African American as
racial identification, used in Colonial Virginia. The documents that I
have been privy to refer to Mulatto, Negro, Free or slave Black, or
Colored (to name a few). There was even a mention of, Free Persons of
Color. In the case of my ancestors, who owned property, and served in
the Military out of Virginia (Revolutionary War), I would assume they
had the rights of citizens. They were listed as Mulatto on the Census,
and required to pay land and personal property taxes.

 
 
 

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html