Slaves, sex and souterners

[The Uchronian]

Yeah no, defending the position of slaveholders is not a good look.

He wasn't. And, frankly, I do wish you'd stop jumping to extreme conclusions just because you took issue with one or two things somebody wrote. I realize this is a complicated subject to broach, and I respect that. But it's not really fair to jump on people, you know? Anybody who was actually apologizing for slavery around here would be kicked, if not banned, pretty quickly, anyway.

Man, I’m sorry if it appeared I was doing that.

I was just pointing out that in some cases It wasn’t only up to the individual, but governmental institutions often made it difficult for slave owners to free their slaves. That is not to say that one can find loopholes in that sort of system in order to free one’s slaves.

There was some truth to that, unfortunately, especially in the Deep South after 1830.

 

[Benevolent]

He wasn't. And, frankly, I do wish you'd stop jumping to extreme conclusions just because you took issue with one or two things somebody wrote. I realize this is a complicated subject to broach, and I respect that. But it's not really fair to jump on people, you know? Anybody who was actually apologizing for slavery around here would be kicked, if not banned, pretty quickly, anyway.



There was some truth to that, unfortunately, especially in the Deep South after 1830.

To be quite frank this very topic and the initial responses were absolutely offensive, how anyone could even believe that consent is a real factor in the sexual choice of the enslaved shows quite readily the ignorance of this subject.

To be sure I am not "jumping to extreme conclusions" rather I am correcting the lofty notions of those who obviously don't have awareness on the topic.

When it comes to black and African history I do not take things lightly, the scars of white supremacy and the hindrance of black agency is apparent to this very day.

Slavery has not ended, the thirteenth amendment states quite clearly those imprisoned (in a racially biased system) are liable to be worked like our ancestors, I'm here to set the record straight of the blood my people shed on this land.

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

With what Benevolent said, I wonder... if there might have been some truth to my AH scenario, of the Deep South being willing to enslave Hispanic mestizos, or even go back to enslave Native Americans.

 

[Benevolent]

With what Benevolent said, I wonder... if there might have been some truth to my AH scenario, of the Deep South being willing to enslave Hispanic mestizos, or even go back to enslave Native Americans.

The losers of the Natchez war were enslaved but they quickly became griffe sauvage, Zwolle also had mestizos and hispanophone indios but they merely assimilated into the gen de couluer classes.

 

[The Uchronian]

To be quite frank this very topic and the initial responses were absolutely offensive, how anyone could even believe that consent is a real factor in the sexual choice of the enslaved shows quite readily the ignorance of this subject.

The issue of planter and servant intercourse *is* a somewhat complicated issue than "it was all rape", TBH. Although nobody here doubts that rape was very much a real phenomenon.

To be sure I am not "jumping to extreme conclusions"

Yes, you did, or I wouldn't have said anything.

rather I am correcting the lofty notions of those who obviously don't have awareness on the topic.

I think you'll find that many of us are *quite* aware of the topic.....even if the facts don't always line up with your particular worldview.

With what Benevolent said, I wonder... if there might have been some truth to my AH scenario, of the Deep South being willing to enslave Hispanic mestizos, or even go back to enslave Native Americans.

I'm afraid that's not exactly impossible: there were even apparently a few willing to go so far as to put even *white* people in slavery, believe it or not. So I'd think that enserfment at the very least, wouldn't require too much of a push.

 

[Benevolent]

The issue of planter and servant intercourse *is* a somewhat complicated issue than "it was all rape", TBH. Although nobody here doubts that rape was very much a real phenomenon.

Yes, you did, or I wouldn't have said anything.



I think you'll find that many of us are *quite* aware of the topic.....even if the facts don't always line up with your particular worldview.



I'm afraid that's not exactly impossible: there were even apparently a few willing to go so far as to put even *white* people in slavery, believe it or not. So I'd think that enserfment at the very least, wouldn't require too much of a push.

Consent can never be given to someone who was owned.

Obviously the fact that thesis even being deliberated show quite clearly that there is a lack of knowledge on the topic. The fact you even have the nerve that "white slaves" is not only laughable but escapist to a very large degree, no need to go into the realm of fantasy to sate your desire to prove anything I called out wrong.

