Tyler Jones. Discussion paper 3

The power dynamic between a slave and a master was surprisingly not as absolute as many slave owners would have liked or a historian would have initially thought.  The plantations are the most notorious slave households in American History, where a single plantation would amass well over 200 slaves, but they only accounted for less than 1% of slave owners, as the overwhelming majority could only afford one or two at a time.[1]  Yet both one to one ownership, plantation slavery, and slave ownership between those two required a give and take between masters and slaves.  It was imperative not only for a successful slave owner, but for society as a whole to find a way to balance the known humanity of the slave with the reality of the grueling work that the slave owners had bought their slaves to accomplish.  To outright ignore their humanity could potentially increase the risk of a slave riot.  For slave states such as South Carolina, where the majority of the population were in fact black slaves[2], the thought of revolt was a frightening endeavor. 

At the same time treating them as equals or as human beings with rights was out of the question.  The business of slavery was a robust enterprise as Stephanie Smallwood brilliantly detailed in Saltwater Slavery.  Slavery was a global enterprise that fueled jobs such as shipwrights, navigators, and chain makers. Slavery propped up every business industry possible.[3]  This economic freedom would allow many slave owners to invest in other institutions that could potentially benefit their society,  

“All of early America’s leading universities, both north and south, promoted and profited from slavery, racism, and colonialism.”[4]

 America and particularly the American South was a slave society and thus it was all encompassing and impacted society socially, politically, and economically.

The charade needed to be perpetuated so as to continue sustaining the multitude of institutions that slavery had built up.  Thus it was necessary to both physically and mentally oppress slaves and later retroactively justify the benefits of slavery. 

“From an early age slaves’ bodies were shaped to their slavery.  Their growth was tracked against their value; outside the market as well as inside it, they were taught to see themselves as commodities.”[5]

Slaves then were naturally unable to learn new crafts and trade due to the physical and mental oppression that consciously molded them into the needed tools that the slave owners and that society deemed to fit them. 

“…What that trust is must be ascertained from the necessities of their position, the institutions which are the outgrowth of their principles and the conflicts through which they preserve their identity and independence. If then the South is such a people, what, at this juncture, is their providential trust? I answer, that it is to conserve and to perpetuate the institution of domestic slavery as now existing…We know better than others that every attribute of their character fits them for dependence and servitude.”[6]

 Supposedly “rational” arguments could then be made in order to defend the institution of slavery against those who would oppose it on the basic tenets of slavery’s inhumanity. This straw man argument would of course have the backing of churches and colleges, or the spiritual and intellectual elites within the South, as both these institutions naturally benefited immensely economically from slavery.

            Which makes the power instituted by the slaves themselves within this oppressive state all the more impressive.  The slaves consistently resisted the idea that they were just slaves, or just chattel to be shipped elsewhere.  They were human and they enacted their humanity by subverting the culture they were forced into, whether through trade or through birth itself. 

“They disrupted their sales in both philosophy and practice.  In philosophy by refusing to accept their owners’ account of what was happening, by treating events that slaveholders described in the language of economic necessisty or disciplinary exigency as human tragedy or personal betrayal.  In practice by running away or otherwise resisting their sale, forcing their owners to creat public knowledge of the violent underpinnings of their power.”[7]

The slaves understood that they were more than just commodities to be sold at the whim of their “masters.”  It was a small hindrance[8] to the overall hegemony of slavery to simply sabotage their own process of being sold to another slave owner, but it was one grown out of the necessity to keep their families and communities together. 

Jasmin Keller - Reaction Paper 3

Jasmin Keller
Reaction Paper 2
10/15/14
History 205 – Slavery in the United States
keljc-17@rhodes.edu

                Slavery heavily shaped life in the Southern parts of the United States both for slaves and slaveholders. The institution of slavery was the driving force of the economy and enabled manufacturers to easily outbid the prices of their counterparts in the North as they did not have to pay their workers. Slaves’ contribution to the economy was quite complex, not only did they serve as a commodity in which their owners’ wealth was measured, but they also produced commodities themselves. Besides the economy, slavery was also a main part of the Southern society. Just as the economy, slavery’s part of societal life was rather complex for each party involved, those who were enslaved and those who enslaved others.

