Slavery's Trail Left Behind

Slavery was one of the biggest shames that America has in its history.  We know that it impacted black Africans via slave trade but what did it provided for America was substantial.  To be clear, today, no one supports getting these benefits to the American economy if it means getting them through slavery because it is 100% wrong.  However, it was not the same in the early 1800's.  In this unit, we learned that slavery became entrenched in American society in the early 19th century.  As a class, we read three parts from the Founders' Constitution.  The most controversial quote from the three is Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3.  It states "No person held to Service or Labour in one state, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence under the Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered upon Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."  Notice how they intentionally do not mention the word slave.  All of the clauses said what slaves were and weren't allowed to do, but this one basically said if you are an escaped slave and wherever in America that you are, you are still a slave.  Slavery was now becoming the face of America.  The transfer from the late 18th century to the early 19th would show a general decrease in slaves simply from revolting or running away and the South was constantly discussing abolishing slavery and searching for a new way to cultivate their plantations.  The south was all about cotton.  On the coast, cotton with easily removable seeds grew but inland tended to grow cotton with sticky green seeds which took long to remove.  This cost money for the landowners.  The south was in need of an invention to fix this problem or the economy would start to descend.  Then a man named Eli Whitney traveled to the South and saw the desperation of the landowners.  He then invented the Cotton Gin.  Between 1792 and 1794 when it was invented, the price of slaves doubled.  By 1825, field hands that had brought $500 each in 1794 were now worth $1,500.  Slave numbers increased also.  33% more slaves were in the U.S. in a decade and 29% more the following decade preceding.  The efficiency of cotton now increased the number of slaves which had a total of up to nearly 4 million slaves almost 70 years after the invention which at the time of had a total slave population of only nearly 700,000.


                                         
                              
 1790                                                                      1860

 

                                                                       


                                                                        

America's slavery was impacting the country's economy but it also affected the human dignity from a system based on just race.  The class was divided up into groups and each got an pro or anti slavery activist to help understand what was going on in the period before the Civil War.  This guy was my group's advocate.  So, if you read the quotes that he said, you can see which side he was on.  This psycho's name is George Fitzhugh.  He was a social therapist (certainly would not want him to be mine if I needed one), he published two books; Sociology for Slavery and Cannibals All!!.  One of his many articles was Slavery Justified (1848).  One of his insane theories was "liberty and equality are not only destructive to morals, but to the happiness of society."  He went on and on giving lectures on how it benefits the poor and that slaves had care-free lives which means that they aren't human, they're property.  The thesis from his excerpt is "The Negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world."  He said they should feel blessed that they are owned because they have better lives than everyone else.  It's just so contradicting.  Slaves were mistreated, beaten, and being a slave is so depressing.  Being free allows happiness.  Being enslaved leads to depression.  And, he is not saying this just to side with pro slavery, he actually believes in these ideas which is even scarier.  Now, there was anti slave advocate who I don't think has too much sanity either.  His name is John Brown.  He was raised in an abolitionist family, he participated in the underground railroad, and he lead 18 men in a multi race uprising which was crushed by local authorities.  He was captured, 2 men were killed in the uprising, and he tried and found guilty for treason and was executed.  He was a man who would kill slave owners to free slaves.  He hoped to free slaves, but his attempts failed.  People in the north either saw him as an icon or they saw him as a man with the right intentions but he went about it the completely wrong way.  People in the south were scared out their mind of him.  Now, there was one man who was an anti-slave advocate and had sanity.  His name was Frederick Douglass.  He gave a speech on the 5th of July, 1852.  His speech called Americans hypocrites for celebrating an American holiday of independence while the nation has the biggest slave population of any other.

Days later in class, in our groups, we read an article on slavery in Futa Jallon, Africa and compared it to slavery in Natchez, Mississippi.  In Futa Jallon, slavery was based on religion, slaves had some property rights, offspring is not necessarily destined to be a slave, slaves were not a commodity, negotiations for wants and needs were available, and they worked to obtain their own food.  In Natchez, slavery was based on race, slaves had no rights, offspring is destined to become a slave, they were bought and sold, slave owners were always in charge, and the slaves were fed.  Although in Mississippi, they were treated as if they were not even human and they did tireless work throughout the day with no rest, and they were constantly beaten.  We watched a film called Prince Among Slaves.  It's the story of a man named Abdul Rahman.  He was a prince in Africa given the head of a military commander.  However, his tribe was attacked by another tribe.  They were beaten and were chained to each other.  They had to walk 100 miles to a coast, and they were sold to white slave traders for rum, tobacco, and gun powder.  They then sailed the Atlantic on a slave ship under the deck where it was hot, dirty, and very crowded.  They were chained to each other and were naked.  When they get to the U.S. Rahman and another slave get sold to Thomas Foster; a white landowner.  Once they get to Foster's plantation, Rahman tries to convince Foster that he was a prince in Africa.  Foster neither cares nor believes him but nicknames him Prince.  Rahman then runs away after having his hair cut by Foster but he realizes he can't survive otherwise so he goes back to the farm and shows a sign of submission by putting Foster's wife's foot on his neck.  Foster doesn't punish him.  Rahman has knowledge of cotton so he basically makes it the best cotton producing plantation in the South.  People and politicians start writing about him and eventually gets freed.  The government steps in because rumors that he is a Moorish prince gets out and the government was willing to send him back to Africa even though he doesn't live in Morocco which they do not know.  He wants to raise money to free his wife and children but he comes up short and it is found out by the government that he isn't from Morocco so they drop out.  Although, he has to take the chance given to him to sail back to Africa because Andrew Jackson is going to be elected soon and he was pro slavery.  So, he sailed back alone and returned to Africa but became sick and died at age 67.  But what is shown here is that human characteristics of slaves were ignored in Mississippi and they were treated as property, not as humans.         


