Month: October 2016

Slavery exists as one of the more controversial features in all of American history. Its consistency managed to be upheld for a lengthy period of time in the early nation and faced little to no opposition until the mid 19th century. The concept of a human being possessing a right to ownership of another that they considered inferior to themselves had ideological significance worth noting. In his document “Égalite for All” , Colin Dayan argues “dominion of the master had to be absolute…but that absoluteness made the master something other than human as well”. In other words, the self empowerment exercised by masters and those owning slaves was potent enough to affect the mindset and instill abusive behavior. Famous American social reformer and abolitionist Frederick Douglas personally recounts the horrors of his enslavement with the abuse he witnessed at the hands of overseers. Douglass recalls that ” I have known him to cut and slash the women’s heads so horribly, that even master would be enraged at his cruelty, and would threaten to whip him if he did not mind himself. Master, however, was not a humane slaveholder. It required extraordinary barbarity on the part of an overseer to affect him. He was a cruel man, hardened by a long life of slave- holding.” . Unfortunately, multiple accounts similar to these still initially failed to sway public opinion. In search of a reason for this, one would have to observe the political aspect of the issue. Disagreement over its practice initially served to be a complicated one as a dissenter would also be simultaneously challenging the established government in principle.  Referring to the case of Dred Scott, it can be observed that the controversial connection the practice maintained with legislation. In the Dred Scott article, in reference to the Constitution, and Chief Justice Taney “And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it”(pg. 345). In other words, the very Constitution that argued for the humanity and freedom of those oppressed under British rule featured a means of exclusion as to just who would be included in the government it intended to establish.

Colin Dayan’s claims on the master’s savagery and absoluteness towards their slaves during the Atlantic Systems are so correct, and unfortunately, were true. So many slaves were lost to due to capital greed, rather than the slaves having a potential in their own lives. In the Narrative of the of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave (1845) by Frederick Douglass and the Dred Scott decision in 1857 provide examples through primary sources of slaves that have experienced torture, murder, cruelty, and ignorance.

Even as early as a baby, mothers like Douglass’s were separated and worked through different farms to destroy the mother and child’s emotional connection as they grew older. Douglass was so used to ignorance as far not knowing his own age. Masters were afraid  if slaves were educated, they wouldn’t keep them in control. Slaveowners offered as little information as possible to their slaves to insure no risk or defiance. Douglass experienced his aunt beaten nearly to death multiple times as a young child by his master that severely effected his mental stability, always seeing that as the norm for slaves. Slaves like Douglass were so used to how they were treated that they thought that was the way of life. It was the norm to see your friends and family being whipped out of anger or mere pleasure by a white man. The Dred Scott decision was caused by a dispute between a slave and his master on crossing an anti-slavery state and being considered free by his owner. The court ruled saying that the master has the right to free their slaves, not the states that are declared anti-slavery states. Also, the Constitution doesn’t recognize blacks and slaves as citizens and weren’t granted citizenship of the U.S.

Although the social norm in the 1800s among whites were to own slaves, it is still seen as monstrous and inhumane to do so. A man holding another’s man’s basic right is the ultimate example of dehumanization. Beatings and holding back knowledge is ridiculous and robs the master’s sense of being a human. Believing that one race is superior or dominant over the other was seen as prosperous in some states, but many masters just saw it as a means of survival, obviously for themselves of course.

 

“In his decision Taney endeavored to provide a final settlement to the question of slavery.” The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?”

This quote directly emulates the issue that the supreme court was dealing with in this case. Should slaves ever have rights, privileges or even citizenship?Based on the society in which this case had taken place the decision was clear, slaves were not to be given any rights let alone citizenship.This largely slave holding society would not let go of their slaves let alone willfully let slaves roam around as free men. Dred Scott would inevitably be forced to go back to his former owner. This case reaffirmed that slaves could never become citizens and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional which lead to somewhat of a divide amount the states. This verdict was reached primarily do to the fact that slaves will always be slaves no matter if they are in a free or slave state.Not only were slaves unable to hold any rights but even their descendants were unable to hold any rights. Many people saw slaves as subhuman and were of a different class when compared to the colonists and it did not even matter if they were set free by their owners under no circumstances were slaves to gain any rights. This was mainly to keep them in the institution that was slavery. If slaves began walking around the streets freely it would give other slaves hope for freedom and quite possibly they could try to escape to free states and say that they were let free by their master.

 

Colin Dayan’s argument is that being a master comes with its sacrifices. A master with all the power and dominance makes a master powerful, but also makes the master a something not of human, but a monster. In Frederick Douglass’s autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, shows what a master who is absolute can become. Douglass described his master as “a cruel man” and mentions that his master was a long time slave owner. In other words Douglass believed that owning slaves had made his master cruel. Douglass further describes how inhumane his master is by explaining the emotions his master shows when whipping a slave. He states that his master took “great pleasure in whipping a slave”. His master actually enjoys hurting his slaves to the point where his slaves are on the edge of dying. Douglass supports that fact by stating that the louder the salve screamed the harder his master would whip and that the more the slave bleed the more his master whipped the slave. In addition he stated that the only reason his master stopped whipping was because he became tired. In other words, the master would have kept whipping the slave no matter how much they bleed and screamed. The master would have gone as far as killing his slave. This whole scene Douglass describes shows the consequences of becoming a slave holder. It makes a person become a cruel, power hungry monster. In addition to Douglass’s passage, in the Dred Scott Decision, it shows a different way absoluteness changes a person to something other than human. In this case, the Judges show a god complex. They believe they get to decide who has rights and who don’t have rights.  In the article they stated that Africans were an enslaved race and that they were the inferior class to the whites. They decided that Africans had no rights or privileges as whites do regard less if they are free or not because the Africans will always be subjected to serve the whites. This belief of stripping ones race’s freedom and rights makes them a tyrant with a god complex.

