What factor differentiated chattel slavery from indentured servitude

4 The Developmeml 0f

D0minant-Min0rity {;roup Relations in Preindustrial America

The Origins of Slavery

No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.

- Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) ex~slave, abolitionist, orator, author

Washington, D.C. 1883

F com the first settlements in the 1600s until the 19th century, most people living in what was to become the United States relied directly on farming for food, shelter, and other necessities of life. In an agricultural society, land and labor are central concerns, and the struggle to control these resources led directly to the creation of minority group status for three groups: African Americans, American Indians, and Mexican Americans. Why did the colonists create slavery? Why were Africans enslaved but not American Indians or Europeans? Why did American Indians lose their land and most of their population by the 1890s? How did the Mexican population in the Southwest become "Mexican Americans"? How did the experience of becoming a subordinated minority group vary by gender?

In this chapter, the concepts introduced in Part I will be used to answer these questions. Some new ideas and theories will also be introduced, and by the end of the chapter, we will have developed a theoretical model of the process that leads to the creation of a minority

147

Healey, Joseph F. 2012. Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Class: The Sociology of Group Conflict and Change. Sixth Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

w008cxk
Highlight
148 PART 11 THE EVOLUTION OF DOMINANT-MINORITY RELATIONS INTHE UNITED STATES

group. The creation of black slavery in colonial America, arguably the single most significant event in the early years of this nation, will be used to illustrate the process of minority group creation. We will also consider the subordination of American Indians and Mexican Americans-- two more historical events of great significance-as additional case studies. We will follow the experiences of African Americans through the days of segregation (Chapter 5) and into the contemporary era (Chapter 6). The story of the development of minority group status for American Indians and Mexican Americans will be picked up again in Chapters 7 and 8, respectively.

Two broad themes underlie this chapter and, indeed, the remainder of the text:

1. The nature of dominant-minority group relations at any point in time is largely a function of the characteristics of the society as a whole. The situation of a minority group will reflect the realities of everyday social life and particularly the subsistence technology (the means by which the society satisfies basic needs, such as food and shelter). As explained by Gerhard Lenski (see Chapter 1), the subsistence technology of a society acts as a foundation, shaping and affecting every other aspect of the social structure, including minority group relations.

2. The contact situation-the conditions under which groups first come together-is the single most significant factor in the creation of minority group status. The nature of the contact situation has long-lasting consequences for the minority group and the extent of racial or ethnic stratification, the levels of racism and prejudice, the possibilities for assimilation and pluralism, and virtually every other aspect of the dominant-minority relationship.

THE ORIGINS OF SLAVERY IN AMERICA

By the early 1600s, Spanish explorers had conquered much of Central and South America, and the influx of gold, silver, and other riches from the New World had made Spain a

fill powerful nation. Following Spain's lead, England proceeded to establish its presence in the Audio Link 4.1 Western Hemisphere, but its efforts at colonization were more modest than those of Spain.

Slavery and Africa's By the early 1600s, only two small colonies had been established: Plymouth, settled by pious Cultural Achievement Protestant families, and Jamestown, populated primarily by males seeking their fortunes.

By 1619, the British colony at Jamestown, Virginia, had survived for more than a decade. The residents of the settlement had fought with the local natives and struggled continuously to eke out a living from the land. Starvation, disease, and death were frequent visitors, and the future of the enterprise continued to be in doubt.

In August of that year, a Dutch ship arrived. The master of the ship needed provisions and offered to trade his only cargo: about 20 black Africans. Many of the details of this transac- tion have been lost, and we probably will never know exactly how these people came to be chained in the hold of a ship. Regardless, this brief episode was a landmark event in the formation of what would become the United Stares. In combination with the strained rela- tions between the English settlers and American Indians, the presence of these first few Africans raised an issue that never has been fully resolved: How should different groups in this society relate to one another?

The colonists at Jamestown had no ready answer. In 1619, England and its colonies did not practice slavery, so these first Africans were probably incorporated into colonial society as indentured servants, contract laborers who arc obligated to serve a master for a specific number of years. At the end of the indenture, or contract, the servant became a free citizen. The colonies depended heavily on indentured servants from the British Isles for labor, and

w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
Chapter 4 The Development of Dominant-Minority Group Relations in Preindustrial America 149

Livingstone (1874, p. 62).

Drake ( 1860, p. 28). Library of Congress, Prints and Pholographs Division, LC·USZ62·30818.

