Justifying Evil for 6 Cents a Day: Slavery and the South


Image I am re-posting a previous post here. Due to some current discussion appearing in my social network. Additionally I discovered the previous post to have have been a rough draft which I edited and whose corrected are seen here. 

A nonexistent cabin and a nonexistent man dealt slavery its American death blow. The President of the United States may have praised the creator of these characters as ‘the little woman that started a war,’ but the South immediately saw in Simon Legree, the duplicitous and mean-spirited slave owner, the potential for kindling hatred towards the South’s peculiar institution. Upon starting the book, Mary Boykin Chestnut, wife of a popular South Carolina senator, remarked that she simply would not finish it. The book sickened and troubled her too much. Historian Kenneth Greenberg wrote that though she “knew that she and most people she knew had never mistreated a slave in the ways described by Harriett Beecher Stowe… Uncle Tom’s Cabin never contended that she had. It only said that Simon Legree did it, and challenged her to defend Legree.”[1]

The debate over Simon Legree’s whipping post fully revealed a debate which had troubled and perplexed the American mind: just who really benefits from slavery?This debate has vexed not just early Americans, but came to trouble many a generation afterwards.. American slavery, particularly that version which existed in the South, represented a distinctly American and distinctly evil social system which claimed both its white perpetrators and African slaves as its victims. The justification of slavery on the grounds of the greatest good for the greatest number of people would be denounced as an evil for all sides of the affair. To that end this study will seek to define the issues involved in one of America’s great lessons in evil, and seek to show some ways in which slavery represented an evil for both slave and master.

A Good System for All? The South’s Greatest Good Defense

Before Simon, the South had always argued in the terms of Carolinian John C. Calhoun that the plantation existed as ‘an organism’ and as such maintained a ‘constitution’ that prevented atrocity and maintained a just and honorable system of political control, and economic prosperity. Baptist minister and university president Richard Furman agreed arguing that slaves and their families “became part of his family,” and that the necessity and responsibility of that special family naturally “devolves on him the child, the aged, the sick, the disabled, and the unruly, as well as those who are capable….” and as his reward, “the labor of these, is applied to the benefit of these, and to their own support, as well as that of the Master.”[2] From a Southern perspective the plantation existed as a people unified in purpose, who set to work together, and accomplished something which they could not have otherwise.

This romantic ideal of the picturesque plantation with its aristocratic whites, and contented blacks had become a hard illusion to shatter even as the Civil War came and went- even as the Civil Rights Movement came and went. One prominent example came in the opening images of an epic love story that remained Oscar’s biggest winner from 1939 to 2003: “There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South… Here in the pretty world Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever seen of Knights and their Ladies. Fair of Master and of Slave…”[3] These words were followed by panning images of beautiful fields tended by happy slaves and beautiful houses lived in by heroic whites.

In an introduction to a series of essays which debated the nature of American slavery, the editors of the work remarked that “just as James Ford Rhodes and other late 19th century writers indicted the system as evil…, a number of progressive era historians, most notably Ulrich B. Phillips, viewed the institution through the eyes of white Southerners, and created the image of a benign and patriarchal system of bondage.”[4] Ambiguous claims by moral thinkers and philosophers have added further confusion to the issue.[5] The utilitarian John Rawls stated that “slavery and serfdom, in familiar forms anyway, are tolerable only when they relieve even worse injustices.”[6] Rawls and his followers were quick to denounce the America’s version by their stipulation that while “there may be transitional [italics mine] cases where enslavement is better than current practices,” any fixed system of slavery represented a great evil.[7]

Perhaps for this reason, many Southerners, if pressed, commented that slavery could be understood as an evil, but that the version practiced by them should be seen as evil only in terms of it being the lesser of two evils. Their version of slavery was to be considered much better than the ‘wage slavery’ perpetrated by the Northern merchant.[8]

 

Even when the South expressed doubts about the morality of slavery, they did not seem in any hurry to part with their slaves. The greatest good discussion provided the best defense for the Southern whites against any doubts expressed within themselves or coming from without. Georgia’s Bishop Stephen Elliott defended his state by arguing that the peculiar institution represented a means of God’s providence by which “good may be brought out of the seeming evil and a blessing wrung out… of curse.”[1] From the context of his argument the good Bishop meant that the pagan Africans were becoming Christians. Yet many slave owners felt differently about the goods to come out of slavery. In fact many owners felt that Christian slaves exhibited the worst traits for any slave to maintain.[2] Their letters and journals emphasize business details, despite also teasing out some bits about the slave situation, go into far more detail about the coming harvests, the work being done, and the amounts of certain crops to be taken up. One prominent example in this study comes from correspondence from the slave family of the Skipwiths and their masters the Cocke family. The very reason that these letters were written were so that John Cocke, the slave owner, could be kept abreast of the business end of his plantation. It is interesting that Cocke only made trips down to the plantation after it has made insignificant progress through two harvests. The plantations of the Cocke family and many others continued to run because there was a wide-spread belief that this was the way to make money and lots of it.

