Rachel+Behr's+Project

**How Slavery has affected the Social, Economic, and Environmental Realms** **By: Rachel Behr** **AMH 3930H/ANT 4932H** **Spring 2012** **Dr. Connie L. Lester & Dr. John H. Walker**
 * Slavery in the United States:**
 * Introduction**

Slavery, as an institution, was a major part of American history, and the ripples created from the culture of slavery are still felt in modern society. Between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, slavery was a normal part of existence in the United States. Since the abolition of slave import in 1807 and the eventual abolition of slavery overall in 1865, American society has reflected the repercussions of an economy based on the import of slaves, the slave trade in general, and the labor that slaves produced. Racism and unequal opportunities are still issues addressed today. American success was built on a foundation of gaining essentially, free labor from the slave market. The shift between plantations using slave labor and having to pay for their labor impacted the economy and social expectations in the United States, specifically in the south. “Over the last several decades, historians have addressed issues of slave demographics and community, acculturation, resistance, master-slave relationships, and the economics of slavery. For all these topics, archaeology can help guide and refine the questions historians ask of their data” (Samford 88). All of these factors work together to construct the American history that is accepted today.

The environmental impact of slavery is also apparent in the shift from subsistence farming to the mechanical process of farming for a profit. The sheer number of workers that slavery provided facilitated this shift. Cotton, tobacco, corn, wheat, and barley plantations generally focused on one or two crops, which changed the way the environment functioned. The elimination of a variety of crops on a plantation altered the landscape, while ruining the soil in a way that made long-term production difficult.

The impact of one slave on the economy or the environment would be hard to measure, but when one magnifies that by the estimated 12 million slaves that were brought into the United States while slavery was legal, the impact that results is hard to miss. Addressing these social, economic, and environmental factors associated with slavery in the United States, is only the first step in trying to comprehend the legacy that slavery has left on American History.


 * The Life of a Slave**

With the abolishment of slavery, slave owners tried to hide any evidence of daily slave life. “The First excavation of an African-American slave quarter took place in 1968, and it was not until the late 1970s, as the concerns of anthropology and social history converged, that broad-ranging issues began to be addressed by archaeologists. These issues, largely guided by the research interests of historians, involved the context of everyday plantation life, [and] social relationships between planters and slaves” (Samford 87). With little physical evidence remaining (structures, gathering places, communities), and most eye witnesses gone by the 1970s, archaeologists had to rely on evidence found in the dirt where the structures used to be, along with broken pottery, and small artifacts of the life freed slaves left behind.

What many archaeologists found was that slave communities had a tendency to maintain the cultural traditions of their western African roots. “It has been very difficult for archaeologists to determine where plantation slaves resided. Few buildings survive from slave quarters, particularly for the eighteenth century, and documentation is sparse”(Samford 89). However when they could figure out their location they learned that housing compounds were generally clustered in a circular arrangement with simple wood frame constructions. Each house commonly had a brick or stick and mud chimney (Samford 92). The housing construction that slave communities favored, reflected those of the west African communities they came from, but have since been destroyed. The ruins when discovered, tell the story of how daily slave life progressed.

“Virtually every site contains the remains of wild species such as opossum, raccoon, snapping turtle, deer, squirrel, duck, and rabbit, showing that slaves supplemented their planter-supplied rations with extra sources of protein” (Samford 96). There is also evidence suggesting that slaves had access to firearms and fishing materials. This represented how the slave communities incorporated protein into their diet, when they weren’t supplied with it. Archaeologists have been able to infer which communities ate what types of food through the state of the bones they found. Chopped bones suggested that the community stewed most of their food, while sawed bones suggested their food was mostly roasted (Samford 99). As diet is one of the major staples to a way of life, being able to figure out what they ate is a huge step in figuring out a slave’s normal routine.

Through interviews, archaeologists have been able to find other connections between West African culture, and the social culture of African-American slaves in the south. “In an early twentieth-century interview, a former South Carolina slave stated that this African practice of wearing coins served as protection against rheumatism” (Samford 102). This West African practice that spread throughout slave society, from the Caribbean plantations, to plantations in several other countries in the western hemisphere. This social construct provided proof that African culture lived on in the slave communities and was not completely stifled by human ownership.

