Afro-American slavery - Essay Example

Did the task system of South Carolina give slaves a better life than the gang system of Virginia and, if so, why? Slavery, as a social phenomenon, has been quite common in America, almost since the establishment of the American civilization in the region. The criteria on which the relationship between the slaves and their masters were based were differentiated across America. An indicative example of this difference is the following case: in South Carolina the above relationship was based on the task system, a system aiming to secure the balance between ‘the master’s willingness and ability to use power and the slave’s desire to shape their own style of life’ (Olwell 46). In another region, Virginia, the gang system was rather promoted; the specific system was based on the close supervision of slaves during the development of their tasks (Rodriguez 179). These two systems are analysed in this paper. Emphasis is given on the effects of each system on slaves’ life. It seems that the task system gave to slaves a better life and a chance to shape their future. The characteristics of each of these systems are analytically presented so that the power of each system on slaves’ life to be fully understood. Slavery in America has been highly supported by the law. In 1686 the exchange of goods between blacks or between blacks and freemen was declared as not legal (Gikandi 244). In 1705 the House of Burgesses in Virginia promoted a series of laws aiming to ensure that slaves in the region would not be able to fight for their freedom in the future (Wood 11); also the above laws aimed to protect the interests of landowners in regard to their involvement in slavery (Wood 11). At the next level, in 1714, another law ‘prohibited blacks from planting their own corn, rice or peas’ (Gikandi 244). These laws aimed to control the efforts of slaves to improve their living conditions and to increase their autonomy. In practice, these laws were not fully applied, mostly because of the conflicts of interests developed in each particular region; for instance, in South Carolina masters preferred to allow a greater autonomy to slaves so that slavery is continued without problems, while in Virginia, a different attitude regarding the control over the slaves’ life was developed. This trend has led to the development of different systems of slaves’ control. In South Carolina the task system was promoted allowing to the slaves to use their free time as they wish; in Virginia the gang system, which was based on the close supervision of slaves almost all day prevented slaves from organizing their life. The task system, which was highly developed in South Carolina, can be described as follows: each rice field was divided into sections; each of these sections was approximately ‘one quarter acre’ (Olwell 46). The cultivation of each section was assigned to a particular slave (Olwell 46), meaning that each slave had the total responsibility for the cultivation of the specific section. The above task required daily work of about 8hrs, from early morning up to early afternoon (Olwell 46). After completing his daily work each slave could you the remaining time, i.e. the rest of the day, as he wished. In other words, the task system of slavery allowed to slaves to have free time on a daily basis for developing their own activities. The ‘absenteeism’, which was highly developed in South Carolina, mostly due to ‘the expansion of slavery after 1830s and the opening up of new lands in the lower South’ (Miller and Smith 8) helped slaves to arrange their work, since they did not have the direct supervision of the planter. In the context of the task system, the control over the slaves during the development of their tasks was limited, at least compared to the gang system, as explained below. Of course, the work assigned to each slaver, as part of the task system, was also hard; in fact, the work was designed in such way that it required many hours, often all day. However, in most cases, slaves were able to finish their task earlier, so ‘they could have the rest of the day for pursuing their own interests’ (Smith 42). At this point it should be noted that the task system was developed specifically in ‘the rice fields of Georgia and South Carolina’ (Smith 42), meaning that the conditions of life of slaves in America have been related to the agricultural production of each region. At this point, reference should be made to the following fact: the legislature framework of South Carolina in regard to slavery was highly influenced from the relevant laws of Barbados. In fact, in accordance with Hine and McLeod (1999) the main source of South Carolina’s laws on slavery were based on the ‘1688 Barbados slave act’ (Hine and McLeod 357). The above act set the criteria on which ‘the South Carolina Slave Act of 1696’ (Hine and McLeod 357). It is probably under the influence of the 1688 Barbados Slave Act that the South Carolina Slave Act of 1696 incorporated a rule ordered that ‘planters in South Carolina could have a gun for every ten or fewer slaves’ (Hine and McLeod 357). In fact, the