           

Commodification runs like a common theme through the history of slavery. From being capture in Africa to the arrival in the colonies, slaves underwent emotionally, physically and psychological trauma in order to deprive them of their humanity and turn them into objects. Although slaves always remained persons, the concept of being an object and subject became very obvious in the concept of paternalism that was a predominant phenomenon of the antebellum period. Peter Kolchin writes in his book “American slavery” that “slaves owners strove both to protect their property interests and to create an order that conformed to their notions of morality and benevolence”[1] The result was quite paradoxical, as slavery became more protective as well as more restrictive at the same time. [2]

            

As slaves were totally dependent on their masters, abuse was omnipresent. For the masters, the arbitrary power in their relations with slaves that was responsible for abuse was no reason for concern. In fact, the potential for abuse was more worrisome and overall the common belief was that the system itself, and those who profited from it, were good and that abuse was not prevalent.[3]

It comes as no surprise that the slaves’ perspective was entirely different. The powerlessness of slaves and the arbitrariness in the relation with their masters was obvious in their everyday lives. They had to live with the constant fear that they, or family members could be sold at the slave market, leading to a permanent separation from their loved ones. Although the concept of paternalism involves caring and providing for slaves as if they were the master’ own children, these incidents make it clear that they were also still considered property. There were other occasions that separated slave families, but sales were the most drastic ones. Even though many masters did not want to split families up, they didn’t hesitate to do so when it “’made sense’ or was ‘necessary’ for masters with the best of intentions to separate their slaves”.[4]

Another interesting aspect about master-slave relationship are the distorted and glorified picture and expectation potential slave owners had of their lives as masters. Walter Johnson argues that “the slave market held dreams of transformative possibilities”.[5] He goes on by saying that “they dreamed of beating and healing and sleeping with slaves; sometimes they even dreamed that their slaves would love them. They imagined who they could be by thinking about whom they could buy”.[6] Slaves served as means to improve status. At the same time, having slaves also meant that more work could be done more efficiently. Again, slavery presents itself as a multilayered institution. Owning slaves meant power and being one step closer to becoming part of the high society merely by being able to purchase slaves. Slaves, however, also actively contributed to the economic and social upswing of their masters. They were commodities producing other commodities.

Slavery was a fundamental and complex institution that shaped life in the South in various ways. For (wannabe) slave owners, purchasing and possessing slaves meant economic independence and the possibility of accessing a better social class. Their fantasies of being a slave owner often times differed from reality, as they frequently failed to consider that slaves were individuals with their thoughts and free will, ready to resist. Slavery remained largely invisible but had a tremendous effect on life in the South. Lives of both masters and slaves were constructed of slavery. For slaves, this also meant the constant fear of abuse, separation from their families and complete dependence on their masters.

---

[1] Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619-1877. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), 127

[2] Ibid

[3] Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619-1877. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), 132

[4] Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619-1877. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), 125

[5]  Walter Johnson. Soul by Soul: Like inside the Antebellum Slave Market. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1999) 78

[6] Ibid

Milan Billingsley

History of Slavery Discussion Paper

Professor McKinney

October/15/2014

Bedrock of Society: Slaveholding and its Fundamental Importance to Social Hierarchy in the Antebellum South

            Within the Antebellum South slaveholding played a fundamental role in determining the hierarchy in society. That is because slavery was not only present, instead it influenced every facet of society. In their books Soul by Soul and American Slavery 1619-1877, Walter Johnson and Peter Kolchin manage to capture the influences that the institution of slavery had on the lives and social standings of whites. In their books they also show how paternalistic slave owners were towards their property. For example slave owners would routinely meddle with the lives of their slaves. They would dictate what food the slave in question could consume and the treatment they could receive when sick, in other words the slave master was constantly present and played an active role in the slave’s life. The social consequences that this paternalism had on white society in the Antebellum South are extensive, ranging from justifying slavery its self, to determining the social status of families. Slaves in the south were not simply property which worked for their masters, instead, slaves marked the class hierarchy of southern culture.