At cites where archaeologists have found slave communities, several root cellars have been found. Root cellars are a statement of “resistance to new and potentially oppressive sociopolitical orders” (Samford 100), because they were a place completely controlled by the slave community. These root cellars were inaccessible to their owners, and therefore became a place where a slave could keep their most personal belongings. “By combining archaeological, ethnohistorical, and ethnographic sources, it may now be possible to trace more fully the transformation of West African cultural traditions in the American South” (Samford 114).


 * The Southern Slave Economy**

The southern slave economy was driven by a group of political economists who dedicated their time to finding reasons to maintain slavery. “The southern political economists were part of a diverse, international collection of European and American writers and teachers whose goal was…to study ‘mankind in the ordinary business of life’” (Carlander 391). This group of academics was hired by prominent slave owners in the south to protect their economic interests. The task for the southern political economists, as McCord later described it, was ‘to prove, or at least suggest the grounds upon which it may be proved, that Political Economy will, when properly appealed to, bring the strongest possible argument in favor of negro slavery’” (Carlander 393). Most of the time, they were going against their own beliefs to find proof that slavery was worth the cost.

“The central issue of modern economics – the scarcity, and consequent costlines of resources – and the related political issue of how societies ought to address scarcity” (Carlander 391). This same issue can be applied to the economic factors driving the continuation of slavery. Southern political economists argued that, “left to themselves over the course of two centuries, the choice of all New World sugar planters of all nations had been to replace all other forms of labor by African chattel slaves” (Carlander 394). Basically, they were saying that if slave labor is available, there is no reason to pay for labor. Slavery is a self-sustaining investment, if an owner can control the slave. However, the question that was raise was whether or not slave labor was as productive as paid labor. If a paid laborer is more productive than a slave, then paying the difference could be made up if your profit is greater. Southern political economists argued back by saying, “planters behaved as did capitalists elsewhere, investing their resources, including their capital, across competing activities and methods of production according to calculations designed to maximize the returns on their investments” (Carlander 395). While the logic behind the argument may not have been sound, the economic logic was sound.

They continued by explaining that, “it must be more profitable to him [a master] that they [his slaves] should live than that they should die; and this can only be, so long as the slave’s labor is more profitable to him than any other which he can attain” (Carlander 399). That profit is then dependent on a slave owner’s ability to control his slaves. One way of doing this was by appeasing a family’s desire to stay together. Not only did keeping a family together serve as a means of control, but there was also an economic incentive to keep families together (Thornton 72). If families remained together on a plantation, then that usually resulted in children. The slave’s owner then owned any children born to his slave. Through this, the owner made a single investment double with the birth of a child.

The consideration of slave maintenance is the economic difference between free labor and slave labor (Thornton 73). With free labor, a worker is paid their wage and then sent on their way; for slave labor to be efficient, the owner must maintain the living conditions of the slaves so they can perform at an optimal level. Balancing the costs of each, it is hard to determine if slave labor actually paid off.


 * Charles Ball**

Charles Ball was a slave born in Maryland, who was sold more than ten times. He was a slave on plantations all along the east coast from Maryland all the way down to Georgia. Ball was separated from his mother at the age of four. In his autobiography he says, “my mother had several children, and they were sold upon master’s death to separate purchasers. She was sold, my father told me, to a Georgia trader” (Ball 10). Ball was the last of his family to be sold out of Maryland, after his father ran away leaving him alone.

Ball explains that after his second master died, “the father of [his] late master, who was still living, became administrator of his estate, and too possession of his property, and amongst the rest, of [himself]” (Ball 16). This shows just how aware a slave was of his place as a piece of property. That awareness of a slave’s place in society, forced them to be totally dependent on their masters. Ball continues on to discuss how his third master treated him well by providing, “one pair of shoes, one pair of stockings, one hat, one jacket of coarse cloth, two coarse shirts, and two pair of trowsers, yearly. He allowed me no other clothes. In the winter time I often suffered very much from the cold; as I had to drive the team of oxen which hauled the tobacco to market, and frequently did not get home until late at night, the distance being considerable, and my cattle traveled very slow” (Ball 17). Not only does this enlighten the reader to his allowance of clothing, but also his job on the plantation.