relationship between South Carolina and Barbados has been quite strong since the first establishment of the colony of South Carolina, in 1670 (Scott and Shade 76); more specifically, the particular colony was initially established for securing ‘provisions to Barbados’ (Scott and Shade 76), a fact that can explain the close dependency of South Carolina on Barbados in regard to slavery laws. The gang system of slavery has been highly expanded in America. In fact, the particular system has been more common than the task system. The gang system was used in all areas ‘where tobacco, sugar and short-staple cotton grew’ (Rodriguez 179). In the context of this system, ‘slaves were divided into groups of gangs and worked under the supervision of white overseers from sunup to sundown’ (Rodriguez 179). Working under the close supervision of whites all day allowed limited spare time to slaves (Rodriguez 179). On the other hand, the amount of work assigned to slaves in gang groups could be extremely high (Van Horn 13). Moreover, in accordance with Alexander and Rucker the gang system was quite hard for slaves; slaves could not stop for breaks and they could not control the pace of their work (Alexander and Rucker 422). They had to work continuously and hard under the supervision of overseers until the assigned work is finished (Alexander and Rucker 422). For many researchers, the use of gang system in tobacco fields in Virginia can be justified by the following fact: in 1660, Charles II, the king of England, promoted the Navigation Act 1660 which ordered that all tobacco produced in America should be shipped to England (Welch 50). This fact has enforced the impression of Virginia landowners that they were losing, gradually, the control over their corps. The use of the gang system was considered as a means to show the power of landowners over the slaves but, mostly, to show their power in controlling their land. It was in this context that landowners in Virginia tried ‘to experiment with other corps’ (Welch 50), trying to pursue their independency from the control of England as reflected in the Navigation Act 1660. However, these efforts were led to a failure; the land in Virginia has been appropriate mostly for tobacco and not for other corps (Welch 50). On the other hand, the English Crown was significantly supported from the tobacco’s revenues (Welch 50), a fact that led to the continuous increase of pressure against the landowners for increased production. In other words, the value of tobacco, as an agricultural product, negatively affected the lives of slaves in tobacco fields. This phenomenon was further developed because of the following fact: in Virginia armed blacks have fought next to whites; this led to the development of relationships between blacks and whites, especially those of low classes (Welch 50). Land owners were afraid that such alliances would further lead to the limitation of their control on their land, negatively affected the power of the colony, which had already started to be declined (Rodriguez 179). The use of gang system was considered as unavoidable in order to secure the control over the tobacco fields in Virginia. One of the most important characteristics of slavery in Virginia was the development of fictive families. The specific framework has been developed in Virginia due to the following fact: a high percentage of slaves, about 25%, who entered the country, had been separated from their families in Africa. Having to work in an environment, which is totally unknown, along with foreigners, other black people, who may were in similar conditions but they were not relatives or friends, new slaves needed support in order to survive. ‘Fictive uncles and aunts provided a sense of family’ (Boles 68) for slaves who were, by force, transferred to Virginia for working in tobacco corps. The concept of fictive family, as developed in Virginia, had another mission: to help the planters controlling more effectively the slaves. Indeed, in accordance with Parent (2003), planters developed fictive families, in order ‘to co-opt the enslaved’ (Parent 221). In this context, planters ‘made the slaves fictitious members of their family’ (Parent 221). In these, fictive, families, planters seemed to act as ‘the head of the household’ (Parent 221), while, in practice, no particular change existed in regard to the social or economic rights of slaves. The framework of fictive family significantly helped the planters to keep the control over their slaves and to avoid oppositions against their orders. In accordance with the issues discussed above, slavery was differently organized in Virginia and South Carolina, referring mainly to the system used in each region for controlling the work of slaves. The most critical advantage of task system, compared to the gang system, as described below, seems to be the following one: in the context of the task system, the production was high, leading to the increased profits of the land owners (Edgar 142). In other words, the task system benefited landowners and slaves, a target that could not be achieved through the gang system. On the other hand, the