1
Gender Relations, Slavery, and the Use of History
In examining question of gender relations and slavery in the American South, we are
treading into one of most politicized area if Amer. Historiography—that is, ongoing
conversation between historians about differences in fact, analysis, and interpretation.
Will discuss what those terms mean in second hour. Now want to note that all historical
work is grounded in the present ideological context, and specifically the assumptions,
beliefs, and interests of individual historians within the discourse of other historians.
Male-centered before 1970s; often racist as well. Historians of slavery usually examined
topic within current debates about social conditions of African Americans and relation to
political reform—the role of the government—and personal and communal responsibility
of Af Ams. As White notes, history often used by policy makers to make claims; most
notably, the claim about the weakness of bl family due to matrifocal, men gone. In second
hour, we’ll race changes in historiography. As noted, all historians come with personal
perspectives—as do we. Our examination of history should take as starting point an
examination of our own perspectives, esp. our assumptions—those unstated beliefs about
what is “obviously” true. Rather than looking for evidence to affirm what we believe, we
should ask, “what is going on?” and only then, “what does this help us explain?”
In this lecture, want to present outlines of slavery in America, give framework for
readings. Gain larger historical context. I then want to present a theoretical approach
used by Eugene Genevese that can serve to make sense of conflicting interpretations, to
get a sense of the variations in slave life and the options available. Remember that rarely
total misery; even in slavery, as we read, people negotiate a way to make life worth
living. Must appreciate the struggle, the triumph of human spirit over conditions of
extreme adversity, as well as recognize oppression. In considering the agency of all
involved within limitations, want to raise specific role of slave men and their relationship
to women. Finally, want to present another cultural group within the slave plantation
2
community—the women who were wives of slave owners on the plantations—known as
plantation mistresses—and their contradictory status in that community.
Overview of slavery
Want to present outlines of slavery in America, give framework for readings.
Origins: Early European civs had slavery—particularly Greece. Had helped establish
participatory democ in Athens.
In Europe, serfs—near slave-like existence but still with some rights. Most
importantly, while pledged loyalty to a Lord, not property of. Could not be bought and
sold. In England, Neth, Scand, growth of ideal of rights of indiv. under law.
Slavery part of culture of Africa, particularly wars between Muslim north and
polytheist west. Port. est. trading posts on West Af coast. Chiefs benefits. Trades
include Muslim slaves. Accepted on Iberian peninsula because of great antagonism
against Moors. (and racial distinction)
Slav. in Af largely product of tribal warfare—booty of war. In S. and C. America
among native people, more of a labor system that increased wealth of elite. Sp and Port
replicated this system. Spain (along w church) decided native pop should be
christianized, no more sl, but still exploit (and often, virtual slavery). Thus, importation
of Af. slaves, since not covered in ban. In Latin am, much intermarrying, thus mestizo
cult.
In Br. colonies, some diff. Some sl existed among Ind, but product of war, not labor
system. Br. would enslave Ind. but too difficult, largely because of retaliation from tribes.
(Also, vulnerable to disease, very disheartened away from tribe) Bl seen as necessary
source of labor. Dutch traders bring in from W. Af. Some tribes trade other tribes,
particularly in Ghana and other Ivory Coast states, Wh. begin slave raids. Sl. often dif
tribes, can't communicate, diff. cultures, rituals. More easy to dominate. Eng col. need
much labor to make it in Am. Also, Eng. very ethnocentric, anti dark-skinned. Frown on
3
intermarriage. At first, many bls were indentured, as white. But after 1641—MA—slave
codes.
Took hold most in areas that were most labor intensive. West Indies sugar
plantation—source of rum, in South rice and tobacco in Car (Euro addicted by Ind), sugar
in LA, King cotton across South. Environmental matters—need huge, level tracts for
plantation system, low tech inputs. Little slavery in South upcountry (hills and
mountains).
Colonial econ becomes based on slave trade and slave labor. A labor system justified
by racial system. Little value on indiv. life—profit of cheap passage and brutality over
saving life—10-20% die, often thrown overboard. Disease, hunger, beatings. This
mindset extends to treatment of slv in New World.
Because of econ needs, sl tips towards south. In N, increasingly seen as unnec
competition to econ opportunity of poorer whites wanting to achieve. Abolished before
and after Am. Revolution in North, New York last in 1821, although only 5% of pop.
Still, realized that econ the main push behind abolition of sl. From there, abolitionist
attack against grew. As north pull away, White south begins to justify. Both had
assumed would die out, bad for Rep. By early 1800s. complicated justification.
Southern elite claimed opposition. to N. cap. Condition of workers. Bls as inferior.
Christian duty too protect, give useful work. Claims not capitalist. But while may not be
most efficient, certainly profitable. Beyond profit, allowed planters to be free of manual
labor. Historian Edmund Morgan claims one reason so many ‘fathers of democ” came
from Southern plantation culture, esp. Virginia, because overseer managed fields, wives
and “Mammies” managed home, and slaves did all the work. Left time to practice
democracy, much as was case in Athens.