“I know of such cases; and it is worthy of remark that such slaves invariably suffer greater hardships, and have more to contend with, than others. They are, in the first place, a constant offence to their mistress. She is ever disposed to find fault with them; they can seldom do anything to please her; she is never better pleased than when she sees them under the lash, especially when she suspects her husband of showing to his mulatto children favors which he withholds from his black slaves. The master is frequently compelled to sell this class of his slaves, out of deference to the feelings of his white wife; and, cruel as the deed may strike any one to be, for a man to sell his own children to human flesh-mongers, it is often the dictate of humanity for him to do so; for, unless he does this, he must not only whip them himself, but must stand by and see one white son tie up his brother, of but few shades darker complexion than himself, and ply the gory lash to his naked back; and if he lisp one word of disapproval, it is set down to his parental partiality, and only makes a bad matter worse, both for himself and the slave whom he would protect and defend.”

This quote from Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave is extremely interesting to me because it shows that even is a slave is born of a white man he is not treated any better. In fact this quote goes as far as to say that a slave born of a white man or of the master of the plantation is actually treated worse due to the jealously of the “mistress”. I find this extremely interesting especially if you compare it to the French colony of Saint Domingue. In this French colony slaves born to a white parent were considered freer and on this colony there was a ranking of freedom depending on how much blackness was in their skin.  Another aspect of this quote that is of interest is that the master wouldn’t want to sell his slave son because it would be inhumane to do so. But if the master decided that he wouldn’t sell his own son then he must watch one of his other whiter sons (the slave’s brothers) do things such as whip the slave.

It is evident that Colin Dayan’s statement is true when talking about the “absoluteness” of a master and how it will take away morality when treating others. He believes that the complete control of power that a master has on a slave will cause him to start treating the slave in an inhumane and in a demoralizing manner. From the “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave” (1845), Douglass says “My mother and I were separated when I was but an infant — before I knew her as my mother.” The master of Frederick Douglass separated him from his mother when he was young, and this was to instill a sense of emotional disconnection from his mother so if he was sold later on in his life, he would not be affected emotionally because he was being disconnected from his mother. This example shows a sense of demoralization by the master because he did not care for Douglass’ emotions. Douglass’ master was only allowed to commit this act because the “dominion of the master” which was absolute allowed him to not think of emotions and only think about production from slaves. In Dred Scotts Decision (1857), slaves “had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them…” This was the sense of attitude at the time and it states and shows that only people of power, such as masters, only granted rights to the slaves. If a slave resided in a free state, he/she was not entitled to freedom but only by their masters. A master taking away someones rights and freedom by making them a slave is a sense of dehumanization, and thus makes the master himself not human because a human has qualities in him/her that do not demoralize or treat someone else in inhumane manner. All in all, these two examples of Frederick Douglass’ life and the Dred Scott Decision showcase how an absolute control that a master has will make themselves not human, and in a sense become savage and unfair.

After reading both articles, I can agree with Colin Dayan’s statement. During this time in the Atlantic world, masters had complete control of everything involving their slaves, and this quality was a very harsh and inhumane one.

In the Dred Scott Decision (1857), Scott’s master, Emerson, took Scott to Illinois, a free territory. Emerson claims that Scott was not made free when he stepped foot in Illinois because that was Emerson’s decision whether he wanted to free Scott or not. This power goes against policies and the general government, but it is overruled because Scott is a slave and is considered property, rather than a human being.

In Frederick Douglass’ Narrative, he claims that he did not know his age. His master tried keeping Douglass as ignorant as possible by not sharing this type of information with him. He was also not allowed to see his sick mother or attend her burial.

Douglass talks about his master, Captain Anthony, who he describes as “not a humane slaveholder”. He took pleasure in whipping his slaves for absolutely no reason. Douglass describes an incident when Anthony tied up his aunt and whipped her back until she was covered in blood. He showed absolutely no emotion or remorse, and as she kept yelling, he whipped her even harder.

This harsh punishment was common and normal to the masters. They had complete dominance and power with the slaves. Dayan’s argument is supported by these two texts, as Scott and Douglass are both victims of this “absolute dominion of the master”.

Upon reading both articles, I am in support of Colin Dayan claim that the masters abused their power, and they did have a right for that time period. Both readings explained how slaves were treated under their masters control. As according to “The Dred Scott Decision” (1857) article it says that colored people were considered as of low position in the social class who were owned by the “dominant race” being the white men. It was said that emancipation of not, the slaves were slaves until the owner said so, and therefore meant absolute control for these masters. Overall in this case it was determined that Dred Scott being in a state of slave free did not mean he was a free slave because he was property and until he was a freeman then he’d be a free slave in such states.

In regards to Frederick Douglass’ narrative, he was aware of the absolute power his masters had, and the lack of intellgence slaves had. In his account he explained how his own aunt had been whipped to blood shed in front of him various times. Douglass stated “the louder she screamed, the harder he whipped; and where the blood ran fastest, there he whipped longest” which proved how evil and barbaric these masters abused their power to. Further in the reading we also view how masters wanted their slaves to have no knowledge. Frederick began to read with his masters wife which he said ” Learning would SPOIL, the best nigger in the world”, and this meant knowledge would make him superior plus create thoughts for rights. The power of slave masters were absolute and dangerous so at that time knowledge was important so one can generate ideas of self interest.