After another change in ownership, Ball explains how his treatment changed with this new owner. “After we were all chained and handcuffed together, we sat down upon the ground; and here reflecting upon the sad reverse of fortune that had so suddenly overtaken me, I became weary of life, and bitterly execrated the day I was born. It seemed that I was destined by fate to drink the cup of sorrow to the very dregs, and that I should find no respite from misery but in the grave. I longed to die, and escape from the hands of my tormentors; but even the wretched privilege of destroying myself was denied me, for I could not shake off my chains, nor move a yard without the consent of my master” (Ball 30). With this master there was physical restraint and the total separation from his family. The separation marks a change in his demeanor towards his owners.

Ball ends his autobiography when he says, “BY the laws of the United States I am still a slave; and though I am now growing old, I might even yet be deemed of sufficient value to be worth pursuing as far as my present residence, if those to whom the law gives the right of dominion over my person and life, knew where to find me. For these reasons I have been advised, by those whom I believe to be my friends, not to disclose the true names of any of those families in which I was a slave, in Carolina or Georgia, lest this narrative should meet their eyes, and in some way lead them to a discovery of my retreat” (Ball 110). Not only does he admit he is still a slave, but he lets the readers know he has changed his name, and all the names in the narrative. The bravery associated with telling his story shows just how wrong the American society was about slaves being mentally inferior. The way Ball, and many other former slaves share their experiences and the daily life of being a slave, leaves a written record to return to and learn from.


 * Clayton Holbert**

Leta Grey interviewed Clayton Holbert on May 17th, 1937. The interview was part of the WPA’s (Works Project Administration) Federal Writer’s Project. The Federal Writer’s Project was a piece of New Deal Legislation that hired journalists all over the country to go out and interview and record the stories of former slaves.

During Holbert’s interview he says, "I was working the fields during the wind-up of the Civil War. They always had a man in the field to teach the small boys to work, and I was one of the boys. I was learning to plant corn, etc. My father, brother and uncle went to war on the Union side. We raised corn, barley, and cotton, and produced all of our living on the plantation. There was no such thing as going to town to buy things. All of our clothing was homespun, our socks were knitted, and everything. We had our looms, and made our own suits, we also had reels, and we carved, spun, and knitted. We always wore yarn socks for winter, which we made. It didn't get cold, in the winter in Tennessee, just a little frost was all. We fixed all of our cotton and wool ourselves.” (Gray 285). This short glimpse into his life as a slave in Tennessee right at the start of the Civil War, not only explains what his plantation grew, but how his family members were all fighting for freedom. The way he talks about relying on the plantation for everything and fighting for freedom so evenly, shows just how normal it was to be a slave during that time. Retrospectively, nothing about slavery is normal, so hearing about it from the perspective of a former slave, adds a new dimension to what can be taken from the historical record.

The most startling idea that Holbert presented was not having a name to turn to when the slaves were freed. “We didn't have a name. The slaves were always known by the master's last name, and after we were freed we just took the last name of our masters and used it. After we had got our freedom papers, they had our ages and all on them, they were lost so we guess at our ages” (Gray 289). It was like even when they finally reached freedom, they were still attached to their association with property and being under another person’s claim or ownership.


 * Richard Toler**

Richard Toler was also interviewed in 1937. He starts to retell his family history by saying, “Mah pappy was a slave befo' me, and mah mammy, too. His name was George Washington Tolah, and her'n was Lucy Tolah. We took ouah name from ouah ownah, and we lived in a cabin way back of the big house, me and mah pappy and mammy and two brothahs. They nevah mistreated me, neithah. They's a whipping the slaves all the time, but ah run away all the time. And I jus' tell them - if they whipped me, ah'd kill 'em, and ah nevah did get a whippin'. If ah thought one was comin' to me, Ah'd hide in the woods; then they'd send aftah me and they say, 'Come, on back, - we won't whip you'. But they killed some of the niggahs, whipped 'em to death. Ah guess they killed three or fo' on Tolah's place while ah was there” (Thomson 98). Not only does he reference the same naming system as Holbert, but he also discusses being able to deter whippings by hiding in the woods.