To provide labor for American plantations, slaves were kidnapped from their villages in Africa and marched to the sea, a journey that sometimes covered hundreds of miles. They were loaded aboard slave ships and packed tightly below decks. The "Middle Passage" across the Atlantic could take months.

this status apparently provided a convenient way of defining the newcomers from Africa, who -sl were, after all, treated as commodities and exchanged for food and water (see Exhibit 4.1 for 11111 a map of slave trade from Africa). Video Link 4.1

The position of African indentured servants in the colonies remained ambiguous for History of Slavery several decades. American slavery evolved gradually and in small steps; in fact, there was in America little demand for African labor during the years following 1619. By 1625, there still were only 23 blacks in Virginia, and that number had increa~ed to perhaps 300 by midcentury (Franklin & Moss, 1994, p. 5 7). In the decades before the dawn of slavery, we know that some African indentured servants did become free citizens. Some became successful farmers

150

Exhibit 4.1 The African Diaspora

PART II THE EVOLUTION OF DOMINANT-MINORITY RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

North Amcrfcu

~ Amcricu

Mrio.slave Tnldetothe. ""-leas 1eoo to 1800

T.J:IEAFRfCAN DlAS.P@RA

NOTE The size of the arrows is proportional to lhe number of slaves. Note that the bulk wcnl 10 South America and that there were also flows lo Europe and Asia.

SOURCE From Williams. Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery, 1 E. © 1998 Gale, a part of Ccngage Leaming. Inc. Reproduced by permission. www.cengage.com/permissions.

and landowners and, like their white neighbors, purchased African and white indentured servants themselves (Smedley, 2007, p. 104). By the 1650s, however, many African Americans (and their offspring) were being treated as the property of others, or in other words, as slaves (Morgan, 1975, p. 154).

It was not until the 1660s that the first laws defining slavery were enacted. In the century that followed, hundreds of additional laws were passed to clarify and formalize the status of Africans in colonial America. By the 1750s, slavery had been clearly defined in law and in custom, and the idea that a person could own another person-not just the labor or the energy or the work of a person, but the actual person-had been thoroughly institutionalized.

What caused slavery? The gradual evolution of and low demand for indentured servants from Africa suggest that slavery was not somehow inevitable or preordained. Why did the colonists deliberately create this repressive ·system? Why did they reach out all the way to Africa for their slaves? If they wanted to create a slave system, why didn't they enslave the American Indians nearby or the white indentured servants already present in the colonies?

Q:

w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
Chapter 4 The Development of Dominant-Minority Group Relations in Preindustrial America

The Labor Supply Problem

American colonists of the 1600s saw slavery as a solution to several problems they faced. The business of the colonies was agriculture, and farm work at this time was labor-intensive, performed almost entirely by hand. The Industrial Revolution was two centuries in the future, and there were few machines or labor-saving devices available to ease the everyday burden of work. A successful harvest depended largely on human effort.

As colonial society grew and developed, a specific form of agricultural production began to emerge. The plantation system was based on cultivating and exporting crops such as sugar; tobacco, and rice on large tracts of land using a large, cheap labor force. Profit margins tended to be small, so planters sought to stabilize their incomes by keeping the costs of production as low as possible. Profits in the labor-intensive plantation system could be maximized if a large, disciplined, and cheap workforce could be maintained by the landowners (Curtin, 1990; Morgan, 1975).

At about the same time the plantation system began to emerge, the supply of white inden- tured servants from the British Isles began to dwindle. Furthermore, the white indentured servants who did come to the colonies had to be released from their indenture every few years. Land

151

1

' Journal Link 4.1 · New World Slavery

was available, and these newly freed citizens tended to strike out on their own. Thus, landowners who relied on white indentured servants had to deal with high turnover rates in their workforces and faced a continually uncertain supply of labor.

TOBESOLD&LET Attempts to solve the labor supply problem by

using American Indians failed. The tribes closest to the colonies were sometimes exploited for man- power. However, by the time the plantation system had evolved, the local tribes had dwindled in num- bers as a result of warfare and disease. Other Indian nations across the continent retained enough power to resist enslavement, and it was relatively easy for American Indians to escape back to their kinfolk.