            Sometimes it is difficult to understand the extent to which slaves were involved in Southern society. Slaves were not simple farm equipment stationed in the field to plow, plant and harvest. Instead, they were people who were forced participants, and the foundation of, the unjust institution of slavery. This institution played an all-encompassing role in political, economic, cultural, and religious life within the South. Being so multifaceted, slavery in effect was the institution upon which southern hierarchy was based. The market in slaves “held the promise that non slaveholders could buy their way into the master class, and the possibility that they might one day own slaves was one of the things that kept non slaveholders loyal to the slaveholders’ democracy in which they lived” (Johnson 80). Slaves were important investments made by slave-owners, investments so important that they defined the owner.

            Slaves defined the owner because of their intrinsic value. The labor a slave could provide could drastically change the conditions of the owner and the owner’s family. The thought process would oftentimes be: “if only we could get another pair of hands to work in the field” (McKinney). Having an extra pair of hands could help dirt farmers climb up the Southern social ladder. With an extra slave “to tend to gardening, drawing water, and chopping wood” women “would have been able to spend more time inside; (their) skin would no longer be darkened by the sun, (their) hands no longer roughened by the tools, (their) hair no longer blown into knots by the wind” (Johnson 91). Those extra hands could be put to work in the field so that your wife could work in the house, or so that a larger cotton crop could be harvested. As the conduit up the social ladder, slaves could transform white farm laborers into established gentry. In essence, slaves could be used to distinguish oneself within southern society.

            The fact that this distinction was possible pointed to the fact that slavery, as an institution, was simultaneously invisible and essential. Slavery was invisible in that many of the effects it had on southern political, economic, religious and social lifer were taken for granted. In reality, slavery was essential to the Old Southern way of life. A slave joining a family could liberate white women and children from daily work and tasks. The slave made ladies marked out the class hierarchy of the South because they were the ones who could live increasingly elaborate lives away from the fields. Lives full of slaves, slaves who could take on responsibilities such as cooking, cleaning, sowing, raising the kids, and taking care of the ill within the family. By distancing themselves from these chores and responsibilities, these ladies exemplified, embodied, and “perhaps more than anyone else marked out the class hierarchy of the antebellum South” (Johnson 93).

            Owning slaves played such a large part of these women’s lives that it even played a role in their marriage. A white woman with slaves automatically held a higher status in society compared to one without slaves. Furthermore, “the purchase of ever more slaves provided access to ever more rarified possibilities of feminine delicacy for the white women who watched over them” (Johnson 92). Women with slaves simply had more value, they had more people to attend to their needs and to take care of the household. When one had a large household “a white woman could skate lightly across the surface of daily exigency, her own composure unscathed by the messy process required to produce the pleasing tableau of her own life” (Johnson 92).

            This entire system of purchasing slaves for social mobility was also motivated by a sense of paternalism for ones slaves. As Johnson makes painfully clear in his book Soul by Soul, slaves in the slave market were seen as being uncared for. Slave owners would see themselves in a positive light when they would purchase slaves from the slave pens of New Orleans. This is because they were taking slaves out of what was deemed a negative environment. One slave master justified his purchase by saying that “I bought him from a Negro trader” because “I feel satisfied that however inadequately I may discharge my duty towards this boy that he is better off with me than with the man from whom I bought him” (Johnson 109). This is a perfect example as how slave owners saw themselves as doing good, they were helping out the slaves buy buying them. In reality this logic is just misguided because they were perpetuating an unjust system.

Once on the farm this trend of paternalism would continue. Slave owners would attempt to show “managerial benevolence” to their slaves (Johnson 86). Slaves were considered similar to kids, they were not deemed responsible enough to take care of themselves. Because of this slave owners would go out of their way to dictate what the slaves would eat, how they would behave, and how they would be treated when sick. This of course was done out of the utmost care and concern for the slave on the part of the slave owner because slaves were a costly investment.

By looking at the paternalistic nature of slavery, and at the fact that slaves were a means to climb the social ladder within the antebellum south we see how fundamental this institution was at the time. Slavery was so engrained in Southern life that it became a self-perpetuating system which over time “demanded that … owners buy more and more slaves” (Johnson 85). This “circularity” was caused by an innate value which slaves offered slave owners, whites with slaves simply had more status than those without (Johnson 79). The fact that slaves were not simple property which worked for their masters, but were instead a means to higher social status ultimately caused slavery to become a fundamental part of Southern political, social, religious and economic society. 

