Lar of Galen...Another interesting episode of History Guy! I discovered him by accident a few months ago, and have been pleased that you have forwarded a few of his "lectures". As you state, it is unconscionable today to entertain the idea of people owning other people. But I have an answer and a theory regarding your question.
Slavery started in Virginia. Indentured servitude was common in Europe, and became especially so in England as people without means sought to come to the American colonies. To gain passage, they would sign on as an i.s.. Most would receive a small wage as well as payment of their passage, plus room and board. Many even received land upon completion of their contract.
Anthony Johnson was such a person. Johnson, a black Angolan, had been captured by an enemy tribe and sold in the Arab slave markets. He was purchased as an i.s. in 1621 by a Virginia plantation owner. After completing his contract, Johnson became a wealthy tobacco grower. He purchased the service of 5 indentures (4 white, 1 black). Unfortunately, he was a cruel taskmaster, and in 1653 three of Johnson's servants ran away. The two white men had their contracts extended for various periods, but the black man, John Casor, became the first person to be sentenced by a colonial court to lifetime servitude for their crime. Johnson successfully argued that being his servant for life made Casor a slave, and was therefore property. The economic advantage of slave labor was soon realized, and commerce with the African slave markets began.
As for the moral question of how the God-fearing Christian men who fought to throw off the yoke of England's tyranny could themselves practice slavery -- I have a theory. Simply put, they were xenophobes, and didn't see black Africans as being human. Yes, they had similar bodies and walked upright, but their appearance was quite alien. This was aggravated by the distance and time of travel to reach the Dark Continent. Taking a ship from England to Africa took about as long as it now takes us to reach the moon. For them, it was almost like travelling to another planet.
Furthermore, they were not civilized. Culture, technology, and literature were common in Europe, having been developed a millennia or more before, especially by the Greeks and Romans. The same attitudes would exist towards the Native American tribes. Both lived primitive, stone-aged, hunter-gatherer existences. They were almost universally without written languages, solid buildings, or even permanent settlements. Surely they were lesser beings.
That said, I actually lean more towards the economics as for why the institution was tolerated for so long. As stated above, even blacks came as indentured servants, were granted freedom, and more-or-less accepted in society (in an equal-but-separate way). Blacks often went to the same churches as whites, and were among the first casualties in the War For Independence. I think what really changed was that the cultures and economies of the North and South developed differently. The North was more diverse, with Catholics, Protestants, Jews, middle-Europeans, etc.. It was also more industrialized. The South was overwhelmingly Protestants of English stock, and was almost totally agrarian. Manual labor in the field was vital, and we didn't have "migrant farm workers" wandering in from the South. So .....
==============================================================
==============================================================
==============================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment