Month: October 2016

“Within hours torches were set to the flammable dried sugar cane trash at Blue Hole, Leogan, Leyden, Palmyra, Windsor, Hazelymph, Belvedere, and Content. Later that night observers at Montego Bay reported a pattern of flaming stretching across the dark horizon like a red arc. The slaves of Jamaica’s western parishes were in revolt.”(Page 13)

The Meaning of Freedom speaks on the freedom of Jamaica, these include how and why it was acquired. This quote is one of the opening quotes of this piece but i choose it because it perfectly illustrates whats to come throughout the entirety of the reading. The quote tells the reader that people are setting sugar cane (the most valuable asset in Jamaica at that time) on fire all across Jamaica. The quote goes on to tell us that it is the slaves of Jamaica that are the ones setting fire to the sugar cane. The reason for doing this is because they are revolting against the white slave owners and free blacks of Jamaica. The destruction of the sugar cane plantations is a great way to hurt the white populous of Jamaica because it is essentially the reason for them being there, this is because the harvesting of sugar cane is among one of the greatest ways to make great wealth at this time.

This quote is important to the entirety of the reading because this revolt leads to many events. One of such important events happened a little more then a year and a half after the revolt. This event was the British Parliament abolishing slavery throughout the Western Indian colonies which took place on August 20th 1833. The authors of this abolition said that this revolt that took place is a major factor that contributed to their actions in abolishing slavery in the Western Indian colonies.

1. Though it is roughly answered in the reading,  why did this revolt set the British Parliament over the edge to abolish slavery in the Western Indian colonies?
2. Why did the Jamaican slaves wish to remove both the whites and the free black Jamaicans?

“The rebellion began shortly after Christmas, on 27 December 1831. For several days small parties of rebels moved methodically among plantations of St.James, Trelawney, Hanover, St.Elizabeth, and Westmoreland, leaving in their wake a wide swath of burnt sugar factories and devastated cane fields. The resistance continued into January and eventually implicated several thousand slaves.”

In my opinion, this part of the reading is important because it marked one of the first successful attempts at a slave rebellion in the new world. The fact that the rebellions were spread across all of Jamacia goes to show that this wasn’t an isolated issue but a clear national issue. The slaves of Jamacia realized that they had to send a clear message to the French, they realized that major use of Jamacia was the plantations and sugar factories. Taking that into account they decided that the best thing to do was burn the sugar factories and cane fields.

On the surface, it doesn’t seem possible or logical that these slaves would be able to successfully rebel but this can be explained because many slaves were former prisoners of war. In Africa, there were many wars between different tribes and many times when one tribe would win they would take prisoners of war from the other and sell them to slave traders.

1) What was it that pushed the slaves over the edge and made them rebel?

2) What is the significance of Christmas in regards to the timing of the fires?

“The rebels failed in their announced objective of driving whites and free coloreds from the island and working the plantations for their own benefit” pg 14

I believe that this quote is important for understanding the text because this was the goal for all slaves in revolt. Although the goal wasn’t achieved, it was possible but they got the next best thing, freedom. It was surprising to have found out that  the leaders of the revolt were class leaders, deacons in the Baptist church, and even slaves of nice owners. These men not knowing the suffrage that all the other slaves have gone through is mind blowing but freedom was all that they had in common. These men were of great influence by how they first obligated all slaves to go on “sit down” strikes instead of being violent.

The violence began when the militia and army marched against them so instead of backing down the slaves themselves fought back and began to build their own army. A number to take note was that “only fourteen whites were killed” which shows how diverse Jamaica was at the time because many people died and a lot of property was destroyed. The religious leaders perspectives was that serving two gods wasn’t right therefore they must be of self interest and support one god. This revolt was considered as the “Baptist War” and as the owners slowly gave in to the slaves they began to destroy all of their religious buildings or figures. Clearly education and religion helped spark a fire for slaves who once knew nothing about possible success and freedom.

1. How come slave trade was abolished but not slavery itself?
2. What did these leaders of the revolt get in return for the abolishment?

“The rebellion had a marked effect on the attitudes of government officials’ they too had come to accept the necessity of immediate abolition”

On December 27, 1831, the slaves of Jamaica revolted; triggering a rebellion. The importance in the dating back of this rebellion to 1831 exists in that it is not the first Caribbean slave revolt of the time period but instead follows the previous and successful Haitian revolt of 1791. This slave revolt did however lack similarity to the Haitian revolt and other previous rebellions in that the casualties were significantly lower while still serving to be more effective of one in the long run.  The Haitian revolt managed to shake up the Atlantic world of time. Most observing nations involved in the slave trade at the time panicked at the possibility of the very slaves they owned on their respective American or European soil would hear of and be inspired by the accounts of those rebelling Caribbean slaves. The events of the Jamaican revolt years late personify these fears as the enslaved along with those liberated and with equal literacy as their free Haitian predecessors in revolt now rebelled in confidence with encouragement thanks to the existence of the abolitionist movements abroad they were made aware of by the press.