What was striking about Toler’s interview was the way he discussed life after slavery. "Ah never went to school. Learned to read and write my name after ah was free in night school, but they nevah allowed us to have a book in ouah hand, and we couldn't have no money neither. If we had money we had to tu'n it ovah to ouah ownah. Chu'ch was not allowed in ouah pa't neithah. Ah go to the Meth'dist Chu'ch now, everybody ought to go. I think RELIGION MUST BE FINE, 'CAUSE GOD ALMIGHTY'S AT THE HEAD OF IT" (Thomson 98). Being denied an education is something unfathomable from a modern perspective, so seeing the value someone places on learning to read and write his name is impressive.

After gaining freedom, Toler, “stayed on the plantation during the wah, and jes' did what they tol' me. Ah was 21 then. And ah walked 50 mile to vote for Gen'l Grant at Vaughn's precinct. Ah voted fo' him in two sessions, he run twice. And ah was 21 the fust time, cause they come and got me, and say, 'Come on now. You can vote now, you is 21.' And theah now - mah age is right theah. 'Bout as close as you can git it” (Thomson 99). Once again, Toler, focuses on the positives of being freed. Despite staying on the plantation, he exercised his freedom by taking the initiative to go an vote. This short excerpt from his narrative showed so much appreciation for the rights he earned, in such a simple manner, that it is hard not to recognize the value of the freedom to a slave of the south.


 * Phillis Wheatley**

Contrasting to the life of the southern slaves discussed above, Phillis Wheatley was a personal slave in Boston, purchased in 1761, as a child. She was purchased to be a companion for Mrs. Wheatley and was considered to be a ‘privileged slave’ during the 1700s. Phillis was taught how to read and write by the eldest daughter of the family, and within a year and a half of living with them, she could read and write, was well versed in the bible, and could speak and write fluently in Latin (Woodlief).

Phillis Wheatley is a well-known female American historical figure. Surprisingly, she is recognized as one of the, if not, the first female American poets to be ever be published. Her owners completely supported her writing career, in the sense that they treated her like a novelty. They showed her off as an oddity, or a shiny new toy that was worth putting on display for the world to see. Her career as a published author was something her owners could brag about to their friends. She was special, and they took credit for it, in a way that boasted that if they hadn’t owned her, she wouldn’t be as successful as she was. Despite having a life as a slave that most would consider ‘easier,’ Phillis was still treated as property, and had little agency over herself until the death of her mistress. Phillis was freed in her mistress’ will, but with freedom, Phillis lost her ability to be looked upon as a credible female writer.


 * Environmental Impact of Slavery**

The consideration of the environmental impact that slavery had on the United States is not something that seems to have been looked at very much. Most research focuses on the social or economic implications that slavery had in building the United States up to where it is today. However, “since the 1970s, what can be termed the ‘black rice hypothesis’ has emerged… The major export crop of the eighteenth-century South Carolina and Georgia – rice – is now seen as predominantly a creation of Africans” (Eltis 1332). It is now being suggested, “South Carolina’s rice industry was built not just on slave labor, but also on the slaves’ agricultural and technological knowledge, is an exciting and appealing revelation” (Eltis 1333). What this implies is that without slavery, or the arrival of Africans to the United States in general, the rice industry may never have developed, therefore losing one of America’s biggest exports of the time. “The basic argument [of slaves bringing rice cultivation to America] rests on three core elements. First, rice culture was indigenous to Africa and was a practice of long standing…Second, in contrast to the cultivation of most plantation crops in the Americas, notably sugar and tobacco, there was never a period when free – or at least non-slave – labor could be induced to produce rice for export… Finally, putative parallels have emerged between rice cultivation in Africa and its counterparts in the Americas” (Eltis 1333). To give credit to slaves at the point in history where rice cultivation was developing would have been unheard of. A slave owner would feel entailed to claiming it as their own because they owned the slaves who began it. However, by introducing this crop to the Americas on such a large scale, changed the landscape irreversibly.

Plantations, in general, drastically altered the environment in ways that the owner intended, and the slaves had no control over. By consolidating their fields to grow only one type of crop, in organized rows, the natural balance of the soil and ecosystem were forced to change. Single crop productions that were common on plantations robbed the soil of nutrients so quickly, that to keep up with production unnatural fertilizers eventually had to be introduced. Slave labor as a means of production was not the driving force behind plantations being focused on a single crop, but it aided in the advancement of such a system.