Any and all supposed things that don't "line" up you can certainly ask about, I'm more than happy to put some light on a topic you have an elementary understanding on

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

The losers of the Natchez war were enslaved but they quickly became griffe sauvage, Zwolle also had mestizos and hispanophone indios but they merely assimilated into the gen de couluer classes.

I'm afraid that's not exactly impossible: there were even apparently a few willing to go so far as to put even *white* people in slavery, believe it or not. So I'd think that enserfment at the very least, wouldn't require too much of a push.

Thought so... Because I'm wondering if some of the Mexicans that remained on Texas, or other Southwestern territories after the defeat of Mexico on 1848 might have fallen under the hands of some deranged fire-eater.

 

[The Uchronian]

Obviously the fact that thesis even being deliberated show quite clearly that there is a lack of knowledge on the topic. The fact you even have the nerve that "white slaves" is not only laughable but escapist to a very large degree, no need to go into the realm of fantasy to sate your desire to prove anything I called out wrong.

I couldn't really believe this when I first heard, either, but there really was a prominent Southerner who did, in fact, support the idea of enslaving white people(or at least "undesirables"), right along side black folks; his name was George Fitzhugh, and this view he espoused was extreme, even for the Deep South!

http://college.cengage.com/english/...uthor_pages/early_nineteenth/fitzhugh_ge.html

There may have been others, but he was certainly the most well known proponent. A true bastard he was, even more so than most other hardline pro-slavery people of the time, and they were all rotten, pretty much.

Any and all supposed things that don't "line" up you can certainly ask about, I'm more than happy to put some light on a topic you have an elementary understanding on

Please, don't bother. Setting the obvious condescension aside, you've shown that you aren't exactly on the up and up on some things yourself.

Thought so... Because I'm wondering if some of the Mexicans that remained on Texas, or other Southwestern territories after the defeat of Mexico on 1848 might have fallen under the hands of some deranged fire-eater.

I don't think the Fire-Eaters would have won the Presidency, but they might have been able to win Texas somehow, even if by hook & by crook.

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

I couldn't really believe this when I first heard, either, but there really was a prominent Southerner who did, in fact, support the idea of enslaving white people(or at least "undesirables"), right along side black folks; his name was George Fitzhugh, and this view he espoused was extreme, even for the Deep South!

http://college.cengage.com/english/...uthor_pages/early_nineteenth/fitzhugh_ge.html

There may have been others, but he was certainly the most well known proponent. A true bastard he was, even more so than most other hardline pro-slavery people of the time, and they were all rotten, pretty much.

Oh, I heard of the guy! Man, he was crazy... even for a Southerner! Not as crazy as Andrew Jackson, but... pretty close.

I don't think the Fire-Eaters would have won the Presidency, but they might have been able to win Texas somehow, even if by hook & by crook.

They might have, though, if we get enough PODs early on that galvanize the South earlier.

 

[Jurgen Wullenwever]

If one was too old to work, he could put them down.

How did an American slave's life end? Were they killed (as in the quote), or allowed to live until natural death?

 

[robcraufurd]

I couldn't really believe this when I first heard, either, but there really was a prominent Southerner who did, in fact, support the idea of enslaving white people(or at least "undesirables"), right along side black folks; his name was George Fitzhugh

You should have stuck with your first instinct, because it isn't true. Even the quote your source used fails to support the assertion. "In the absence of negro slavery there must be white slavery" does not imply "In the presence of negro slavery there should be white slavery." It becomes even clearer when you look into his works, rather than what someone else thinks they said. In the 1856 "Sociology for the South, or, The Failure of Free Society", which has come up on here before, he argued:

"in countries where there are no negroes, we can see no reason why the whites in all cases might not be allowed to sell their persons for short periods" but "we need never have white slaves in the South, because we have black ones". He actually argued for the elevation of the poor whites on racial grounds:

"Educate all Southern whites, employ them, not as cooks, lacqueys[sic], ploughmen, and menials, but as independent freemen should be employed, and let negroes be strictly tied down to such callings as are unbecoming white men, and peace would be established between blacks and whites. The whites would find themselves elevated by the existence of negroes amongst us. Like the Roman citizen, the Southern white man would become a noble and a privileged character, and he would then like negroes and slavery, because his high position would be due to them."