This left black Africans as a potential source of manpower. The slave trade from Africa to the Spanish and Portuguese colonies of South America had been established in the 1500s and could be expanded to fill the needs of the British colonies as well. The colonists came to see slaves imported from Africa as the most logical, cost-effective way to solve their vexing short- age of labor. The colonists created slavery to cultivate their lands and generate profits, status, and success. The paradox at the core of U.S. society had been established: The construction of a social system devoted to freedom and individual liberty "in the New World was made possible only by the revival of an institution of naked tyranny foresworn for centu• ries in the Old" (Lacy, 1972, p. 22).

The Contact Situation

BY PUBLHl AVcrlON, On MONDA.Y tl1e 18th of MA.Y. J 829,

U If lllli: a TH ll TR SJ:ll;

FOa 8.&LE,

THE THREE FOLLOWING

SLAVES - ns. r " ' 11.\NNILU.., ---- Tn ............ --llonMI, el~~ "'ILU~N, .._, 1LS T..n .... a.-,., • NAllt;Y,M .... - -...-- 1'1-.

biil ............... '"'1.aa:1n·~ ....... .................. mi

UCt,

Al!4o tar Hale.•, at Elen~a o'C)odl, • l~inc Jlicc, Gram, Paddy, Boo.ks, -Muslins,

Needles, Pins, Ribl10ns. &c-. &c. · llT ONC OU.OCll... TIHT t.ELI.alUT5D E.~CU"I llOIUIE

BL l JCIIER, · . ......... ...,.. ....... acwr°'rt., -~

Poster Announcing Sale and Rental of Slaves, Saint Helena (South Atlantic), 1829. http://hitchcock.itc.virginia.edu/Slavery.

The conditions under which groups first come into contact determine the immediate fate of the minority group and shape intergroup relations for years to come. We discussed the role of group competition in creating prejudice in Chapter 3. Here, I expand on some of these ideas by introducing two theories that will serve as analytical guides in understanding the contact situation.

Slaves were regarded as commodities to be bought and sold.

w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
152 PART 11 THE EVOLUTION OF DOMINANT-MINORITY RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

The Noel Hypothesis

Sociologist Donald Noel (1968} identifies three features of the contact situation that in com- bination lead to some form of inequality between groups. The Noel hypothesis states: If two or more groups come together in a contact situation characterized by ethnocentrism, com- petition, and a differential in power, then some form of racial or ethnic stratification will result (p. 163; italics added}. If the contact situation has all three characteristics, some dominant-minority group structure will be created.

Noel's first characteristic, ethnocentrism, is the tendency to judge other groups, societies, or lifestyles by the standards of one's own culture. Ethnocentrism is probably a universal compo- nent of human society, and some degree of ethnocentrism is essential to the maintenance of social solidarity and cohesion. Without some minimal level of pride in and loyalty to one's own society and cultural traditions, there would be no particular reason to observe the norms and laws, honor the sacred symbols, or cooperate with others in doing the daily work of society.

ifSI Regardless of its importance, ethnocentrism can have negative consequences. At its worst, it M can lead to the view that other cultures and peoples are not just different, but inferior. At the very

Video Link 4.2 least, ethnocentrism creates a social boundary line that members of the groups involved will Frederick Douglass recognize and observe. When ethnocentrism exists in any degree, people will tend to sort them-

Exhibit 4.2 A Model of the Establishment of Minority Group Status

selves out along group lines and identify characteristics that differentiate "us" from "them." Competition is a struggle over a scarce commodity. As we saw in Chapter 3, competition

between groups often leads to harsh negative feelings (prejudice) and hostile actions (dis- crimination}. In competitive contact situations, the victorious group becomes the dominant group, and the losers become the minority group. The competition may center on land, labor, jobs, housing, educational opportunities, political office, or anything else that is mutu- ally desired by both groups or that one group has and the other group wants. Competition provides the eventual dominant group with the motivation to establish superiority. The dominant group serves its own interests by ending the competition and exploiting, control- ling, eliminating, or otherwise dominating the minority group.

The third feature of the contact situation is a differential in power between the groups. Power, as you recall from Chapter 1, is the ability of a group to achieve its goals even in the face of opposition from other groups. The amount of power commanded by a group is a function of three factors. First, the size of the group can make a difference, and all other things being equal, larger groups are more powerful. Second, in addition to raw numbers, the degree of organization, discipline, and the quality of group leadership can make a differ- ence in the ability of a group to pursue its goals. A third component of power is resources: anything that can be used to help the group achieve its goals. Depending on the context, resources might include anything from land to information to money. The greater the num- ber and variety of resources at the disposal of a group, the greater that group's potential ability to dominate other groups. Thus, a larger, better-organized group with more resources at its disposal will generally be able to impose its will on smaller, less-well-organized groups with fewer resources. The Noel hypothesis is diagrammed in Exhibit 4.2.