Unlike the Haitian revolution, the influence of the Jamaican revolt drew sympathy and support of European (English) observing eyes and even managed to stress the urgency of the movement. England was clearly ahead of the curve compared to other nations of the Atlantic world during the time period as the ending of slavery and standardized emancipation were already being openly discussed in the nation a while before 1831. In fact by 1831, the slave trade of the Atlantic had already been banned for 24 years now going all the way back to 1807.

---

Discussion questions

Why did the opinion of the observing European world (England) change with the Jamaican revolt than with the previous Haitian revolt?

How much did the banning of slavery in 1807 change?

 

“These men were among the most privileged slaves, enjoying significant material advantages and considerable autonomy in their personal lives and generally protected from the harsher features of slave life” (page16, paragraph 1)

I found this line from the text to be interesting because it surprised me when I was reading it. The revolt was bloodless, rather they focused on destroying property that belonged to the white. The part that surprised me and the Jamaican planters and British policymakers as well was the fact that the leaders of the rebellion were slaves who had it the best, compared to other slaves. They weren’t living in harsh conditions and had many advantages over the rest of the slaves that lived in much worse conditions. Two of the leaders, “Daddy” Sam Sharp and George Taylor, were given the freedom to travel among estates. They were leaders in the Baptist church and “Doctor-men”. Robert Garden, another leader, even admitted that he was treated very well by his master and said “…our skins would be found to be as smooth as any white man’s”.

This line is important to the text as a whole because it gives you a sense of what is going on and who is in charge of it. It is quite unexpected that the most privileged slaves would be the ones to be rebelling in Jamaica. The author later in the text talks about the inspiration behind the rebellion. Those slaves were literate, and they got a hold of some newspapers talking about the abolishing of slavery in England from the British government. This angered these privileged slaves and that was the reason for the revolt.

1. Why did the privileged slaves lead the rebellion, as opposed to the slaves that lived under harsher conditions?

2. Why did the newspaper accounts of the abolitionist movement in England anger the slaves?

“dominion of the master had to be absolute…but that absoluteness made the master something other than human as well.”

I support Colin Dayan’s claim that masters were forced to become inhumane beings when they enforced their dominance and control over their slaves. As slaveholders, they had to make sure the enslaved did their jobs and didn’t rebel. To do this, they had to employ harsh punishments and tactics such as whippings, keeping them uneducated and removing children from their mothers. In Fredrick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass, an American Slave, Douglass describes the brutal treatment of slaves he witnessed as a child. “He commenced to lay on the heavy cowskin, and soon the warm, red blood…came dripping to the floor.”[10] His Aunt Hester was caught disobeying her master’s orders and as a result was whipped like many other slaves before her. Masters were hardened by years of punishing slaves and making sure they were doing their jobs. “He was a cruel man, hardened by a long life of slave holding. He would at times seem to take great pleasure in whipping a slave…No words, no tears, no prayers, from his gory victim, seemed to move his iron heart from its bloody purpose.” After being forced to treat these slaves as property, masters became immune to sympathy and mercy for these people. Additionally, the Dred Scott decision further proves how a master’s absoluteness made the master something other than human as well. “Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the Court that the act of Congress…that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory.” The Supreme Court decided that Dred Scott was not a freed slave even if he had lived in the northern states for an extended period of time where slavery is prohibited. Even though the constitution states that all men are created equal, it is clear that slaves were not treated as men or as equals.

Alexander Hamilton accomplished many things in life, before he was shot by Aaron Burr. Alexander Hamilton had many roles. He was a great lawyer, he was chief for George Washington during the American Revolution, he was United States’ first secretary of Treasure and lastly he was a founding father.

He strived to build a stronger federal government by arguing the Articles of Confederation was too weak and didn’t protect the people or the country itself. (Alexander Hamilton “Plan of a Constitution for America”)So he suggested a new Constitution. He focused mainly on strengthening the central government. Along with ratifying the Constitution, he also took part in strengthening the economy in the United States (After Alonzo Chappel Portrait of Alexander Hamilton). Even though Alexander Hamilton wanted to relieve the debt America owe during the American Revolution, the Southern States were afraid of the sudden shift in power. The Southern states were fearful of the central government having too much power. The fear of one side having more power is similar to when the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was created. The French had a National Assembly to discuss the corruption of the government. Those who were in the higher estates obviously didn’t want the lower estates to have a say on the new laws because they believed they had the most power and that the lower estates opinions didn’t matter. They were scared that they were going to lose power to the lower classes.

Similarly, when Hamilton proposed the idea of a stronger central government, the Southern states didn’t agree to it because that means the states would lose power. So Hamilton had to come up with a compromise to make sure the Southern States will be loyal to the government but Hamilton will still have a strong central government. The National Assembly however didn’t have much of a compromise. They stated that all man has natural rights at birth regardless of class. So the National Assembly formed seventeen articles that protected basically everyone in the estates. Obviously different people from different estates had issue when specific articles. But the goal of the articles was to make sure the lower estates will have a say in the government as well. In Hamilton’s fight for a new constitution and stronger economy, he had to use persuasion and compromise to get what he wanted.