task system allowed slaves to develop their culture, while in the context of gang system such activities were quite difficult to be developed. More specifically, in the areas where the task system was applied landowners used to live far from the plantation area, i.e. the rice fields. In South Carolina, owners preferred Charleston for their residence. In this context, slaves could develop their own schedule of work leaving time for focusing on their culture (Rodriguez 179). In Virginia, slaves did not have such potentials for developing their culture. From this point of view, it can be stated that the rice fields of South Carolina have been the basis for the development of African culture in America. Despite the fact that slavery was differently organized in South Carolina and Virginia, its effects on slaves’ life, seems to be similar. At a first level, slaves in South Carolina, known also as Lowcountry slaves, had more chances in arranging their own life, having more spare time, compared to slaves in Virginia. On the other hand, slaves in Virginia, known as Chesapeak, worked under the gang system and had quite limited spare time, not being able to significantly promote their economic and social independency (Morgan 194). However, the life of slaves in both regions had certain similarities; in accordance with Morgan (1998), slaves in Lowcountry and Chesapeak had similar opportunities to develop their own culture. Also, slaves in both areas had to work hard on a daily basis while their work was significantly reduced during the winter, when only the processing of crops was feasible (Morgan 194). From this point of view, the life of slaves in both South Carolina and Virginia can be characterized as similar, even if slaves in South Carolina had significantly more chances in establishing their economic and social autonomy (Morgan 194). In accordance with the issues discussed above, slavery in South Carolina and Virginia was based on different criteria and was managed using different frameworks/ schemes. However, the effects of slavery on slaves’ lives were similar. In South Carolina, slaves would be possibly more eligible in arranging their economic independency, but no clear signs of the time required for the incorporation of slaves in the local society, as equal members existed. In both areas, slaves had chances to promote their culture, a fact that supported the, gradual, independency of slaves in America. If compared to the gang system of Virginia, the task system of South Carolina can be characterized as more favourable for slaves, offering to them the following advantages: working out of the direct control of the master, who lived far from the corps, arranging time required for the completion of work, so that daily work is finished earlier, and taking breaks during the daily work, so that the physical effects of daily work were reduced. In this context, the task system of South Carolina can be characterized as more friendly to slaves, compared to the gang system of Virginia, offering to them the chance to increase their spare time, on daily basis, and work towards the promotion of their own interests. Works Cited Alexander, Leslie, and Rucker, Walter. Encyclopedia of African American history. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2010. Boles, John. Black Southerners, 1619-1869. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1984. Edgar, Walter. South Carolina: a history. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1998. Gikandi, Simon. Slavery and the Culture of Taste. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2011. Heuman, Gad, and Walvin, James. The slavery reader. London: Routledge, 2003. Hine, Darlene, and McLeod, Jacqueline. Crossing boundaries: comparative history of Black people in diaspora. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. Miller, Randall, and Smith, John. Dictionary of Afro-American slavery. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997. Morgan, Philip. Slave counterpoint: Black culture in the eighteenth-century. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1998. Olwell, Robert. Masters, slaves, & subjects: the culture of power in the South Carolina low country, 1740-1790. New York: Cornell University Press, 1998. Parent, Anthony. Foul means: the formation of a slave society in Virginia, 1660-1740. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2003. Rodriguez, Junius. The Historical encyclopedia of world slavery. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1997. Scott, William, and Shade, William. Upon these shores: themes in the African-American experience, 1600 to the present. London: Routledge, 2000. Smith, Mark. Debating slavery: economy and society in the antebellum American South. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Van Horn, Carl. Work in America: an Encyclopedia of History, Policy, and Society. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2003. Welch, Deborah. Virginia: an illustrated history. New York: Hippocrene Books, 2006. Wood, Betty. Slavery in colonial America, 1619-1776. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. Read More