Characteristics of Contact Situation

Ethnocentrism

Competition

Differential in power

Result

----- Group boundaries established (who to dominate) }

Motivation to establish Ethnic or racial ----- superiority (why dominate) stratification

_____ Dominant group imposes its will on minority group (how to dominate)

w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
Chapter 4 The Development of Dominant-Minority Group Relations in Preindustrial America

Note the respective functions of each of the three factors in shaping the contact situation and the emergence of inequality. If ethnocentrism is present, the groups will recognize their differences and maintain their boundaries. If competition is also present, the group that eventually dominates will attempt to maximize its share of scarce commodities by control- ling or subordinating the group that eventually becomes the "minority" group. The differ- ential in power allows the dominant group to succeed in establishing a superior position. Ethnocentrism tells the dominant group whom to dominate, competition tells the dominant group why it should establish a structure of dominance, and power is how the dominant group's will is imposed on the minority group.

The Noel hypothesis can be applied to the creation of minority groups in a variety of situa- tions. We will also use the model to analyze changes in dominant-minority structures over time.

The Blauner Hypothesis

The contact situation also has been analyzed by sociologist Robert Blauner (1972}, in his book Racial Oppression in America. Blauner identifies two different initial relationships- colonization and immigration-and hypothesizes that minority groups created by coloniza- tion will experience more intense prejudice, racism, and discrimination than those created by immigration. Furthermore, the disadvantaged status of colonized groups will persist longer and be more difficult to overcome than the disadvantaged status faced by groups cre- ated by immigration.

Colonized minority groups, such as African Americans, are forced into minority status by the superior military and political power of the dominant group. At the time of contact with the dominant group, colonized groups are subjected to massive inequalities and attacks on their cultures. They are assigned to positions, such as slave status, from which any form of assimilation is extremely difficult and perhaps even forbidden by the dominant group. Frequently, members of the minority group are identified by highly visible racial or physical characteristics that maintain and reinforce the oppressive system. Thus, minority groups created by colonization experience harsher and more persistent rejection and oppression than do groups created by immigration,

Immigrant minority groups are at least in part voluntary participants in the host society. That is, although the decision to immigrate may be motivated by extreme pressures, such as famine or political persecution, immigrant groups have at least some control over their des- tinations and their positions in the host society. As a result, they do not occupy positions that are as markedly inferior as those of colonized groups. They retain enough internal organization and resources to pursue their own self-interests, and they commonly experience more rapid acceptance and easier movement to equality. The boundaries between groups are not so rigidly maintained, especially when the groups are racially similar. In discussing European immigrant groups, for example, Blauner (1972) states that entering into American society

involved a degree of choice and self-direction that was for the most part denied to people of color. Voluntary immigration made it more likely that .. . European . . . ethnic groups would identify with America and see the host culture as a positive opportunity. (p. 56}

Acculturation and, particularly, integration were significantly more possible for European immigrant groups than for the groups formed under conquest or colonization,

Blauner stresses that the initial differences between colonized and immigrant minority groups have consequences that persist long after the original contact. For example, based on measures of equality-or integration into the secondary sector, the second step in Gordon's model of assimilation (see Chapter 2)-such as average income, years of education, and unemployment rate, descendants of European immigrants are equal with national norms

