Slaves, sex and souterners

[dandan_noodles]

Because reading spurious modern psychological diagnoses onto people who experienced slavery a hundred and fifty years ago is so much better. Regardless, the question posed wasn't whether drivers were better than overseers, but rather how drivers were perceived by other slaves.

Annie Henson's experience was not universal, but you have to look at the evidence and be able to draw distinctions, because slavery was not the same everywhere and always. Slavery changed when cash crops first commanded international markets, it changed when Northern States became havens for fugitives, and it changed when many plantation operations left the Upper South for Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas on 'the Second Middle Passage'. The ongoing negotiation and renegotiation of slavery demands a keen attention to detail, lest one disrespect the centuries the slaves spent struggling for freedom long before the Emancipation was a twinkle in Abraham Lincoln's eye.

 

[The Uchronian]

What? Really?

Historical Revision and the myth of the good slave master: the thread.

The owning of humans is fine so long as you treat them like pets, teach them some tricks and feed them well.

That's basically what I'm getting from some of y'all, as if Stockholm Syndrome can't be a very real possibility in "positive" ex-slave accounts.

Honestly, you can't be serious now. Literally nobody here is seriously arguing that slavery was any sort of "good".

 

[Benevolent]

Because reading spurious modern psychological diagnoses onto people who experienced slavery a hundred and fifty years ago is so much better. Regardless, the question posed wasn't whether drivers were better than overseers, but rather how drivers were perceived by other slaves.

Annie Henson's experience was not universal, but you have to look at the evidence and be able to draw distinctions, because slavery was not the same everywhere and always. Slavery changed when cash crops first commanded international markets, it changed when Northern States became havens for fugitives, and it changed when many plantation operations left the Upper South for Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas on 'the Second Middle Passage'. The ongoing negotiation and renegotiation of slavery demands a keen attention to detail, lest one disrespect the centuries the slaves spent struggling for freedom long before the Emancipation was a twinkle in Abraham Lincoln's eye.

I'm very lucky to have elderly parents and very old grandparents who were raised by their grandparents after their parents were either killed or died. I'm privileged enough to have some family be literate and speak openly in diaries, family bibles and accounts about the varied experiences of their enslavement

Every. Single. One. Detested it. There is no such thing as a good slave owner even if they are their own fathers and grandfathers..

It's wrong and very decontextualized to mollify a very inhumane institution; to be so separated from it, how anyone can believe in this idea that good people can buy and rape someone who literally cannot give consent is beyond disheartening, it's down right revionist removal of fact.

I have ancestors from Virginia to Louisiana, slaves who worked fields to working on their own and keeping some profit from themselves: cotton pickers, black Smiths, carpenters, wet nurses, etc... "Slaves" from Africatown to the early freed mixed Irish blacks of Virginia who worked as yeoman farmers to free Blue Vein Society folk who aligned themselves to their enslaver fathers.

How can anyone without knowing this sort of history speak on such a thing? This very personal and interpersonal experience of enslavement and interaction with the bondsmen? This is not a time to claim neutrality, their is nothing neutral and emotionless about slavery.

It was never mere business it was a daily act of threat and terror.

 

[Viriato]

Many slave masters forcibly raped their female slaves, and it seems that there was a preference for mulatto girls, especially lighter skinned girls. Sometimes the enslaved women used sex to their advantage to obtain better treatment for themselves and their relatives, however it's hard to call this a consensual relationship.

In British America, later the United States there was no creation of a separate mulatto identity, unlike in Latin America or parts of Africa, and its been theorised that this occurred because of the high portion of white women in the region from the outset. In addition, whites from were quickly the largest ethnic group from the onset. Mostly white individuals with some African blood were largely forced to adopt a black identity and would largely marry other "blacks".

In contrast to the United States was Brazil, white women were scarce until the 18th century and therefore European men had relationships with African and to a lesser extent Indian women. The one drop rule worked in reverse there because the mixed-race off spring were usually able to achieve a higher social status. In addition, a progressive whitening occurred because lighter skinned girls tended to be preferred by white men, particularly those of status. As a result, within a few generations, there were large numbers of "white" women and men with small amounts of African and indigenous blood. This allowed an African slave woman's descendants to progressively whiten themselves with each successive generation. This also created the myth that Brazil does not have racism, however to this day the darker the skin tone, the more economically disadvantaged one is.

 

[Jasen777]

Actually no, my mixed race slave owning ancestor who married a black slave was just as terrible as the notorious Madame of New Orleans who tortured her human chattel.

I would not have engaged that system by any means even if it were a birthright.

You wouldn't. You raised and educated by people who were complete believers in it, and having it supported by common society as not only valid but a positive good, would by very very likely to.