There's also "Cannibals All! Or, Slaves Without Masters" from 1857, where he argues:

"In slave society, one white man does not lord it over another; for all are equal in privilege, if not in wealth; and the poorest would not become a menial - hold your horse and then extend his hand or his hat for a gratuity, were you to proffer him the wealth of the Indies. The menial, the exposed and laborious, and the disgraceful occupations, are all filled by slaves. But filled they must be by some one, and in free society, half of its members are employed in occupations that are not considered or treated as respectable. Our slaves till the land, do the coarse and hard labor on our roads and canals, sweep our streets, cook our food, brush our boots, wait on our tables, hold our horses, do all hard work, and fill all menial offices. Your freemen at the North do the same work and fill the same offices. The only difference is, we love our slaves, and we are ready to defend, assist and protect them; you hate and fear your white servants, and never fail, as a moral duty, to screw down their wages to the lowest, and to starve their families, if possible, as evidence of your thrift, economy and management - the only English and Yankee virtues."

"Whilst we hold that all government is a matter of force, we yet think the governing class should be numerous enough to understand, and so situated as to represent fairly, all interests. The Greek and Roman masters were thus situated; so were the old Barons of England, and so are the white citizens of the South. If not all masters, like Greek and Roman citizens, they all belong to the master race, have exclusive rights and privileges of citizenship, and an interest not to see this right of citizenship extended, disturbed, and rendered worthless and contemptible."

It's pretty clear that he's arguing for a white racial aristocracy as an alternative to capitalism, and not for the enslavement of poor whites. Whether what he considered "white" is necessarily what we consider "white" is debateable- I'm pretty sure he wasn't in favour of researching family trees to elevate mixed-race slaves from their condition- but views being reprehensible doesn't remove the requirement to report them accurately.

[all emphasis is mine, not original]

 

[elkarlo]

Very interesting indeed.

(As an aside, by the way, you may be interested in AH.Com's official Genealogy Thread.)

This is my ancestor http://www.blackpast.org/gah/reyes-juan-francisco-reyes-c-1749-c-1800 thing is he has been written as a Mulatto, a Mestizo, or a Carillo. The way it worked, he could have been all three. As status was above race in Spanish America. He could have been mixed with all three, by that I mean a recent mix of all three. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Pobladores a good break down of the LA settlers, and how they bought higher castes or races for themselves

Thanks for the link.
I personally did the Nat Geographic DNA test. It was garbage. Only gave me one dna haplogroup. Wasn't worth doing, and a waste of $100

 

[elkarlo]

In practice it really wasn't like that, tbh people just bought off town officials to make them white in documents or simply got new documents once they moved north or west.

The biggest example of that is the proliferation of whites with African ancestry in SC and LA

I'd say yes and no. You could have passed much better in 1870 than you could in 1890. I think adding to your argument, that by the later 1890s it may have been harder to get fake documents.
I think, as you said a move would have helped.
One weird thing I read, was that a white woman having an affair with a black man, had mixed kids. She kept claiming that she had some Portuguese in her. Which made her kids 'tan'. That means, that not only was her husband dumb, but I wonder if people saw a lot more mixed than Euro Port in the US?

Also, I wonder if olde tyme cartoons of criminals like this

This guy looks like a black person who has passed as white. As he is mostly white, but has some of the features of a black person. I wonder if subconsciously, peopl ein the early 1900s looked down on whites who passed, or who didn't look fully white, yet claimed and were accepted as white

 

[elkarlo]

The issue of planter and servant intercourse *is* a somewhat complicated issue than "it was all rape", TBH. Although nobody here doubts that rape was very much a real phenomenon.

Rape was big in the olde days. It's still big now. WHy do you think that house hold servants left in droves in the late 1800's, in the US and the UK? I think it was bad for them as well. Hard work, and being preyed upon sexually for the women. That is prolly why maids are so sexualized as a concept.

 

[Mitchell Hundred]

I think the movie 12 Years a Slave sort of covered this topic well.

