Kelly Schaefer-Flake
Reaction Paper #3
11/12/14
History 205- Slavery in the United States
While
vast plantations filled with content slaves and benevolent masters characterize
much of our image of slavery in the antebellum South, they provide a rather
one-sided and inaccurate depiction of the complex institution. Within the
antebellum South, there existed a dichotomy between the master narrative of the
institution and the narrative of those being crushed by it. At its core,
slavery in the American South was characterized by tension. Tensions existed in
every aspect of Southern life; they existed between masters and slaves, between
the lower class and the master class, and ultimately, between the north and the
South. Although different in approach, Peter Kolchin’s American Slavery,
Walter Johnson’s Soul by Soul, and Stephanie Camp’s The Pleasures of
Resistance all provide insight into the power-related tensions that
simmered beneath the surface of the American South.
Slavery
pervaded every aspect of human life in the South, with its effects reaching far
beyond Southern borders. Despite the fact that vast cotton plantations were not
the norm, slavery was still the dominant economic force within Southern society.
For individuals who did not own slaves, daily life was still greatly affected
by the institution. Although most white individuals in the South were not slave
owners, little was done to stop the perpetuation of slavery[1].
In fact, many nonslaveholding whites
helped to facilitate slave sales and the slave trade because of the hope that
it held for them. For them, the slave market represented opportunity and slaves
represented power[2].
However, where some saw slavery as a tool for social mobility others saw
increased social and political stratification[3].
In many instances, the relationship between the lower classes and the master
class was one that was frequently filled with tension. Although slaveholders
were in the minority, their desires were treated as majority desires. Consequently, individuals who did not own
slaves were forced to exist in a society where politics were dominated by the slaveholders[4].
The political sphere in the South was dedicated to preserving the institution
of slavery. While nonslaveholders were often not dedicated to abolition for
moral reasons, many of them recognized that their positions in society were doomed
to suppression by the master class while the institution continued to exist.
Tensions
also emerged when the slaveholding South was confronted with Northern notions
of abolition. Because American slavery was such a complete and all-encompassing
institution, any threat to that institution was seen as a threat to the Southern
way of life. In Soul by Soul, Johnson provides interesting insight into
how those tensions grew and why slavery became essential to the Southern
identity. According to Johnson, many slaveholders had a strongly paternalistic
self image[5].
While slaveholders certainly viewed their slaves as property, many also saw
them as beings that needed protection. Slaves were fed, clothed, and housed by
their masters. Masters and slaves lived their lives side by side. As a result,
the end of the institution would mean the end of much more than just the
economic aspect. For many Southerners, the loss of slavery was equivalent to a
loss of a way of life[6].
Southerners’ attachment to the institution partially explained their severe
reaction to northern desires for abolition. As Peter Kolchin suggests, “the
defense of slavery became tantamount to defense of the South”[7].
Ultimately, these tensions between the North and the South would come to a head
in the form of the Civil War.
Though
tensions within the American South were abundant, the most severe tensions
existed between slaves and their masters. The relationship between master and
slave was the most essential relationship in the South[8].
Ultimately, that essential relationship
was based on a struggle for power. Masters depended on their slaves because their
slaves were necessary for their economic security. As a result, slaveholders
used any means necessary to ensure that their slaves were productive. Yet,
slaves continually found ways to rebel against the fear that their masters
attempted to instill in them. In order to combat the physical harshness of the
institution, slaves held social gatherings where a sense of community and
self-preservation developed. According to Kolchin,
Masters
never achieved the total domination they sought over their slaves...the slaves
managed to develop their own semi-autonomous way of life, to interact with one
another on a basis that reflected shared values and customs. Slaves at work
were closely regulated, but away from work they lived and loved and played, in
a world largely unknown to the masters[9].
During
the day, slaves were at the mercy of their masters. During the evenings, slaves
commanded control over their bodies and used them as forms of expression[10].
However, although slaves were frequently successfully in creating communities in
order to achieve a sense of autonomy, many slaveholders learned to exploit
those community ties[11].
Faced with the constant threat of sale, the relationships meant to be sources
of refuge became sources of fear and weakness[12].
Therefore, in the American South, power and domination were always in flux.
The antebellum South was a society
filled with competing tensions. Because slavery was a source of economic and
social order, any possible disruption created fear and demanded swift action.
For those who did not own slaves, slavery was both a source of despair and
hope. For those who held slaves, life depended on the continuation of slavery.
Any attempt to bring the institution to an end was nothing more than an attack
on the Southern way of life. For the individuals living as slaves, the
institution represented oppression and domination. Survival, consequently, was
sought through secret rebellions and family life. Before all of these tensions
could come to a head, they first had to simmer beneath the surface of the
American South.
[1]
Peter Kolchin. American Slavery, 1619-1877.
(New York: Hill and Wang 1993), 179.
[2]
Walter Johnson. Soul by Soul: Life inside
the Antebellum Slave Market. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
1999), 80.
[3]
Charles McKinney, “Life in the Shadow of the Market” (lecture, Rhodes College,
November 4, 2014)
[5]
Walter Johnson. Soul by Soul: Life inside
the Antebellum Slave Market. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
1999) 198.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Peter Kolchin. . American Slavery, 1619-1877.
(New York: Hill and Wang 1993), 181.
[8]
Charles McKinney, “The White South” (lecture, Rhodes College, Memphis, TN,
November 6, 2014).
[9]
Peter Kolchin. . American Slavery, 1619-1877.
(New York: Hill and Wang 1993), 133.
[10]
Stephanie M. H. Camp, “The Pleasures of Resistance: Enslaved Women and Body
Politics in the Plantation South, 1830-1861,” The Journal of Southern History 68 (2002): 540.
[11]
Walter Johnson. Soul by Soul: Life inside
the Antebellum Slave Market. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
1999) 23.
[12]
Walter Johnson. Soul by Soul: Life inside
the Antebellum Slave Market. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
1999) 22.
No comments:
Post a Comment