I don't think the average slaveowner was nearly as concerned about whether
his bondswomen and bondsmen would be happier free, as he/she
was concerned whether those held in slavery might rise and
become masters of the Southland.  The patrols, a branch of the
militia, was not maintained to check the attitudes towards
manumission amongst the enslaved population.  It existed because
planters understood that underneath the seeming peace of the
slave based plantation landscape, potential revolution lurked.
  The arming of nearly 200,000 blacks, most formerly slaves, by the
Union during the Civil War, constituted the greatest "slave revolt"
since San Domingue.  The potential for such an uprising had
existed in the South since the turn to dependence on enslaved
labor in the late-17th century.  That the "Old South" survived from
that period of adoption of slavery until the 1860s, is one indication
of the stark realism of the regions' leaders.  Much as we like to
quote their most modern sounding liberal and humanist maxims,
they were politicians sitting on a live volcano they had inherited and
which they calculated they could maintain.

Harold S. Forsythe
History & Black Studies
Fairfield University

Date sent:              Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:25:02 -0400
From:                   "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: 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]>

> Paul Finkelman wrote:
>
> > I suppose one test of Mr. Browning's thesis is this:  did slaves who
> > were freed before the Civil War seek to be reenslaved because the
> > "practicalities" of life were so hard. A few, here and there did; but
> > they are the rare exceptions that prove the rule.
> >
>
> Dr. Finkelman has misunderstood the thrust of my somewhat obtusely phrased
> post. I wasn't referring to the wishes of the slaves, but to the thoughts
> of those in a position to free them. What were their thoughts on the
> subject. I think it's obvious that the overwhelming majority would prefer
> the vagaries of freedom to the obvious problems of slavery. We've all read
> the writings of those who used the Bible to justify slavery, who wrote
> homilies on how happy the slaves were, etc. but it's also obvious that
> those were nothing more than propaganda by those who wished the peculiar
> institution a long and continued existence.
>
> >
> > Did masters, like Edward Coles free their slaves and provide them with
> > land.  Yes; did some masters free their slaves and then hire them?  All
> > the time.
>
> That's what I was getting at. Could you cite a few sources? The rural
> agrarian situation is somewhat different from the urban and given the
> majority of slaves weren't urban, that would be where the practicalities
> would have to be worked out.
>
> >
> >
> > Did slaves prefer to be free and not to be sold away ... whenever their
> > master got really angry at them
>
> No kidding! That's one of the saddest legacies of the whole sorry mess.
> Slaves had to kowtow, appear to acquiesce, etc. or risk the wrath. On the
> other hand, subtle and not so subtle acts of rebellion by the slightly
> more hotheaded could and did result in removing the "problem" to someone
> else.
>
> On the other hand, the Jim Crow business where anyone of African-American
> descent, and probably of any descent other than white, resulted in severe
> penalties against those who dared rear their heads above water. Gosh,
> learn to read, dress reasonably, talk to another person without groveling,
> and what's the result: those horrible photos of a black person lynched
> with a crowd of murderers and accessories in clear proximity.
>
>
> >  And, I will bet
> > that almost all of them were happy to be free and not ready to trade it
> > for bondage.
> >
>
> Again, I wasn't referring to their preferences, that's too obvious to
> write about. Obviously the lucky who were freed by their former masters
> and the industrious who managed to obtain their freedom were a fairly
> small percentage of the total. At the other end of the scale, one
> presumes, there were those who preferred the certainties of bondage to the
> vagaries of freedom. I would rather suspect that the overwhelming majority
> preferred to be free, whatever the economic straits that put them into.
> However, I will repeat, on a southern agrarian landscape, wherein lots of
> manual labor is required and mechanization wasn't a significant factor,
> would the economy have supported a wage system. You mention Coles, were
> there others who could have done the same. I rather suspect that if one
> owner provided land and then hired his former slaves, that it could have
> been done elsewhere. That's still to all intents and purposes a feudal
> society, or has the horrible potential for becoming one.
>
> >
> > I suppose we could go ask the Scots-Irish if they would prefer to be
> > slaves?
> >
>
> I wasn't referring to a preference to be either enslaved or free, but to
> the economics of the situation. What's the phrase: I'd rather be a free
> pauper than a wealthy slave. I've found free black "homesteads" up in the
> most inhospitable places in SW VA where the former landowner kept the
> fertile bottomlands and the former slaves went up the only places on the
> landform that could be used for either living upon or farming and made
> their lives. The lands were still owned by the former owner. Again, the
> thinkers of the day who weren't rabid on the subject either way must have
> written something about the mechanics of support.
>
> Lyle
>
> 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