The forming of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and the forming of the new Constitution and stronger economy both started out with difficulties as one side feared of losing their power. However both of these documents were formed to protect their citizens and to protect their countries. Therefore there were sacrifices that had to make for both sides. Luckily for Hamilton, there was a compromise where both sides were happy with the discussions. But for the National Assembly a set rule was made and it affected everyone in a good way or a bad way. Even though there was no compromise, overall the results benefited many.

Within Atlantic systems of slavery the “dominion of the master had to be absolute…but that absoluteness made the master something other than human as well.”

 

When Colin Dayan says this in Égalite for All, he is arguing that the control of the slaveowners had to be strict and supreme, and due to this conduct, they ended up behaving in such a way that they were perceived as barbaric and demonic. The masters treated their slaves with indecency and in the most inhumane manner, as if they were animals or objects. I agree with this argument, as it is evidently shown in the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave (1845). In the narrative, Douglass describes the fright and fear of being a slave. He speaks of one of his two masters, “Captain” Anthony, and recounts him as a “cruel man, hardened by a long life of slave- holding. He would at times seem to take great pleasure in whipping a slave.” He also states that he was often awakened at dawn “by the most heart-rending shrieks of an own aunt of mine, whom he used to tie up to a joist, and whip upon her naked back till she was literally covered with blood.” [8] These quotes alone shows how beastly the masters treated their slaves, without any mercy or remorse. This argument can also be supported in the Dred Scot Decision, where it states, “It is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration …” As stated from this quote, this shows that the slaveowners brutally treated their “property”, therefore they were seen as inhumane.

 

“dominion of the master had to be absolute…but that absoluteness made the master something other than human as well”

I certainly agree with Colin Dayan when he stated this quote in Égalite for All. Considering how slave owners were allowed to treat their slaves, the power which they had over them turned them into monsters. Slave owners weren’t given many restrictions in terms of how they could treat their slaves. There is no denying that in many cases slaves were treated like animals or worse. In Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, we can really see some of the horrors slaves would encounter first hand. “I have no accurate knowledge of my age, never having seen any authentic record containing it. By far the larger part of the slaves know as little of their ages as horses know of theirs, and it is the wish of most masters within my knowledge to keep their slaves thus ignorant” [1]. Here, Douglass directly compares the treatment of the slaves to the treatment of horses, stating that slaves knew as little about themselves as horses did, because slave masters wanted to keep their slaves as unaware of their lives as possible. Later in the reading Douglass also shares that he isn’t even too sure of who his own father is, and rarely is able to see her mother because if she makes the journey to see him she’ll be whipped. When his mother passed, he was not even able to see her while she was sick, dead or being buried which is cruel. The Dred Scott decision further showed the absolute control masters had over their slaves when Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in a free state and then returned to his original residence in Missouri was still kept as a slave despite his masters death. “It is too clear for dispute, that the enslaves African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the the people who framed and adopted this declaration…” (345). This further shows how slave masters had achieved such absolute power of their slaves, when they were even able to exclude them from the rights given by the Declaration of Independence which even stated that “all men are created equal”. Yet despite the fact it cleared mentions all men, slaves were still excluded under the claim that they didn’t contribute to its creation.

“The dominion of the master had to be absolute…but that absoluteness made the master something other than human as well.” (Colin Dayan)

I agree with Colin Dayan on this quote. In the 1800’s African Americans suffered from slavery. They were held as slaves for the sole reason being that they are colored. Slaves were not paid by their masters and were treated poorly. In the “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave” by Frederick Douglas, and in the Dread Scott Decision in 1857 we see examples of slaves who were tortured by their masters.

In the “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave,” Frederick Douglass tells us what he went through while being a slave. Masters made sure their slaves were uneducated and made sure they would never be educated. Douglass mentions to us that he doesn’t even know his age and so do to most slaves. His father was a white man, one who he didn’t know well. His father may have even been his own master, which is just cruel. Douglass tells us a story of when his Aunt Hester went out one night knowing that she would get in trouble for doing so. She was brutally beaten. Her master, Captain Anthony, was known as “a cruel man, hardened by a long life of slave- holding. He would at times seem to take great pleasure in whipping a slave.” While beating Aunt Hester we see how little respect he has for her: “Now, you d — -d b — -h, I’ll learn you how to disobey my orders!” We learn a lot from Frederick Douglas on how terrible slaves were treated by their masters.

In The Dred Scott Decision of 1857 we learn a lot about a slave who goes by the name of Dred Scott. The Dred Scott Decision was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. It stated that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into the U.S., and sold as slaves,” whether they were slaves or they were free, were not considered or allowed to be an American citizen and therefore they were not permitted to sue in federal court. Scott unsuccessfully sued for the freedom of himself and his family. Scott said that since he and his wife lived in Illinois, a state in which slavery was illegal, they should be freed. We see from this that people of color were not treated as people by not only their masters, but also by other white citizens.