Historical Interpretation of Slavery - Essay Example

ORDER No: 551090 Slavery Running Head: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF SLAVERY Comparative analysis of Elkins’ historical interpretation of slavery with James McPherson’s interpretation in Ordeal by Fire First & last names Institutional affiliation Slavery 2 Abstract Slavery was, and remains, a blight on American history. Two authors – Stanley Elkins and James McPherson – have both offered analyses of the subject, the former from the point of view of the effect of slavery on the individual, and the latter from the perspective of the American Civil War; the pre-war years and the subsequent peace. Both authors offer differing accounts of particular facets of slavery: the influence of the church, the master/slave relationship, government policies and the nature of slavery itself. An attempt has been made to analyze the similarities and differences between the two authors, the relevance of their treatments – fact versus anecdote – and which of the two can be said – in the light of hindsight – to have most accurately described antebellum slavery. Slavery 3 Comparative analysis of Elkins’ historical interpretation of slavery with James McPherson’s interpretation in Ordeal by Fire Introduction Elkins’ and McPherson’s books represent two very differing accounts of slavery and are separated in time by almost a quarter of a century. Elkins discusses the subject in general terms, and advances two main arguments:- the American abolitionists – unlike their British counterparts who succeeded in abolishing slavery without conflict - by their inflexibility damaged their effectiveness the fact of ‘being slaves’ tended to infantilize them and turned them into submissive ‘Sambo’ prototypes (Elkins, 1959). McPherson, on the other hand, concentrated his arguments around three main historical events:- the build up to the American Civil War the events during the War Years peace and reconstruction after the War. It is now appropriate to expand the argument and discuss the points of agreement and disagreement between the two authors and to consider – in the light of history – whose arguments represent the most appropriate view of US slavery Agreements and disagreements between the two authors It has already been shown that both authors approached the issue of slavery from different perspectives, and it is now appropriate to consider in more detail the Slavery 4 Major points on which the two authors agree and those on which they differ:- Agreement both authors felt it necessary to tell the facts as they were, and often stressed the immorality and inhumanity of slavery also both authors discussed the influence of religion on slavery, and claimed that, in the early stages, both Catholics and Protestants endorsed the practice. Disagreement Elkins believed that “the behavior you exhibit is who you are” (Elkins,1959); he maintained that slavery was ”so degrading and dehumanizing that slaves lost their identities and became “Sambos” [docile, child-like, content and striving for attention] He compared the brutality of slavery with the treatment of Jews by Germany in World War II which led to a type of “Sambo” effect. This analogy in later years caused some offence Elkins contrasted US slavery with Latin Slavery, where the “Sambo” effect did not appear McPherson - unlike Elkins who concentrated on the single topic of slavery – covered the entire Civil War from its roots to the reconstruction process He interprets slavery in the light of its contribution to the Civil War and as a catalyst for the “modernization process or America” In taking the individual as key, Elkins held that both democracy and capitalism Slavery 5 were responsible for changing the socio-psychological lives of Americans; McPherson believed that the influence of both were strongest in the North. What influence did institutions like the church have on the character of American slavery? The different attitudes to slavery in the North and South of the country were profound; in the North slaves worked mainly as domestic servants, while those in the South were employed in agriculture – originally on three crops: tobacco, rice and indigo, and later on cotton as well. In the North, by the nineteenth century, strong feelings developed that it was not acceptable for one man to own another, and the abolitionists gained strength due to influence of the Quakers, Methodists and other factions. Elkins (1959) wrote “To the Northern reformer, every other concrete fact concerning slavery was dwarfed by its character as a moral evil – as an obscenity condemned by God and universally offensive to humanity” (Elkins, 1959). Many Northern church dignitaries believed that while one slave remained the whole populace was culpable [Cain and Abel – “his brother’s keeper”]. In the South, by contrast, it was held that slavery “was a positive moral good – a necessary arrangement sanctioned in Scripture and thus by God Himself” (Elkins, 1959). McPherson (1982) and Elkins (1959), among others, both describe the rise – after the “Second Great Awakening” [a religious movement starting in the 1840s] - of strong leaders such as Charles Grandisson Finney, Theodore Weld and