With the Master having an unhealthy infatuation with one of his slave girls, and the actual rape act being her meekly "allowing" him to force himself on her, in the vain hopes of better treatment/not worse treatment for resisting.

I can picture many relationships mirroring that one.

So the rape wasn't necessarily the man standing in a dark alley variety holding a screaming woman down.

As others have mentioned even today in many parts of the world domestic care-takers are still routinely assaulted sexually.

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

I think the movie 12 Years a Slave sort of covered this topic well.

With the Master having an unhealthy infatuation with one of his slave girls, and the actual rape act being her meekly "allowing" him to force himself on her, in the vain hopes of better treatment/not worse treatment for resisting.

I can picture many relationships mirroring that one.

The issue of planter and servant intercourse *is* a somewhat complicated issue than "it was all rape", TBH. Although nobody here doubts that rape was very much a real phenomenon.

It really, really isn't. It's all still rape. The option a woman in that position had was either A) allow herself to be assaulted, B) struggle and be beaten or killed, C) try to run and be beaten or killed. Enslaved women had as much ability to consent as the women who lived in the barracks at Auschwitz.

So the rape wasn't necessarily the man standing in a dark alley variety holding a screaming woman down.

No, but that happened quite a lot too.

As others have mentioned even today in many parts of the world domestic care-takers are still routinely assaulted sexually.

Yup, and for largely the same reasons. They are proximate, in immediate physical danger if they refuse advances, and have few -if any- real legal or social protections from sexual violence.

 

[DG Valdron]

The issue of planter and servant intercourse *is* a somewhat complicated issue than "it was all rape", TBH. Although nobody here doubts that rape was very much a real phenomenon.

First, it's not 'planter' and 'servant'. It was 'planter' and 'slave'. Or more accurately, 'owner' and 'slave.'

Second, it's not more complicated than that. It was 'all rape.'

A slave had no more ability to consent than an eight year old.

 

[Dave Howery]

How did an American slave's life end? Were they killed (as in the quote), or allowed to live until natural death?

good question. I have one book on the general history of slavery, and it doesn't really directly address the question, but it implies that slaves generally grew old and died naturally, based on a 'rating' system used in the south of how useful they were (very young children being 0 and very old slaves being 0 as well). There is a lot of mention in it of old/infirm slaves, which implies that they weren't 'put down'. From what I can tell, slave owners weren't just generally able to out and out kill slaves (one case is noted of a slave owner who tortured a runaway to death, and was convicted of murder). The local government, however, could and did it often enough to remind the slaves of just who was in charge. Not to mention, if a white got into a fight with a black and killed him, it was generally considered to be no violation of the law. Short of murder though, it seemed that 'anything goes' was the rule. Nothing in the book notes that old slaves were just 'put down', but it might have happened... maybe someone with more books on the subject can answer that...

 

[The Uchronian]

Oh, I heard of the guy! Man, he was crazy... even for a Southerner! Not as crazy as Andrew Jackson, but... pretty close.

I don't think Andrew Jackson ever would have been okay with even the idea of poor whites being put to work under slavery, however: I'd say Fitzhugh was far worse than Jackson's worst, in my view.

They might have, though, if we get enough PODs early on that galvanize the South earlier.

Maybe.

You should have stuck with your first instinct, because it isn't true. Even the quote your source used fails to support the assertion. "In the absence of negro slavery there must be white slavery" does not imply "In the presence of negro slavery there should be white slavery." It becomes even clearer when you look into his works, rather than what someone else thinks they said. In the 1856 "Sociology for the South, or, The Failure of Free Society", which has come up on here before, he argued:



There's also "Cannibals All! Or, Slaves Without Masters" from 1857, where he argues:

"In slave society, one white man does not lord it over another; for all are equal in privilege, if not in wealth; and the poorest would not become a menial - hold your horse and then extend his hand or his hat for a gratuity, were you to proffer him the wealth of the Indies. The menial, the exposed and laborious, and the disgraceful occupations, are all filled by slaves. But filled they must be by some one, and in free society, half of its members are employed in occupations that are not considered or treated as respectable. Our slaves till the land, do the coarse and hard labor on our roads and canals, sweep our streets, cook our food, brush our boots, wait on our tables, hold our horses, do all hard work, and fill all menial offices. Your freemen at the North do the same work and fill the same offices. The only difference is, we love our slaves, and we are ready to defend, assist and protect them; you hate and fear your white servants, and never fail, as a moral duty, to screw down their wages to the lowest, and to starve their families, if possible, as evidence of your thrift, economy and management - the only English and Yankee virtues."

