Janet,

  You are right, serfs were bound to the land not to the owner as
chattel.  But this was a system of bondage that had existed west
of the Elbe in medieval times and through the process of enclosure,
the serfs were expelled from the land in England, France, etc.
Thus, the Russian solution in 1862 was not the only one possible.
  Likewise, when blacks liberated themselves in Haiti (San
Domingue), they seized the land.  Early governments under
L'Overture, Desaline, and Henri Christophe tried to mandate
continued production of sugar on these lands.  The peasantry
resisted.  Only the fourth ruler of Haiti, Petion realized the futility of
even a black government forcing the freedpeople to continue
producing the hated plantation crop.  His reform was to deed the
settlers with the land that they occupied, in exchange for an
agreement on their part to pay taxes to support the state.
Meanwhile, in the US, emancipation came with taxes and precious
little land.  A devastating consequence for a chiefly agrarian
population.

Harold S. Forsythe
History & Black Studies
Fairfield University

Date sent:              Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:57:18 -0400 (EDT)
From:                   Janet Hunter <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Slaves vs. Serfs Monticello Slave Graves Found and Reuters Remarks
To:                     [log in to unmask]
Send reply to:          Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
        <[log in to unmask]>

> In a message dated 4/16/01 2:28:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << Thaddeus Stevens studied intently Czar Alexander II's
>  emancipation of the serfs in Russia, noting among other things,
>  that the freedmen were provided with land as part of their
>  establishment as free men i >>
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it may be important in comparing the
> two situations to point out that (I think) that there was a crucial
> difference between being a Russian serf and an American slave.  The serf
> generally belonged to the land, much like the "house and other
> appurtenances" in Virginia deeds.  He was not the property of the land's
> owner to sell off separately for whatever reason, while he kept the land.
> Nor could the  owner legally take the serf with him when he sold the land.
>  Interestingly, while still putting the serf under the complete control of
> an elitist oligarchy it gave him a bit more security than an American
> slave as the land wasn't going anywhere??
>
> As a result, in addition to having the American experience to draw upon,
> the obligation to provide the serf with land upon emancipation may have
> been stronger because it could not have been avoided.
>
> An interesting side light to this might be that from a moral point of
> view, owning land with serfs, though functioning like slaves, could be
> perhaps easier for a conscience to "live with", than owning slaves as
> personal, portable property.   Just a thought??
>
> Janet Lee (Baugh) Hunter
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

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