 

[Benevolent]

Many slave masters forcibly raped their female slaves, and it seems that there was a preference for mulatto girls, especially lighter skinned girls. Sometimes the enslaved women used sex to their advantage to obtain better treatment for themselves and their relatives, however it's hard to call this a consensual relationship.

In British America, later the United States there was no creation of a separate mulatto identity, unlike in Latin America or parts of Africa, and its been theorised that this occurred because of the high portion of white women in the region from the outset. In addition, whites from were quickly the largest ethnic group from the onset. Mostly white individuals with some African blood were largely forced to adopt a black identity and would largely marry other "blacks".

In contrast to the United States was Brazil, white women were scarce until the 18th century and therefore European men had relationships with African and to a lesser extent Indian women. The one drop rule worked in reverse there because the mixed-race off spring were usually able to achieve a higher social status. In addition, a progressive whitening occurred because lighter skinned girls tended to be preferred by white men, particularly those of status. As a result, within a few generations, there were large numbers of "white" women and men with small amounts of African and indigenous blood. This allowed an African slave woman's descendants to progressively whiten themselves with each successive generation. This also created the myth that Brazil does not have racism, however to this day the darker the skin tone, the more economically disadvantaged one is.

One Drop Rule is overstated, it actually can only be said to have really existed in Louisiana with their 1/64th Blood quantum ruling but beyond them 1/8th was the standard.

In fact there was commentary in South Carolina by lawmakers when a bill came forward to make anyone of the most minimal African blood black

If the law is made as it now stands respectable families in Aiken, Barnwell, Colleton, and Orangeburg will be denied the right to intermarry among people with whom they are now associated and identified.

At least one hundred families would be affected to my knowledge. They have sent good soldiers to the Confederate Army, and are now landowners and taxpayers.

Those men served creditably, and it would be unjust and disgraceful to embarrass them in this way. It is a scientific fact that there is not one full-blooded Caucasian on the floor of this convention. Every member has in him a certain mixture of... colored blood. The pure-blooded white has needed and received a certain infusion of darker blood to give him readiness and purpose.

It would be a cruel injustice and the source of endless litigation, of scandal, horror, feud, and bloodshed to undertake to annul or forbid marriage for a remote, perhaps obsolete trace of Negro blood. The doors would be open to scandal, malice, and greed; to statements on the witness stand that the father or grandfather or grandmother had said that A or B had Negro blood in their veins.

Any man who is half a man would be ready to blow up half the world with dynamite to prevent or avenge attacks upon the honor of his mother in the legitimacy or purity of the blood of his father.

 

[Benevolent]

You wouldn't. You raised and educated by people who were complete believers in it, and having it supported by common society as not only valid but a positive good, would by very very likely to.

He was not a complete believer in it, had he the likelihood is he'd pass off as white like his sibling and marry the daughter of a white planter instead of a slave.

The aligning with whiteness is only the result of fear, an intense fear that one could very well be stripped of everything and enslaved themselves. One had to prove worth when free and not be a threat to free whites or slave system as the wealthy mixed race were always seen with a certain suspicion. He was still no better than them but he was not doing it for the same reason.

 

[elkarlo]

Speaking as someone with colonial ancestry that's both European and African and coming from one a side a long line of mulattos, griffes, quadroons and even a octoroon or two who were at varying levels of enslavement or success thanks to white fathers I have to say consent cannot be had in slave/master dynamics


It's impossible, it's unreasonable and anyone arguing it is possible is a romanticist and completely unaware.

I say this coming from a wealthy octoroon slave owner in Alabama who got freedom, education and money from his own father who laid with a "fancy slave" monogamously until he died.

That's really interesting. Did any of your family end up passing? I pass and so does my mom. Whom I get Hispanic and possibly mullato blood from.

 

[The Uchronian]

You wouldn't. You raised and educated by people who were complete believers in it, and having it supported by common society as not only valid but a positive good, would by very very likely to.

I think it really depends on the individual person, and the perspective that they may gain later in life.

The aligning with whiteness is only the result of fear, an intense fear that one could very well be stripped of everything and enslaved themselves.

With some, that was probably true, like in your particular ancestor's case. But there were certainly some others who had other motives in mind.

That's really interesting. Did any of your family end up passing? I pass and so does my mom. Whom I get Hispanic and possibly mullato blood from.

Might your mom perhaps be of Cuban or Dominican heritage, if I may ask? I do know that both islands had, and still have, significant populations descended from sub-Saharan African peoples.

 

[NothingNow]

Because reading spurious modern psychological diagnoses onto people who experienced slavery a hundred and fifty years ago is so much better.