Sam Sefton Paper 3

Master’s Dependence Upon Slaves

Slavery in the American south was shaped and centered on relationships.  These relationships included ones between slaves, between masters, and between slaves and masters.  The relationship between the slaves and masters was the most important relationship within the slave trade.  Masters often controlled the fate of slave’s familial relationships.  The relationship between the masters and the slaves is best described in Peter Kolchin’s American Salvery: “slave-owner paternalism accentuated a dualism already present in slavery: slaves were both persons and property”[1].  Master’s depended on the slaves in increase their statuses.  However, the master’s still treated the slaves as property by buying and selling them in the slave market.  This commodification would often times lead to strain on relationships within the slave’s families.  The relationship between master and slave, created by the slave trade, resulted in separation of slave families, development of a slave community, and the master’s dependence on the slaves.

Masters had the foremost effect on the separation of families.  Masters didn’t have a problem with separating families. William Johnson explains in Soul by Soul that masters are “’not troubled evidently with conscience, for although he habitually separates parent from child, brother from sister, and husband from wife, he is yet one of the jolliest dogs alive”’[2]. Masters always did what was in their personal best interest. They were not bothered by the fact that they were separating families.  There were laws that attempted to protect against this separation “the original Code Noire forbade the separation by sale of children under the age of ten from their mothers, and in 1829 the law was explicitly extended to outlaw the importation of thusly separated slaves”[3]. The slave trade produced many broken families that would most likely never be reunited.  Kolchin explains how sale affected families “there were numerous occasions, by no means all involving sale, in which slaves were forcibly removed, either temporarily or permanently, from their loved ones…Sale, however, produced the most wrenching- and permanent- disruption of families”[4].  The masters sold and bought slaves in a way that would better their economic or social status.  There was a lack of care toward separating loved ones.  The forced migration across the country left the slaves with no choice but to leave their families.  The relationship between the masters and the slaves left constant familial strain in the slave community.  One was never sure when they would be forced to leave their families and start a new life.

The master’s decision to buy and sell slaves left the slaves forced to start new families when they were ripped from their blood families.  Kolchin describes the trade, “sale of any sort was one of the most dreaded events in the life of a slave, but sale to the Southwest meant being permanently separated from home, friends, and often family members, as well as adjusting to a new owner in a new environment”[5].  The slaves were left with no support system when they were pulled into that new environment.  Therefore, it was common for the slaves to create new support systems.  They would form new families that composed of the other slaves around them.  These families created their own slave culture as a result of their similar backgrounds.  It was almost certain that the slaves could somehow relate to each other in someway.  Johnson explains the importance and significance of song in their culture: “ but they were also the substance of the connections that slaves in the trade made with one another.  As they sang songs they knew in common, slaves in the trade came to know one another”[6]. Slaves would turn to song, and this would aid in the formation of a slave culture that would become their new family.  Johnson explains, “the formation of community in the slave trade- the creation of networks of support and sometimes resistance among individuals previously unknown to one another- began as something quite different: passing the time, engaging in conversation, offering isolated acts of friendship or succor”[7].  It is evident that over time slaves learned to rely on such relationships to carry them when they were down and no longer had family to turn to in these hard times.  Kolchin reiterates that, “away from the immediate control of white authorities, slaves developed their own traditions and customs that reflected shared values”[8].  Shared values, beliefs, and traditions were common among slaves.  Many times different cultural traditions formed with other cultural traditions- forming new customs.  However, these new families all had a common background, which was the basis of their formation.  The masters forced the slaves to leave their loved ones, which often resulted in emotional trauma.