 

      



     

America Before It was Great

In 19th century America, women were not treated with fairness and equality with men.  The standard life of a woman basically was taking care of the house.  This included cleaning, cooking, child support, and tidying up the garden or yard if the family did not have a slave.  An illustration clearly demonstrates the role of woman in the 1800's accurately and inaccurately.  The most inaccurate is how perfect everything looks, calm and chill as I like to say.  But seriously, it's not even like this today and was so not like it back then.  Three children plus a dog and this woman is standing there with looking all so serene when she should be multitasking.  My female neighbor is more stressed than this, and she doesn't even have kid.  However, the accurate parts of the picture speak for themselves.  The books show it was the mother's job to educate the children.  There are also toys in the back.  There are only two because that's probably how many a family's child had.  This family is an upper class family because they have furniture and non necessities that other middle class and poor families didn't have.  Women were always under expectations set for them and that would lead to serious requests and demands. 

It's very simple.  If we were to go back in the 19th century and mention Women's rights, people would not have a good understanding of what we meant because they basically didn't have any rights at all.  A good example is how husbands if they wanted to or had a terrible day at work could come home and beat their wives just to release stress and nothing would come of it.  Change was needed.  Laws and Practices were most of the laws for women.  Women speaking in public was considered improper, and as I mentioned earlier, men using their wives a human punching bags was perfectly acceptable.  Women also could not own property in the U.S..  It is a shame that it used to be that way.  The Seneca Falls Convention basically pushed rights for women through.  Voting was brought up and demanded.  Abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Stanton, and Susan Anthony attended and they realized working in the abolitionist movement made them much more aware of the rights they were never entitled to so they were able to go out and launch movements of equality and have credibility to it to have an effect. The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions were basically what the name was, sentiments and resolutions to the problems from Laws and Practices.

Nationwide reactions to women's push for fairness and equality were quite different.  Newspapers had daily articles on the reform movements.  Responses were positive and negative.  The Oneida Whig on August 1st, 1848 had a negative reaction to the reform movements.  It basically said if women get certain rights that men have, then women will be like men and they don't want that.  They don't want to be like us men....  A positive reaction to the push for reforms was the National Reformer which was  published on August 10th, 1848.  It states "They are women who know the wrongs as well as rights all human beings." and "They are composed largely, too, of working women--such as have felt their degradations and oppressions and are determined to throw them off."  This newspaper unlike the Oneida Whig was supportive of the reform movements.  With the reformers that I mentioned before buzzing and raising awareness and articles being published, people around the country were finally seeing what their country's reputation looked like and how it needed a change. 

Today in this country, no matter where you are, who you are, you are treated as an equal to your perspective.  However, you are not necessarily viewed as an equal.  It is exactly like this for women.  Women are still today separated from men by the general public.  Now, differences among men and women are acceptable and unacceptable.  For example, men and women using different bathrooms is completely 100% appropriate.  Now, let's talk terms in jobs.  If you heard Senator Elizabeth Warren's victory speech in 2012, she said that she would fight for lower taxes on middle class working families being crushed, big banks being more regulated and having less power, and then she said "< I can't believe I have to say this in 2012; equal pay for equal work for women."  A personal experience would be for my mother.  She is a marketing manager for an architectural environmental cleanup testing group.  She does so much more work than some of her co workers and she gets paid less just because she is a woman.  Another example we could use for today is for women in the media.  I'll use sportscasters.  If a man knows sports, he'll get the job easy just based on his knowledge of that media's coverage.  For women, it all depends on their looks.  They have to know the game but if it came down for a news program choosing between a man who knows sports and a woman who knows sports inside out and she was not necessarily good looking, the man would get the job.  If it came down to deciding between two women whereas one knows sports inside out and isn't great looking and a woman who isn't as good sports knowledge wise but is gorgeous, the beauty queen will get the position just for her looks.  A great example of views of men compared to views of women is in this video below.  Take a look for yourself and see if you agree. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOjNcZvwjxI&feature=youtube