Actually, it'd be a decent explanation to some extent, as capture bonding is actually a pretty universal part of human psychology, since it's actually pretty advantageous in pre-modern contexts.

Regardless, the question posed wasn't whether drivers were better than overseers, but rather how drivers were perceived by other slaves.

Pretty much. And well, how the pressures placed on them drove different standards of behavior which influenced those perceptions.

 

[Benevolent]

That's really interesting. Did any of your family end up passing? I pass and so does my mom. Whom I get Hispanic and possibly mullato blood from.

Hell yeah, I have great uncles and aunts who are passing in New England and Texas still alive today but the two biggest events were right after the civil war and the 1920's during the great migration.

 

[Benevolent]

I think it really depends on the individual person, and the perspective that they may gain later in life.



With some, that was probably true, like in your particular ancestor's case. But there were certainly some others who had other motives in mind.



Might your mom perhaps be of Cuban or Dominican heritage, if I may ask? I do know that both islands had, and still have, significant populations descended from sub-Saharan African peoples.

All were at risk of future enslavement and yes it was universal, people did in fact have to prove themselves and white plantation owners were weary of the free population especially after the Haitian Revolution headed by the affranchi Toussaint and freeborn mulat upperclass.

 

[elkarlo]

Might your mom perhaps be of Cuban or Dominican heritage, if I may ask? I do know that both islands had, and still have, significant populations descended from sub-Saharan African peoples.

I'm Californian by way of Mexico. The first mayor of LA is my ancestor. He may have been a mulatto or maybe a mestizo. Not sure. Have to get my aunt's DNA test results ronsee African %.
I know the islands have more African admixture than they really want to admit. So mixing is more common from the Spanish islands

 

[elkarlo]

Hell yeah, I have great uncles and aunts who are passing in New England and Texas still alive today but the two biggest events were right after the civil war and the 1920's during the great migration.

Very interesting. When did they start passing? It seems that mostly happened before the 1880s when the racial caste system became fixed.

 

[The Uchronian]

I'm Californian by way of Mexico. The first mayor of LA is my ancestor. He may have been a mulatto or maybe a mestizo. Not sure. Have to get my aunt's DNA test results ronsee African %.
I know the islands have more African admixture than they really want to admit. So mixing is more common from the Spanish islands

Very interesting indeed.

(As an aside, by the way, you may be interested in AH.Com's official Genealogy Thread.)

 

[DG Valdron]

I'm sure that there were nice slavers, in the same sense that there were nice concentration camp guards.

The fundamentals of the relationship was that the slave owner could essentially liberate his slaves any time. He could just wake up one day and decide to do it. Instead, he woke up every morning and decided to keep them enslaved. If they ran away, he would hunt them down. If they resisted, he would have them whipped. If money was tight, he could sell them. If one was too old to work, he could put them down. If one caught his eye, he could rape him or her.

That's what the relationship was. A slave owner might be compassionate, gentle, forbearing, patient. But every day, he woke up in the morning, he chose to enslave them. No one was forcing him.

A farmer understands this thing. A farmer can raise a steer or a pig from infancy, get to know it as a personality, even develop a mutual affection. But at the end of the day, the steer gets slaughtered.

Slavery was a system built on brutality, subjugation and torture. It produced people who, whatever their virtues were, were just fine with brutality, subjugation and torture.

The moral is: Don't let sentimentality confuse the realities of the situation. Slaveholders didn't, farmers didn't, and the slaves didn't

 

[Mr. pollos]

But every day, he woke up in the morning, he chose to enslave them. No one was forcing him.

Not necessarily:

Regulation of manumission began in 1692, when Virginia established that in order to manumit a slave, a person must pay the cost for them to be transported out of the colony. A 1723 law stated that slaves may not "be set free upon any pretence whatsoever, except for some meritorious services to be adjudged and allowed by the governor and council."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission

 

[Benevolent]

Very interesting. When did they start passing? It seems that mostly happened before the 1880s when the racial caste system became fixed.

In practice it really wasn't like that, tbh people just bought off town officials to make them white in documents or simply got new documents once they moved north or west.

The biggest example of that is the proliferation of whites with African ancestry in SC and LA

 

[Benevolent]

Not necessarily:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission

Yeah no, defending the position of slaveholders is not a good look.

 

[Mr. pollos]

Yeah no, defending the position of slaveholders is not a good look.

Man, I’m sorry if it appeared I was doing that.

I was just pointing out that in some cases It wasn’t only up to the individual, but governmental institutions often made it difficult for slave owners to free their slaves. That is not to say that one can find loopholes in that sort of system in order to free one’s slaves.