Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith

  • Mood:

Escape from Slavery

Tags: ethnic studies, gender studies, history
Subscribe

  • Birdfeeding

    Today is sunny, muggy, and warm. I fed the birds. I've seen house finches and a squirrel. After lunch, we moved the rest of the walnut logs. Most…

  • Goldenrod Gall Contents

    Apparently all kinds of things go on inside goldenrod galls, beyond the caterpillars who make them. Fascinating. I've seen the galls but haven't…

  • Birdfeeding

    Today is warm and muggy. I fed the birds. I've seen doves and house finches today. Before supper, I picked half a bag of mulberries. After supper,…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 5 comments
This is included in a two-volume collection of similar stories.

The article itself annoys me just a bit, but I guess not everyone has studied this matter
to even the limited extent I have.

As a slave, William would have been leased to the cabinetmaker he worked under,
who may have given extra money directly to William.
William may have made money on his own working "under the table"
Slave leases normally ran from early January through late December,
with the leased slaves returning to their owner for those few weeks.
Financially, William's owner would make more money over a period of years
through the lease arrangement.
If, however, he needed a large amount of money immediately,
he could get it by selling William to a trader,
who would take him to alabama or mississippi.
If he did this during the term of a lease,
the person leasing William would have to be compensated;
terms of this were normally spelled out in the lease.
The principle advantage of leasing, rather than buying, a slave
was being spared the expense of caring for old slaves.
Even though the majority of slaves were worked to death
before they could become a financial burden to their owners,
the few who survived beyond their productive years
were part of the expense of operating a plantation.
A lessee was also spared the troubles of children
and obstinate slaves.

A particular danger Ellen and William faced while still in Georgia
was the fact that a slave who could not verify who owned him
could be taken into custody, and his owner billed for his care.
If the owner was not located and identified after a length of time,
or refused to pay for the slave's time in the pen,
the slave would be auctioned.
If the "slave" were, in fact, a foreign national,
he would still be auctioned if no one came forward to identify him,
or if any who did so refused to pay for his time in the pen.
It was an outright scam/extortion racket,
and, as far as I can determine, unique to Georgia.

IIRC, Ellen explained, when necessary, that "he" had rheumatism,
and was travelling North to see a doctor who had treated the condition successfully in others.
Several people remarked on the devotion of "his" manservant
--it was not unusual for a white man to have a slave valet--
and a few remarked unkindly that the slave was "spoiled"

Although it was not documented,
it is a certainty that she was at least the third generation
of a "condition of the mother" slave--
that is, her mother, and her maternal grandmother,
were also the children of their owners.

This phenomenon made it possible for white parents
to sell their own children into slavery,
or for local governments to sell white orphans into slavery.
The extent to which this happened cannot be documented,
but such evidence as exists suggests that it was a far more common occurence
than anyone is willing to admit.

This particular case illustrates something else.
White abolitionists attempting to help slaves escape
actually made it more difficult for them to do so.
>>This phenomenon made it possible for white parents
to sell their own children into slavery,<<

Yes, and it was a significant source of marital strife too.

>>White abolitionists attempting to help slaves escape
actually made it more difficult for them to do so.<<

That depends on the abolitionists and their tactics, and the slave and theirs. For some it was a hindrance, for others a necessity.
I may not have been clear--
I mean that children whose parents were both white
were sometimes sold into slavery.

And I can't really prove my assertions regard abolitionists' efforts
being counterproductive;
but I'm still fairly sure that many of them were misguided--
THEY WERE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT TO OPPOSE SLAVERY,
make not mistake about that,
but they often went about it in counterproductive ways...
John Brown, for instance, got more slaves killed than freed...
and almost all abolitionists wore cotton clothes;
the majority of them were self-righteously hacking at the branches
while the root thrived unharmed...
I should have taken a moment to proofread...
I hate when I forget that...
>>I mean that children whose parents were both white
were sometimes sold into slavery.<<

Presumably because they could be passed off as white-looking octoroons -- or even because their parents were, and the child came out darker. Plus which free blacks were sometimes kidnapped into slavery. *shrug* It just illustrates that once somebody's rights are dispensed with, nobody's rights are really safe.

Today it's "terrorists" -- anyone can be alleged to be a terrorist and the government can pretty much disappear them without being obliged to actually prove anything. People who don't look white can be hassled if they aren't able to prove their citizenship, even if they were born in America. Some American citizens have been forcibly deported to other countries, including places where they don't even speak the language.

>>John Brown, for instance, got more slaves killed than freed...<<

*chuckle* So did the Spartan revolt. But it put the idea in people's heads:
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
But his soul goes marching on!


I'm inclined to count that as a win.

>>and almost all abolitionists wore cotton clothes;
the majority of them were self-righteously hacking at the branches
while the root thrived unharmed...<<

That much is true -- and a warning to activists of all times. You have to watch what you support. Today it's nearly impossible to live without wreaking havoc somewhere, just because of how the food and supply lines are designed. But you can be aware of that and make what honorable choices are possible for you. I did a post on green labeling recently for that reason.

Two other aspects relate to visibility. Abolitionists weren't always discreet enough, and their attention could get slaves in trouble. They also spilled the beans about some techniques for escape, so that owners closed off those options.

Still, I believe they played a vital role in emancipation, just by flogging the topic in public and never ceasing to condemn people who supported slavery. They simply would not shut up and sit down while evil was being done.

The Quakers, now, they were quiet. Not many were the noisy kind of abolitionist, but they were heavily into the underground railroad. They were adept at keeping secrets. And once the Quakers have gotten an answer from God on some particular topic, they will not budge. They were among the first to treat people of African descent as equals and that had a huge impact. Once somebody's been treated as a person, it's hard to hammer them back down; they get to thinking they deserve that all the time.