Lloyd Garrison (Newman, 2002; Sage,2007). Whilst their intentions were the ultimate abolition of slavery, the notion rapidly gained popularity in the North and conditions for slaves improved, the South – although also gaining some improvements in Slavery 6 conditions – continued to look upon slaves as their property by right. How much control did the masters have over the slaves? Antebellum slavery “legally ended in December 1865 with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution [although] its legacy continued to powerfully affect the way Americans think and act” (Weinberg, 2009). Until then the situation was clear and simple: the masters were legally entitled to have slaves and had absolute authority over them. McPherson (1982) says “For the slaves there was no paradox: slavery was slavery, and freedom was the opposite…the slave masters were free to buy or sell, punish, separate [from families] take sexual advantage of, or even murder, their property” (McPherson, 1982). There was also the ever-present fear of being sold should economic conditions worsen. Such were the extremes of life under slavery in nineteenth century America. Slaves, however, were able to hit back in a variety of ways: they ruined crops, slowed down work, pretended to be sick and damaged machinery. They also absconded, staged revolts and set up “slave communities” (Africans in America). The pattern of slavery was not uniform: for many slaves and their families, life was considerably easier. Good slave masters rewarded good slaves by allowing them to keep - and sell for their own use - a proportion of the farm produce. Some masters even allowed slaves to purchase their own freedom. McPherson recalled that, even under adversity, slaves fought to keep their families together at whatever cost (Weinberg, 2009) and so were able to practice and develop their own African culture; in music and art. Slavery 7 Did American devotion to limited government and laissez-faire capitalism ameliorate the brutality of slavery? The unwillingness of central government to take action against slavery did little to improve the lot of slaves, indeed Thomas Jefferson – soon after writing the “Declaration of Independence” maintained that while slavery was wrong he could see no “practicable way” of removing it (Jefferson, 1820). Ironically, as noted by McPherson (1982), the development of capitalism, “which transforms a localized subsistence economy into a nationally integrated market economy…accelerated growth of the industrial sector…made possible by an increase in agricultural productivity [did nothing to improve their lot]” (McPherson, 1982). The ever-increasing demand for raw materials had a terrible effect on the Southern slaves, many of whom were literally “worked to death, to meet Northern demands (McPherson, 1982). What evidence does each author use to support his arguments, and is the evidence anecdotal or quantifiable? It is difficult to state with authority which evidence is the more anecdotal and which is more quantifiable. In general, however, Elkins – while offering an enormous quantity of information – relies heavily on other people’s accounts [as shown in the many footnotes]. McPherson, on the other hand - while offering many anecdotal accounts - does give a mass of information on slavery and the Civil War which can be verified. Which author most accurately describes antebellum American slavery, and why? Slavery 8 The difference between the two authors has already been discussed, and despite the mass of evidence produced by both, Elkins, by concentrating on the effects of slavery on the individual is able to give a clearer and more compelling narrative. Although in succeeding years Elkins’ work was largely discredited by some historians, it is clear that he outperforms McPherson in describing antebellum slavery. Conclusion While history is likely to judge both works very differently from their original intention; in the light of the North/South divide, commerce, industry, religion and – especially racism – they both give an honest and graphic description of slavery in nineteenth century America. Slavery 9 References Africans in America (n.d.) Conditions of antebellum slavery [1830-1860]. Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4p2956.html Elkins, S. M. (1959). Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jefferson, T. (1820) Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes [Monticello}: April 22, 1820. In P. B. Kurland & R. Lerner (Eds.), The Founders’ Constitution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (1987). McPherson, J. M. (1982). Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction. New York: Knopf. Newman, R. S. (2002). The Transformation of American Abolitionism. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press. Sage, H. J. (2007). Religion and Reform: The Second Great Awakening. Jacksonian Democracy Home. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from http://www.academicamerican.com/jeffersonjackson/topics/religion_reform.htm Weinberg. C. (2009). Antebellum Slavery. The OAH Magazine of History. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from http://magazine.oah.org/issues/232/weinberg.html Read More