 


[1] Charles Grier  Sellars. “The Trevail of Slavery.” American Negro Slavery: A Modern Reader. Allen Weinstein and Frank Otto, ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 1968), 188.

[2] Charles Sackett Syndor. Slavery in Mississippi. (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1965), 61.

 

A Pox on Both Your Houses? The True Wages of Slavery

Amongst the images of this gallant land laid a deep, dark secret world, a world laid bare by the inclusion of Simon Legree in the pantheon of American arch-villains. Despite all assurances given to their brothers in the North, Southerners did show signs of an inner turmoil brought on by their dealings with slavery. This struggle with conscience repeated itself throughout the South. So much so that one historian has jokingly remarked that the revivalism of the South was an outgrowth of this turmoil, by arguing that as the South “wrestled with their conscience on slavery, they may have gained a first-hand experience with the concepts of sin and evil that made them peculiarly susceptible” to the orthodox Christian understanding of total depravity, and the need for Christ.[9]

In this struggle over conscience and one’s duties to his or her slaves even the best of the best trembled with fear and doubt. The Virginian statesman and plantar John Cocke, by anyone modern calculations, represented the best that the South had to offer. A pious and devout man, Cocke sought to make Christian love and charity the hallmark of his life. In a time when cotton and tobacco ruled; before Al Gore could win Nobel prizes for advocating concern for the environment; or before John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, could make millions suing ‘big tobacco;’ John Cocke of the Virginia plantation published essays condemning tobacco use as an evil; as well as calling for moderate land usage. In these sentiments the polite society of Virginia roundly criticized him. Southern society disagreed with Cocke in other ways as well. In place of the ideal of the harmonious Southern plantation Cocke argued that the two races in the South could not live in harmony as “one inevitably enslaved or devoured the other.”[10] Cocke was sure that the South’s peculiar institution represented a flirtation with the wraith of God, and in this he looked to the horrors of Nat Turner’s rebellion in 1831 as a precursor to the storm gathering on the horizon.

In an attempt to find an answer and divert the approaching storm, Cocke hit upon an idea that many in both the North and South approved, including presidents such as Jefferson, Monroe, and later Lincoln, that of the settlement of Liberia. He believed that in order to “free whites from lethargy and tyranny, the South must free the slaves.”[11] After a gradual education and emancipation program, he would release his slaves on the condition that they migrate to the new “American” settlement in Liberia. As his slaves worked his ample lands, he would credit a percentage of the profits to funds that his slaves could use to purchase their manumission. The funds needed for each slave to purchase his or her freedom would be $1400[12] In the meantime the slaves would receive training in reading and religion (after completing their daily work, of course). Last, but not least, the released slaves would have to show that they could conduct themselves admirably in public; therefore, they would have to lead exemplary lives on the plantation. That meant that they should not drink, fight, or cause any problems for the overseer.

In a grand experiment of this policy, Cocke did two things. First in 1834 he released the family of one of his favored slaves, Peyton Skipwith, to go with the first group of colonists to Liberia. Secondly in 1840 after seeing Peyton safely ensconced in his life in Liberia, he purchased a second plantation in Alabama to serve as a jumping off point for his slaves. Forty-nine slaves, including the family of Peyton’s brother George, traveled to Alabama as the guinea pigs to this social experiment.

The results of this experiment have been documented in a series of letters which passed between members of the Skipwith family and the Cocke family. Early results come back decidedly mixed. Within days of arriving in Liberia Peyton’s wife dies of the fever which would antagonize each new set of Liberian immigrants. Yet the correspondence also details moments of hope and encouragement. In a letter dated April 4,, 1836 Peyton asked Cocke to “give my love to all the family both white and colored and all my friends in general.”[13] This letter seemed to portray a black awareness and acceptance of Calhoun’s family analogy. There are other times in their correspondence in which the Cockes and Skipwith seem to be kin and not slaves. In 1844, 12 years after his arrival in Africa, and two years before his death, Peyton writes these words:

“Dear master as to myself, I am as well satisfied as I can be in this little community, and I must thank you sir for the care you had over me while I was young, for when I was young and knew nothing you studied my interest. I am blessed with a trade, for you sent me to this country where I can speak for myself like a man and show myself to be man.”[14]