B. Theory of hegemony
4
But these are only outlines. Need to look at specific lives, go beyond patterns to see
possibilities of individuals and groups within different settings.
One way to explain relations between bls and whs is concept of hegemony. at first,
Bls had few options. Until 1780s, little place to run to—sl. legal everywhere. Violent
resistance usually ends in horrible reprisals. Still, some revolts, kept whites terrified at
prospect. Usually, whs outnumbered—sometimes only 30% of pop.
Bls found ways to accommodate on some issues while silent resistance. Old Chinese
proverb, "The poor man farts and smiles kindly as the rich man passes by." Serious
intent. Two-faced when don't have much power. Can exert some control. Stereotype of
Sambo as "smiling nigger" in fact a trickster character in bl sl lore. Ways to undermine
without gaining notice. But also ways to create dependency on Bl by white, for whs to
implicitly acknowledge value of bl labor and culture.
Marriage and children as example of hegemonic process
Legally, a master owned a slave and could compel him or her to do whatever the
master wished. If that meant the master wanted a particular slave woman and man to
marry they had to submit to his will or endure the lash or worse. For the master, such
"breeding" practices meant that his "stock" would be improved. Such brutal logic, which
occurred in about 10-20% of slave marriages, often led to violence between the couple
after the marriage. Will look at how Stevenson establishes percentages and how she
interprets this practice.
Fortunately, most slaveholders held somewhat romanticized idea about their slaves,
and more often acted as parents, sanctioning the union with their blessing. Their most
common objection to match arose when a male slave began courting a slave woman from
another plantation. Because the progeny of the couple would belong to the mother's
master, slaveholders saw this as lost opportunity to increase his slaveholdings. Yet again,
masters often caved in to pleadings of their servants, believing that to deny true love
5
would demoralize worker. Above all, a good slave holder hoped to maximize his
workforce.
Stevenson and especially White look specifically at bl women in these relationships,
with some attention to men. However, men actually understudied in terms of gender,
critical men’s studies. Wan to turn to work of Prof. Leslie Harris “Unchained
Masculinity: African-American Men of the Slave South," In the earlier historical
literature of slavery, historians assumed men's experiences as the normative slave
experience. Thus, men's experiences of slavery were not examined as a gendered
experience, with particular differences attached to their roles as husbands, fathers and
sons. Although women's historians have since made great strides in understanding
women's experiences of slavery and the meaning of womanhood for slaves, little has been
done to explore the particular experience of men under slavery or slaves' conception of
manhood. Further, much of the recent historical literature on slave families has been
written through the lens of women's history, or through gender history that is seen as a
simile for women's history. Additionally, the historiography on masculinity in the United
States is largely about white men.
Men, masculinity, and slavery
By focusing on slave men's roles between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War
(1783-1861), I hope to bring the analytical tools of women's and gender history to black
men's lived experience, and to remove black slave men from the realm of stereotype. I am
particularly interested in the definitions of masculinity that grew out of the conflict
between whites' enslavement of and paternalist ideology towards blacks; and possible
alternative models of masculinity, manhood, and patriarchy developed by slaves
themselves, men and women. These models of manhood within the slave community
grew out of both Euro-American and African cultural influences, but were rooted in the
conditions of slavery: forced labor; the threat to the family of separation by sale, and of
6
sexual and physical abuse; and the efforts of slave owners and white southern society
generally to control the social and cultural lives of slaves. She suggests looking at
decisions and actions of slave men through their perspective to understand choices they
made.
Plantation mistress: the vortex of race, class, and gender
(I didn’t get to this section in class, but you can use it in your postings.)
Finally, turn to contradictory position of plantation mistresses.
Plantation woman occupied two worlds at the same time. They were part of dominant
culture that exerted control of slaves, but also dominated by strongly patriarchal culture.
Had to balance ideal of submissive belle with domineering mistress over slaves. Had
little sympathy for sl. women, who were most like to be in contact, and thus to have to
whip and demand subservience, and who also sexual rivals, as noted in readings.
For southern plantation women, their wedding was their crowning moment; it was
also the benchmark of their decline. Southern plantation women married earlier than
Northern women, usually around the age of twenty. By the mid-twenties, when middleclass Northerners were marrying, plantation women were being labeled "old maids." The
southern "belle" was spared nothing by her doting parents—she could purchase the latest
fashions, then quickly discard them for a new ensemble. She lived in a near-hermetically
sealed world, punctuated by frequent balls and daily rounds of "social calls" to other
fashionable women in the neighborhood.
