VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:04:38 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
Steven Corneliussen asks
> 1. Do the silly denigration of the word _niggardly_ and the 
> silly outright 
> ban on the word _slave_ mean there's never any call whatsoever 
> to ponder any 
> present use of any slavery-era language in any context?
> 2. You allude to what was legal. Is there any analogy here with 
> the word 
> _witch_, which was also a legally real status in certain past times?
> As I said, I agree that facts are facts and that denotation is 
> denotation, 
> but something tells me this is nevertheless not all just 
> precious political 
> correctness. So I hope others comment too.
> 

in response to J. South's assertion that
> >
> > At the time slaves were legally owned just like a horse or 
> carriage or any
> > other personal property.  Attempting to convey some other 
> status is
> > historically inaccurate and just plain dumb.

These are not simple questions that can be given simple answers. Political correctness aside, J. South's seemingly common sensical assertion above does not conform to the historical realities of the matter. For one thing, slaves in some periods and places (including 18th-century Virginia) were legally defined as real estate, not personal property. For another, even when the slave was deemed personal property, there were a host of tricky questions with answers that varied from one state to another, one judicial decision to another, and one period to another. In truth, then, if we think the word "slave" tells us much, unequivocally, about the status of the person so designated, we are wrong. Finally, it might be pointed out that for much of the South's history, the terms applied to those we would deem "slaves" were "negroes" or "servants." And one last twist: As abolitionist attacks on slavery grew more insistent, proslavery apologists tended to shrink the meaning of the term "slave" from ownership of or property in the whole person to ownership of just that person's capacity to labor and the expectation of general obedience in that context.

Doug Deal
History/SUNY Oswego  

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US