These words seem kind and considerate. They would make it seem that the master-slave dynamic between the two had been beneficial. Yet several items need to be accounted for. First, Peyton lived these 12 years in freedom, in this time he was not a slave and perhaps could reflect somewhat positively on his former master, or perhaps he said what he knew his old master would want to hear; because Peyton had a request for his old master that bleeds from each letter. Here is Peyton’s question as posed in a letter from 1846 (shortly before his death), “You promised me in your letter that you was going to send my brother George on to this place at the expiration of three years and I would be happy indeed to see him and all the people you have promised to send on.”[15]

Where was George and what had happened to the grand experiment in Hopewell? Unfortunately for everyone involved, the experimental conditions of the Hopewell plantation caromed from bad to worse to absolute and complete failure of Cocke’s grand vision. In a letter from 1847 George details some of the unrest at the plantation stating that he had to give “licks” to several slaves who had been acting up.[16] George’s daughter expresses frustrations with some of the others on the plantation as she wrote Cocke in 1854 that “I am sorry to say that family prayers are not regularly carried on. If it is rather late the people will not stay to prayers. The white people that lives here takes no intress in prayer and it makes the people very backward indeed.”[17] Lucy, as well, expresses approval of various means of disciplines the wayward members of the struggling Hopewell plantation. The Hopewell plantation would remain as it was (except for growth in numbers of slaves) until the end of the civil war. Despite missing the brunt of Sherman’s troops, and remaining surprisingly fertile, the plantation would not last long. Many of the slaves stayed on in a profit-sharing system that collapsed in acrimony just 2 years after the war’s end and Cocke’s subsequent death.

This quandary between the desire to be fair with one’s slaves and to bring in good harvests was not unique to the Cocke family. This difficulty finds expression in the journal entries of  Southerners. An example might be found in this account from a Mississippi planter: “I do not know whether I will keep Harris [the plantation’s white overseer] another year…. He is a first-rate manager except he is too cruel. I have had my feelings greatly shocked at some of his conduct.”[18] In the end the planter chose to turn a blind eye to these troubling inconsistencies in favor of the man’s first-rate ability to squeeze an extra buck or two from the land. Or one might read the nonchalance in this journal entry from a Virginia planter: “Had to administer a little rod to Bob this morning… Have seen for more than three months I should humble him some, hope it may benefit him.”[19]  In much the same way one might discuss scolding a dog, this man discussed beating another human being.

At times, theologians and philosophers looked at the paternalistic image and acquiesenced to the South’s defense of slavery as a great good. A true and unflinching definition of slavery demands a fuller analysis.[20]  Julius Moravcsik defines slavery as including three elements: personal or communal oppression, economic exploitation, and forcible restrictions. Slavery, therefore, could be defined as the “use of undue force or other pressure for limiting sphere, choice, oppression for work, and modes of work and remuneration, designed exclusively with the benefit of master in mind.”[21]  The dilemma of slavery expressed itself in the descriptions of Uncle Tom and his fateful journey ending at Legree’s whipping post. “In the eyes of the world, he was just a slave, a possession, a chattel. He belonged, now to Mr Shelby, now to Augustine St Clare, now to Mr Legree. Like sheep and cattle, he could at any moment be sent to market. He had no rights in himself.”[22]

This plight is no less seen in the real-life members of the Hopewell community. After years of bad behavior (including numerous fights, reported miscegenation, a harem-like environment in the slave quarters), and even worse harvests, Cocke withdrew his offer of manumission, and even sold George to a plantation in Mississippi. The old cliché about the corruption of the best being worst applies to the actions of the lives of the Cocke and Skipwith families. Both families seem disparate to break with the evils of slavery. Yet both remain trapped in this snare of evil. Looking over the course of Southern history, Kenneth Stampp reports that the story of the Cocke family exists not as an aberration, but in some ways as a rule. “Cruelty, unfortunately, was not limited… men and women, otherwise ‘normal’ were sometimes corrupted by the extraordinary power that slavery conferred.”[23]

Just Whose Good? The Believed Wages of Slavery

This assessment of the situation has created much debate. In his study of the Mississippi plantation life in the 1840s and 1850s, Charles Sackett Syndor attempted to determine just what kind of profits that could honestly be discussed. He attempted to calculate the costs and the rewards of the plantation.[24] Sydnor then attempted to determine the income for just such a plantation. A review of these numbers show that the typical plantation in 1850 could expect to clear a 10 to 12 percent profit margin. These numbers compare favorably with journal recordings for the period. If one wanted to know what the majority of Mississippi owners made for that year, one could crunch the numbers (the average farm was contained 14 slaves), and would come up with the assessment that the typical farm made $200 that year ($5,000 in 2006 dollars).

