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
|