153

w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
154

Reference Link 4.1

Slavery in the US

Aud;oUnk?~ Reparations

~~~~~~~~

PART II THE EVOLUTION OF DOMINANT-MINORITY RELATIONS IN THE UN ITED STATES

today (see Chapter 2 for specific data). In contrast, descendants of colonized and conquered groups (e.g., African Americans) are, on the average, below the national norms on virtually all measures of equality and integration (see Chapters 6- 9 for specific data).

Blauner's two types of minority groups lie at opposite ends of a continuum, but there are intermediate positions between the extremes. Enclave and middleman minorities (see Chapter 2) often originate as immigrant groups who bring some resources and, thus, have more opportunities than colonized minority groups to carve out places for themselves in the host society. Unlike European groups, however, many of these minorities are also racially distinguishable, and certain kinds of opportunities may be closed to them. For instance, U.S. citizenship was expressly forbidden to immigrants from China until World War II. Federal laws restricted the entrance of Chinese immigrants, and state and local laws restricted their opportunities for education, jobs, and housing. For these and other reasons, the Asian immi- grant experience cannot be equated with European immigrant patterns (Blauner, 1972, p. 55). Because they combine characteristics of both the colonized and the immigrant minor- ity group experience, we can predict that in terms of equality, enclave and middleman minor- ity groups will occupy an intermediate status between the more assimilated white ethnic groups and the colonized racial minorities.

Blauner's typology has proved to be an extremely useful conceptual tool for the analysis of U.S. dominant-minority relations, and it is used extensively throughout this text. In fact, the case studies that compose Part III of this text are arranged in approximate order from groups created by colonization to those created by immigration. Of course, it is difficult to measure such things as the extent of colonization objectively or precisely, and the exact order of the groups is somewhat arbitrary.

The Creation of Slavery in the United States

The Noel hypothesis helps explain why colonists enslaved black Africans instead of white indentured servants or American Indians. First, all three groups were the objects of ethno- centric feelings on the part of the elite groups that dominated colonial society. Black Africans and American Indians were perceived as being different on religious as well as racial grounds. Many white indentured servants were Irish Catholics, criminals, or paupers. They not only occupied a lowly status in society but were perceived as different from the British Protestants who dominated colonial society.

Second, competition of some sort existed between the colonists and all three groups. The competition with American Indians was direct and focused on control of land. Competition with indentured servants, white and black, was more indirect; these groups were the labor force that the landowners needed to work on their plantations and become successful in the New World.

Noel's third variable, differential in power, is the key variable that explains why Africans were enslaved instead of the other groups. During the first several decades of colonial his- tory, the balance of power between the colonists and American Indians was relatively even and, in fact, often favored American Indians (Lurie, 1982, pp. 131-133). The colonists were outnumbered, and their muskets and cannons were only marginally more effective than bows and spears. The American Indian tribes were well-organized social units capable of sustaining resistance to and mounting reprisals against the colonists, and it took centuries for the nascent United States to finally defeat American Indians militarily.

White indentured servants, on the one hand, had the advanrage of being preferred over black indentured servants (Noel, 1968, p. 168). Their greater desirability gave them bargain· ing power and the ability to negotiate better treatment and more lenient terms than black indentured servants. If the planters had attempted to enslave white indentured servants, this source of labor would have dwindled evep. more rapidly.

w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
Chapter 4 The Development of Dominant-Minority Group Relations in Preindustrial America

Three C1us;:il F;:iclor~

l'olt>nli;:il Sour(l'S of L;:ihor Elhnoccnlrisrn Compelilion Difil'n•nli;il in 1'1l\\er

White indentured servants Yes Yes No

American Indians Yes Yes No

Black indentured servants Yes Yes Yes

Africans, on the other hand, had become indentured servants by force and coercion. In Blauner's terms, they were a colonized group that did not freely choose to enter the British colonies. Thus, they had no bargaining power. Unlike American Indians, they had no nearby relatives, no knowl- edge of the countryside, and no safe havens to which to escape. Exhibit 4.3 summarizes the impact of these three factors on the three potential sources of labor in colonial America.

Paternalistic Relations

Recall the first theme stared at the beginning of this chapter: The nature of intergroup rela- tionships will reflect the characteristics of the larger society. The most important and profit- able unit of economic production in the colonial South was the plantation, and the region was dominated by a small group of wealthy landowners. A society with a small elite class and a plantation-based economy will often develop a form of minority relations called pater- nalism (van den Berghe, 1967; Wilson, 1973). The key features of paternalism are vast power differentials and huge inequalities between dominant and minority groups, elaborate and repressive systems of control over the minority group, caste-like barriers between groups, elaborate and highly stylized codes of behavior and communication between groups, and low rates of overt conflict. Each of these characteristics will be considered in turn.