 * Social Impact of Slavery**

“Historians, sociologists, and economists have long emphasized the detrimental effects of slave owners’ power to sell their slaves and in the process separate husband from wife, parent from child, and relatives and friends from one another” (Thornton 71). The way that a slave owner had total control over a slave’s family unit served as a method of manipulation to keep slaves in line. Threatening to separate a family was the largest threat a slave owner could make, and it was the easiest way to force a slave to conform to their expectations.

Almost everything associated with slavery in retrospect is immoral, but Carlander discussed how, “slavery was an immoral violation of natural rights. The key economic aspect of this immorality was the degrading denial of the ability to accumulate property” (Carlander 394). By denying the slaves a right to own and maintain property, slave owners were denying their rights as human beings, but then again, slaves were not considered human during this time; they were property.

“The general consensus is that the slave trade was extensive and had significant negative cultural effects on the black family” (Thornton 72). There was always the chance that a slave could be separated from their families at any time. This is why a slave owner could abuse the power of strong family ties give slaves incentive to stay put, resulting in less security costs and losses due to runaways (Thornton 73). If keeping a slave family together kept things easy to control, then there was both an economic and social incentive to keep them together. Many slave owners would use the process of ‘hiring out’ to temporarily remove a slave from their property. By doing this, they keep the family under control through the intention of bringing their family member back (Thornton 74). This incentive is enough to maintain the control a slave owner needs.

In the Table 1 (Thornton 76), Thornton outlines the chances of a slave being separated from their family. The research shows that slave owners who buy families rarely separate them, unless it is following a death, a bankruptcy, or they are actually in the business of slave trading, instead of plantation owning. To a slave trader or inheritance recipient, the fate of the slaves and their families were not considered in the decision making process.

“Africans who were brought to the New World came from only a few ethnic groups, that they clustered in various parts of the Americas, and that the earliest Africans from specific regional cultures often had ‘a continuing and decisive influence’ on their native-born descendants and on those Africans who arrived later” (Etlis 1331). The social groups they formed once in the Americas, reflects the culture they came from and the one they were forced into. The mix of the two societies resulted in the creation of a new social system that took into consideration the transient nature of being a slave. One’s fate was not decided personally, and the slave society had to form to reflect that.


 * Conclusion**

Slavery is intertwined with every aspect of American history. It existed during the founding, and has impacted the way America functions today. The social, economic, and environmental impact of slavery has been evaluated time and again, since abolition, but never without the consideration that there was a dark period in American history where people were treated as property. There is no doubt that American society is still working on reaching a point where it is completely recovered from the damages that slavery has caused. Socially, racism still exists, despite the masses trying to ignore it. Economically, labor laws are preventing an economic argument from turning American industry back to a time where slave labor was acceptable (though outsourcing is growing very similar to slave labor). Environmentally, this country is still battling with single crop farming destroying it rapidly for the sole reason of gaining a profit. Learning from the past is the only chance for improvement, and starting with the fundamentals that built the United States to where it is today is where this country has to start.

Ball, Charles. //Fifty Years in Chains; or The Life of an American Slave.// New York, NY: H. Dayton Publisher, 1859. Web. 14 April 2012.
 * Works Cited**

Carlander, Jay and Elliot W. Brownlee. “Antebellum Southern Political Economists and the Problem of Slavery.” //American Nineteenth Century History//. 7.3 (Sep 2006): 389-416. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 April 2012.

Eltis, David, Philip Morgan and David Richardson. “Agency and Diaspora in Atlantic History: Reassessing the African Contribution to Rice Cultivation in the Americas.” //American Historical Review.// 112.5 (Dec 2007): 1329 -1358. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 April 2012.

Gray, Leta. Interview with Clayton Holbert. //The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography.// Ed. George P. Rawick. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1972. 285-291. Print.

Samford, Patricia. “The Archaeology of African-American Slavery and Material Culture.” //The William and Mary Quarterly.// 53.1 (Jan 1996): 87-114. Jstor. Web. 29 Feb 2012.

Thomson, Ruth. Interview with Richard Toler. //The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography.// Ed. George P. Rawick. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1972. 97-101. Print.

Thornton, Mark, Mark A. Yanochik, and Bradley T. Ewing. “Selling Families Down The River: Property Rights and the Public Auction.” //The Independent Review.// 14.1 (2009): 71-79. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 April 2012.

Woodlief, Ann. “On Phillis Wheatley.” //Virginia Commonwealth University.// N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. 