In addition to the emotional trauma, the masters provided physical trauma.  Throughout the slave trade, masters would judge the slaves on their appearance in order to determine who was best suited for the type of work they would need.  Johnson clarifies, “as they passed along the line of slaves, buyers evaluated field slaves on the basis of their growth and stature”[9].  The masters did not have a problem with crossing boundaries in the slave pens in order to retrieve the right information.  It was not unusual that masters “palpated breasts and abdomens, searching for hernias and prolapsed organs and trying to massage bodies intro revealing their reproductive history and capacity”[10].  After all, women were most likely bought by masters in order to reproduce, thus creating, more slaves.  Their masters often raped their female slaves.  The masters “dreamed of beating and healing and sleeping with slaves; sometimes they even dreamed that their slaves would love them”[11].  Masters often had sexual relations with his slaves because they were in charge of them and could use the slaves to satisfy their sexual needs.  However, they would also beat the slaves, which is evident in image 19 of Walter Johnson’s Soul by Soul.  Masters interpreted the beating scars as an act of misbehavior.  Therefore, they would most likely not choose that particular slave from the slave pen.  Master’s were also looking for people that would better themselves. 

White masters were self-centered, and they were only concerned with themselves.  Their economic and social standing was what was important to them.  Slaves played a large role in both of these statuses.  Johnson explains that “before they entered the slave market or inspected a slave, many slaveholders had well-developed ideas about what they would find there.  These ideas had less to do with the real people they would meet in the market, however, than they did with the slave holders themselves, about the type of people they could become by buying slaves”[12]. Masters would go to the slave pens on a hunt for the best slave- a slave that would contribute to the increase in the master’s economic success.  A white masculinity was expressed by owning a slave.  The master’s needed the slaves for honor as well as money.  They master’s depended on the slaves for high economic and social status.  Masters would buy and sell slaves in order to control their status in society and their honor.   

The slave trade created a relationship between masters and slaves in which the masters used the slaves to better their identity within society.  Owning slaves was a sign of power, honor, and privilege. Therefore, masters would buy and sell slaves to increase their status.  In addition, economic status was taken seriously within the white community.  Therefore, it was common for masters to buy slaves based on qualities, such as strength, that would have the possibility of increasing their economic success.  Status of the white masters was a primary goal of the slave trade, but this buying and selling of slaves resulted in physical and emotional trauma of the slaves.  The slaves were forced to migrate when they were sold which resulted in separation of families.  This separation allowed the creation of slave communities.  These communities were created as a form of support for the slaves ripped away from their families.  They had common cultural practices such as singing, and could relate to one another.  They were also abused, raped, and forced into labor.  All of these traumas were results of the master’s attempting better their economic and social status in society.  Master’s would better their statuses at the expense of the slaves.

---

Kirsten Reaction Paper 3

Kirsten Samuels

12 November 2014

History 205

Samka-18@rhodes.edu

Pursuing the American Dream

            The pursuit of the American Dream can be seen throughout the framework of American history.  The American Dream is defined as a spirit of American culture that offers opportunities for prosperity, due to the freedom provided by American society.  Through hard work, it is believed that anyone can attain social mobility.  In the South, goals for attaining of this ideal varied.  While white men aspired to increase their land and wealth, slaves hoped to survive and gain their freedom.  The concept of the American Dream is demonstrated throughout the system of slavery; it was not only desired by slaves, but was also hunted by every person that aspired to have more in their lives. 

            The American Dream for the white men in the South involved the determination to increase their wealth through the purchase of more land and slaves.[1]  The institution of slavery was essential to the construction of life in the South.  When imagining the idea of the American Dream, it is not likely that one would think about farmers aspiring to own other human beings.  But in actuality, this circumstance was extremely true.  Poor, dirt farmers would hope to earn enough money to purchase a slave.  Once the farmer owned a slave, they could use it to help work in the fields, which in turn produced a greater profit.  If a man owned slaves, his goal was to buy more, because slaves were viewed as a sign of wealth in the south.  The more slaves one had, the less manual labor they performed and the wealthier they were.  This image of the American Dream does not include the true reality of aspiring to own other human beings.  It might be a new way of imagining this concept, but it is very important.  The positive imagery that follows the concept of the American Dream is a product of American culture.  American culture molded this idea to symbolize the possibility of prosperity in America, even though the American Dream is unattainable in most cases.  The idea of the American Dream having a positive connotation, even though it is a goal that is constantly morphing and improving upon itself, makes it an impossible reality.[2]