"Whilst we hold that all government is a matter of force, we yet think the governing class should be numerous enough to understand, and so situated as to represent fairly, all interests. The Greek and Roman masters were thus situated; so were the old Barons of England, and so are the white citizens of the South. If not all masters, like Greek and Roman citizens, they all belong to the master race, have exclusive rights and privileges of citizenship, and an interest not to see this right of citizenship extended, disturbed, and rendered worthless and contemptible."

It's pretty clear that he's arguing for a white racial aristocracy as an alternative to capitalism, and not for the enslavement of poor whites. Whether what he considered "white" is necessarily what we consider "white" is debateable- I'm pretty sure he wasn't in favour of researching family trees to elevate mixed-race slaves from their condition- but views being reprehensible doesn't remove the requirement to report them accurately.

[all emphasis is mine, not original]

Sorry, Rob, but here's the thing-the original source I quoted was still correct; regardless of Fitzhugh's dodges of "equal privilege", etc. it's still quite clear that, between the lines, he was still advocating for the enslavement of whites on the bottom on the ladder(although that doesn't necessarily contradict his idea for a white racial aristocracy). The true intent behind Fitzhugh's writings were pretty clearly exposed by Anne C. Jones here.

And, by the way, here's another source I was able to find:

https://archive.org/stream/papersinillinois1942illi#page/16/mode/2up/search/Fitzhugh

It's only a brief mention, but that'll be good enough. Even someone at the Richmond Inquirer agreed with him, and wrote as much.....this kind of thing even caught the attention of Abraham Lincoln himself, whom, during one of his speeches in Peoria, Ill., warned his audience: "In our greedy chase to make profits of the Negro, let us beware lest we "cancel and tear to pieces" even the white man's charter of freedom."

(And, by the way, just so we're clear, there were no changes in "instinct" on my part-I have no idea where in the hell this even came from and frankly, I'm not sure I want to know.)

I'd say yes and no. You could have passed much better in 1870 than you could in 1890. I think adding to your argument, that by the later 1890s it may have been harder to get fake documents.
I think, as you said a move would have helped.
One weird thing I read, was that a white woman having an affair with a black man, had mixed kids. She kept claiming that she had some Portuguese in her. Which made her kids 'tan'. That means, that not only was her husband dumb, but I wonder if people saw a lot more mixed than Euro Port in the US?

Possibly so, yes.

Also, I wonder if olde tyme cartoons of criminals like this..*snip*..This guy looks like a black person who has passed as white. As he is mostly white, but has some of the features of a black person. I wonder if subconsciously, peopl ein the early 1900s looked down on whites who passed, or who didn't look fully white, yet claimed and were accepted as white

This character doesn't look particularly "black" to me, though.

 

[DG Valdron]

good question. I have one book on the general history of slavery, and it doesn't really directly address the question, but it implies that slaves generally grew old and died naturally, based on a 'rating' system used in the south of how useful they were (very young children being 0 and very old slaves being 0 as well). There is a lot of mention in it of old/infirm slaves, which implies that they weren't 'put down'. From what I can tell, slave owners weren't just generally able to out and out kill slaves (one case is noted of a slave owner who tortured a runaway to death, and was convicted of murder). The local government, however, could and did it often enough to remind the slaves of just who was in charge. Not to mention, if a white got into a fight with a black and killed him, it was generally considered to be no violation of the law. Short of murder though, it seemed that 'anything goes' was the rule. Nothing in the book notes that old slaves were just 'put down', but it might have happened... maybe someone with more books on the subject can answer that...

Oh shit son, easy enough to do. Deny food, deny medical care, deny regular palliative care. Nature does the rest.