As long as they chose a husband from within their own social circle, their parents
usually supported their decision. Suitors, however, realized that parents could be
potential allies, and often address their intended's mother, father, or brother first in an
earnest declaration of the seriousness of his love. Whether enlisted in the suitor's
campaign or not, plantation parents still kept a much more watchful eye on their charges
than their counterparts to the North. One observer noted that in contrast to Northerners,
7
"in the South it is deemed indecorous for them to be left alone, and the mother or some
member of the family is always in the room; and if none of these, a female slave is seated
on the rug at the door."
If sex was out, flirting was expected, and many belles raised it to an art form. One
belle, Cary Bryon, declared "she meant to have as many lovers as she could bring to her
feet to be a reputed belle." For Cary, "lovers" were of the verbal variety only,
supplemented by an occasional well-chaperoned peck on the cheek. One man
complained that "his wife never took his arm till she took it to be led to the church on her
wedding day, and that he never had an opportunity of kissing her but twice" before the
ceremony. Belles did not reject marriage proposals because of feelings of inadequacy as
future mothers, but simply as a matter of course. If, in her rejection letter, the belle held
out any hope at all of relenting, the young man took this first refusal as merely the
opening salvo in a long campaign.
If a woman's "honor" was violated—either in word or in deed—an overly aggressive
suitor could expect to get a call from an enraged brother or father. If the young man was
fortunate, the aggrieved avenger would not shoot at once, but would merely insist upon a
duel at ten paces. Within the plantation class, then, a belle could flirt at will without
impugning her character. It was for the male suitor to maintain the honor of Southern
white women, or else suffer the consequences. This offered southern plantation women
some protection against marauding men, but it also placed them in the role of helpless
victim, more so than their Northern counterparts.
Eventually, the belle would settle on a favorite and the wedding date would be
announced. Weddings were an important social event in a society were social events
played an important role in reaffirming their way of life. These were usually lavish
affairs, with extensive guest lists and menus. Relatives from afar were expected to
reunite with the family during these festivities. The big house was abuzz with
preparations for a week before the celebration, and weddings between members of
8
particularly important families were the source of neighborhood gossip for a while
afterwards.
Once the party was over, the former belle was in for a difficult transition period. As a
child and teenager she had been pampered and kept from most practical worries. Now
she was given the task of managing a household with numerous chores. Further, she now
had to take a hand in disciplining slaves, particularly members of the domestic staff. And
where she had been treated to the chivalry of her many men-in-waiting, now she might
have to cope with a drunken, violent or adulterous husband. But the biggest change was
that she was no longer "belle of the ball," the object of desire of the young men, the object
of envy for the married women. Now she was one of those married women, watching the
proceedings wistfully from the sidelines.
Marriage relations among the southern planter class were in many ways an
exaggerated version of those among the Northeastern middle-class. While Northeastern
women were expected to have maintained their virginity before marriage, plantation
society put an absolute premium on the bride's "purity." Northeastern women were
placed on an elevated platform and praised for their selflessness and moral rectitude.
Plantation women were ensconced upon a gilded pedestal, and Southern writers extolled
the refinement, piety and grace in which these women surpassed all others. The result
was a tightly constrained life that offered little opportunity to move beyond the
boundaries their society had established for them.
One could argue that Southern society had created this vision of the plantation woman
on the pedestal to offset the violence and inhumanity of slavery. Plantation women thus
experienced striking contradictions in their lives and their marriages. It was for these
women to overlook the philandering of husbands, including liaisons—forced or
otherwise—with slave women. It was for the former belle to be the keeper of Christian
piety while bearing the lash against recalcitrant servants. Her marriage prospered or
9
faltered according to the degree she was able to rationalize these contradictions
throughout her life.
If white women placed on pedestal, bl. women seen as sexual targets, worthy of no
respect. Allowed men to abstain from sex with unmarried Southern belles while
satisfying both their desires for sex and power by having sex with sl. women. This was
essentially legalized rape, and allowed white men to assert their masculinity by claiming
control over both a woman and a black. This was the essential paradigm of the slave
system, and it shaped the consciousness of all those involved.
10
Second half:
New protocol. Group secretary records questions, themes, is first to post (should do so as
quickly as possible—that night). List all group members who were present.
Review other historical categories.
Historical thinking:
Continuity and change—what existed, what changed, what stayed the same?
Cause and effect—What/who caused changes, and what was exact effect? What/who
kept change from occurring? What were the multiple sources or causation, and how were
they interrelated?
Historical Agency—How much control/power did individuals/organizations have in
causing/stopping something from happening?
Distribution of power—Who possess power in what areas of life, and does this power
get redistributed and/or does it get challenged but regained?
Compare and contrast—Compare two events/phenomena using the above criteria.
What is different and what is the same, and why?
Add historiography. Graph out historiography of slavery (white) and add in Stevenson.
What is behind White’s and Stevenson’s concerns? How characterize (possibilities vs.
limitations) How can we use them to capture complexity of situation?
Later—what can we take from earlier readings?
What are own assumptions?