            The American Dream for the slave population differed greatly from that of their masters, yet they did hope to gain a life similar to that of their owners.  They aspired to have freedom, a family and land of their own.   America embodied the ideals of freedom and hope, yet it’s foundation was laid on the practice of slavery and bondage.   The principles that represented America completely contradicted the reality seen through the owning of other humans.  David Walker’s appeal brought the hypocrisy of the American idealism involving freedom and mobility to light, “Walker said that black people are Americans, and they deserve to be not only freed, but treated as citizens of this country. He utilized the rhetoric of the nation, the rhetoric of liberty and equality, the declaration of independence, and threw it back in the face of white America, charging the nation of being hypocrites, with violating their own professed ideals”. [3]  During the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, there was a thriving of optimism in America. [4] Expansion in the west occurred, causing a new confidence in America’s progress.  But, while optimism flourished, there was also a continuing need to address the problems that have developed with the practice of slavery.  With an increase in development across the land, and the extension of slavery along with it, fear of possible problems that this contradicting system could cause in the future also spread. [5]

            To attempt to achieve one’s idea of the American dream, social and economic mobility is key.  For slaves, this was an impossible task to accomplish.  Slaves were permanently rooted in their social and economic status, viewed as nothing but a commodity of their masters.[6]  In order to gain some sort of control over their bodies, slaves often escaped into the woods to enjoy secret parties, “Again and again, enslaved people violated plantation boundaries of space and time; in the spaces they created, runaway partygoers celebrated heir bodies and did what they could to reclaim them from planter control and view”.[7]  These parties were a form of hidden resistance that was demonstrated daily by the slaves.  Domination was experienced through a master’s exploiting of his slaves’ bodies, especially women.  Sexual exploitation, brutal labor, terrible living conditions and poor nourishment were all examples of this control perpetrated by masters over their slaves.[8]  Despite the fact that their bodies were viewed as nothing more than property, slaves were able to use their bodies as a way to resist their masters and humanize themselves. 

            As the institution of slavery represented the soul of American progress, it also went against a singular property that defined the hope that America provided for all.  The principle of the American dream allowed hope, but the goals for each person varied.  White men aspired to attain more wealth and power, while slaves simply hoped for the ideals of freedom and justice that America was founded on.  The concept of the American Dream was experienced by everyone, and it provided the hope that slaves needed to survive. 

---

The Slave Pen

Andrew Green

11/6/2014

HIST 105

Reaction paper #3

greal-17@rhodes.edu

The Slave Pen

            The readings from soul by soul and African Slavery focused on the slave pen. There were three major players: the traders, the buyers, and the slaves. Traders and buyers used slaves to achieve their means, whether it was making money or achieving a certain type of lifestyle or reputation. Traders wanted to make money and buyers used slaves to fulfill elaborate fantasies that affirmed the character they wanted to portray. Traders wanted to get their slaves sold by any means necessary. They lied about age, health, and their skills. Slaveholders used slaves to extend their reputations as doctors, slave breakers, or paternalist masters.  Slaves were in the middle of bargains between traders and slaveholders. They were used by traders to affirm that that they were younger, healthier, or more skilled than they actually were. Buyers stripped slaves and asked questions in order to find out if slaves were actually healthy or if there were any flaws that could reduce their price.

            Traders dressed up the slaves that they were trying to sell in order to make them look better and to hide any health problems. Suits would hide the signs that a male slave is sick or had diseases. Suits hid blisters from disease or could make a slave look bigger and healthier than he actually was. Long dresses also hid signs that a female slave had a STD or disease by hiding blisters or tumors.

            Traders required their slaves to be trim, stand straight, and answer questions quickly in order to induce buyers to buy them.[1] Slaves were sold based on their size, skin color, or dress. Traders would sell big, stout males as field hands who could help clear land and do other hard manual labor out west. Stout female slaves would be sold as breeders. Light-skinned slaves would be sold as domestic servants and were dressed accordingly. Charles Ball was worth a thousand dollars for a slave owner clearing a plantation because of his size. John Parker figured he would be a house slave because he was dressed better than the other slaves. Henry Bibb was told to act stupid because light-skinned slaves were said to be smart and runaway risks.[2]

            Traders also controlled the way slaves could act around slave buyers. They were required to tell lies or act stupid in order to influence a sale. Slaves had to lie about sicknesses or skills. Slaves had to lie about being a cook, how they got their scars, or how old they were. Lying about scars hid information from buyers like if the slave was a runaway or would be a bad influence on the buyers’ other slaves.[3]