As slavery evolved in the colonies, the dominant group shaped the system to fit its needs. To solidify control of the labor of their slaves, the plantation elite designed and enacted an elaborate system of laws and customs that gave masters nearly total legal power over slaves. In these laws, slaves were defined as chattel, or personal property, rather than as persons, and they were accorded no civil or political rights. Slaves could not own property, sign con- tracts, bring lawsuits, or even testify in court (except against another slave). The masters were given the legal authority to determine almost every aspect of a slave's life, including work schedules, living arrangements, diets, and even names (Elkins, 1959; Franklin & Moss, 1994; Genovese, 1974; Jordan, 1968; Stampp, 1956).

The law permitted the master to determine the type and severity of punishment for mis- behavior. Slaves were forbidden by law to read or write, and marriages between slaves were not legally recognized. Masters could separate husbands from wives and parents from chil- dren if it suited them. Slaves had little formal decision-making ability or control over their lives or the lives of their loved ones.

In colonial America, slavery became synonymous with race. Race, slavery, inferiority, and powerlessness became intertwined in ways that, according to many analysts, still affect the ways black and white Americans think about one another (Hacker, 1992). Slavery was a caste system, or dosed stratification system. In a caste system, there is no mobility between social positions, and the social class you are born into (your ascribed status) is permanent. Slave status was for life and was passed on to any children a slave might have. Whites, no matter what they did, could not become slaves.

Interaction between members of the dominant and minority groups in a paternalistic system is governed by a rigid, strictly enforced code of etiquette. Slaves were expected to

155

Exhibit 4.3 The Noel Hypothesis Applied to the Origins of Slavery

1)

2)

3)

w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
tS6

The prosperity of southern plantation owners was based on the labor of black slaves.

C Bcttmann/CORBIS.

PART 11 THE EVOLUTION OF DOMINANT-MINORITY RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

show deference and humility and visibly display their lower status when interacting with whites. These rigid behavioral codes made it possible for blacks and whites to work together, sometimes intimately, sometimes for their entire lives, without threatening the power and status differentials inherent in the system. Plantation and farm work required close and fre· quent contact between blacks and whites, and status differentials were maintained socially rather than physically.

The frequent but unequal interactions allowed the elites to maintain a pseudotolerance, an attitude of benevolent despotism, toward their slaves. Their prejudice and racism were often expressed as positive emotions of affection for their black slaves. The attitude of the planters toward their slaves was often paternalistic and even genteel (Wilson, 1973, pp. 52-55).

For their part, black slaves often could not hate their owners as much as they hated the system that constrained them. The system defined slaves as pieces of property owned by their masters-yet they were, undeniably, human beings. Thus, slavery was founded, at its heart, on a contradiction.

The master learned to treat his slaves both as property and as men and women, the slaves learned to express and affirm their humanity even while they were constrained in much of their lives to accept their status as chattel. (Parish, 1989, p. 1)

The powerlessness of slaves made it difficult for them to openly reject or resist the system. Slaves had few ways in which they could directly challenge the institution of slavery or their position in it. Open. defiance was ineffective and could result in

4)

w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
w008cxk
Highlight
Chapter 4 The Development of Dominant-Minority Group Relations in Preindustrial America

punishment or even death. In general, masters would not be prosecuted for physically abusing their slaves.

One of the few slave revolts that occurred in the United States illustrates both the futility of overt challenge and the degree of repression built into the system. In 1831, in Southampton County, Virginia, a slave named Nat Turner led an uprising during which 57 whites were killed. The revolt was starting to spread when the state militia met and routed the growing slave army. More than 100 slaves died in the armed encounter, and Nat Turner and 13 others were later executed. Slave owners and white southerners in general were greatly alarmed by the uprising and consequently tightened the system of control over slaves, making it even more repressive (Franklin & Moss, 1994, p. 147). Ironically, the result of Nat Turner's attempt to lead slaves to freedom was greater oppression and control by the dominant group.

Others were more successful in resisting the system. Runaway slaves were a constant problem for slave owners, especially in the states bordering the free states of the North. The difficulty of escape and the low likelihood of successfully reaching the North did not deter thousands from attempting the feat, some of them repeatedly. Many runaway slaves received help from the Underground Railroad, an informal network of safe houses supported by African Americans and whites involved in abolitionism, the movement to abolish slavery. These escapes created colorful legends and heroic figures, including Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman. The Narrative Portrait in this chapter presents the experiences of two ex-slaves who eventually escaped to the North.

Besides running away and open rebellion, slaves used the forms of resistance most readily available to them: sabotage, intentional carelessness, dragging their feet, and work slow- downs. As historian Peter Parish (1989) points out, it is difficult to separate "a natural desire to avoid hard work [from a] conscious decision to protest or resist" (p. 73), and much of this behavior may fall more into the category of noncooperation than of deliberate political rebellion. Nonetheless, these behaviors were widespread and document the rejection of the system by its victims.