            Slaveholders bought slaves for many reasons. Men like John M. Tibeats wanted the full privileges of being a white man. He acquired a slave in order to become a true southern white man. He hoped his newly acquired slave would get him the respect he sought from his peers, women, and slaves alike.[4] Other slaveholders used slaves achieve a lifestyle. Women and men would daydream about using slaves to reduce the physical strain on white women. Slaves saved women from the strain of raising children. Slaves also saved them from laboring outside in the hot sun. Men and women bought slaves to either achieve a lifestyle of independence or start a big plantation.

            White men used slaves to affirm their character by being caring masters, good slave breakers, or good doctors. Paternalistic slaveholders used their slaves to be seen as good men and caring masters who sought to reunite family members and spouses. Slave breakers used this status to get free labor on their plantations while also crushing the soul of the slaves in their control. Doctors used slave bodies to affirm their status. They sought respect from being able to heal sick or dying slaves; which would save buyers thousands of dollars.

            Southern white men got status and respect from other men through their slaves. Non-slaveholding white men were on the margins of society.[5] Since slaves usually cost thousands of dollars, large plantations meant that you were rich. Slaves gave southern white men respect and immense pride. On a boat J.B. Alexander received respect and made new friends through his discussion about slaves and being a player in the slave market.[6] Alexander was so proud to be a slave owner that he could not resist telling everyone he came into contact with about his slave even though he was sold a dying slave.

            Slaves were placed in the most precarious position of all the players in the slave market. They had to watch out for the traders as well the slave buyers. They almost always faced punishment for lying or telling the truth to a slaveholder. If a slave told the truth about a defect and cost the slave trader money, he faced punishment. If a slave lied about a defect or skill in order to be sold he faced punishment down the road soon as the new master learned of the defect or found out that he did not have that said skill. [7]

            During sale slaves were subject to humiliating abuses. They had to almost become detached from their bodies. They were stripped, poked, and prodded in order for slave buyers to get information about their health or abilities. Because traders lied, slaves had to give accounts of their lives such as how long they were with certain masters or how and why they got scars or deformities.

            Slaves soon found out that they had to rely on their own judgments and each other in order to survive in the slave market. Slaves, like the slave owner who judged them, would judge the faces of potential owners in order to ascertain if they were good men. Slaves based their behaviors on potential masters. If a slave liked a master, they would act respectful and alert hoping they would be bought. If a slave did not a master they would sabotage the sale by acting slow or unruly.

            Thanks to the redhibition process, slaves had more information on a buyer than the buyer had on them. If a man were known for returning slaves, the returned slaves would tell everyone about the man. Returned slaves would tell what their old master was like and what he expected. This sharing of information gave slaves the power to choose their masters. Slaves would sabotage sales to evil or hard-driving master while enhancing their qualities and attitude in order to be sold to good masters.

            The slave market was a place that marked changes for slaves, traders, and buyers. Slaves would receive new owners and homes, traders would make money, and buyers would fulfill a fantasy. Traders and buyers used slaves to get rich. Traders got rich from selling the slave while masters got rich from the production of the slave or because the slaves enhanced their reputation. Slaves’ only power came from choosing their masters and deciding whether or not they would work. If a slave did not like their master they could run away, commit suicide, or entice their masters to sell them because they were more trouble than their worth.

---

[1]Johnson, Walter Soul by Soul: Life Inside The Antebellum Slave Market. Page 163

[2] Johnson, Walter Soul by Soul: Life Inside The Antebellum Slave Market. Page 164

[3] Johnson, Walter Soul by Soul: Life Inside The Antebellum Slave Market. Page 174

[4]Johnson, Walter Soul by Soul: Life Inside The Antebellum Slave Market. Page 80

[5] Johnson, Walter Soul by Soul: Life Inside The Antebellum Slave Market. Page 80

[6] Johnson, Walter Soul by Soul: Life Inside The Antebellum Slave Market. Page199-201

[7] Johnson, Walter Soul by Soul: Life Inside The Antebellum Slave Market. Page 193