When one considers that the cost of living would have been offset by the advantages of a rural society, this does not seem that bad, and Syndor agrees that “the Mississippi planter made more money as a slaveholder than he would have done by his own labors.”[25] Yet these numbers do not tell the entire story. Going back to Syndor’s 50 person plantation, one must also ask just what the start-up costs to that farm would be. Syndor argued that the start-up cost for such a plantation would have been upwards of $40,000 ($1,000,000 in 2006 dollars). For our typical Mississippian the cost for slaves would be around $12,000 ($300,000 in 2006 dollars). These dramatic costs had a traumatic effect on the economy of the South. The value of Syndor argued that, “while many tried, few succeeded. More stayed in debt, with crops mortgaged several years in advance, finally getting ahead with a good crop or in lean years losing part or all of its negroes. Even though successful, the plantar was constantly tempted to enlarge his fields.”[26] From the outside it appeared that many of these plantations were affluent but in reality debt was a constant was a constant companion.

This debt-ridden and insecure economic system created tremendous burdens for the Southern economy to carry. Syndor estimates that the capitol costs for Mississippi alone at the time of secession was more than $340,000,00 ($7,906,976,744 in 2006 numbers). It also represented a tremendous boom for the North, Harold Woodman in his study of the economic feasibility of the slave system reports that the slave system supported the Northern economy by the enormous amounts of capitol that generated in the South and flew to bankers and others in the North. These numbers reveal a dependency on both the North and South’s part to keep the peculiar institution alive. They also illuminate the desperation of the Southerners to see their own farms succeed. It is also a ground for great resentment on all sides. All parties here have something to lose.

For What Does It Profit a Man? The Unanswerable Question

Even when the South expressed doubts about the morality of slavery, they did not seem in any hurry to part with their slaves. Georgia’s Bishop Stephen Elliott defended his state by arguing that the peculiar institution represented a means of God’s providence by which “good may be brought out of the seeming evil and a blessing wrung out… of curse.”[27] From the context of his argument the good Bishop meant that the pagan Africans were becoming Christians. Many slave owners felt differently about the goods to come out of slavery. In fact many owners felt that Christian slaves exhibited the worst traits for any slave to maintain.[28] Their letters and journals emphasize business details, despite also teasing out some bits about the slave situation, go into far more detail about the coming harvests, the work being done, and the amounts of certain crops to be taken up. One prominent example came from correspondence from the slave family of the Skipwiths and their masters the Cocke family. The very reason that these letters were written were so that John Cocke, the slave owner, could be kept abreast of the business end of his plantation. It is interesting that Cocke only made trips down to the plantation after it has made insignificant progress through two harvests. The plantations of the Cocke family and many others continued to run because there was a wide-spread belief that this was the way to make money and lots of it.

One might ask if those people stuck in such a situation can be described as evil or victims of evil. In discussing slavery one critic has argued that “persons who violate the rights of others in order to gain or profit… should be described as bad or evil.… If the end they seek can be obtained by other means that does not violate the rights of others, then they can be described as evil for not choosing other means.” This analysis became more forceful if one adds that many of these could possibly have made more money by those other means as Syndor argued at the end of his study.

Others have focused on the system or society. One such person in a discussion of systematic evil wrote that:

“the white slavers captured, inhumanely transported, and sold Africans into American slavery because over centuries they had been taught to despise black people as undereducated savages, and had been taught that there was nothing wrong in enriching yourself at the expense of the suffering of uneducated savages. Innumerable parents, preachers, and politians had their share in creating such a culture; and they deliberately chose to ignore the moral worth and human feelings of black people…. Only God our creator had the right to allow bad people to promote the slave trade. Humans had a duty to fight very hard against it…. I cite this example … to illustrate how the possibility of large scale human suffering opens up innumerable opportunities for significant choices in each century and distant places… [and] innumerable opportunities for good and bad choices of response to it in later centuries and distant places.”

This study argues that both the persons and the system represent evils, and should not be taken off the hook for their choices although those choices should be understood in light of the evil pressures that inspired those evil choices. In the grand choice between treating another person well, and making more money to ease one’s debt load, easing the load naturally won out. The ideal of a good and perfect institution which created mass amounts of money proved too tempting. The complete power of slave owning proved too much for many as well.

There is also the evilness of analysts to be accounted. Howard McGary in his discussion on the complexities of slavery’s historiography wrote that “historians must separate mere rationalizations and gross self-deception from reality.” At the end of his attempt to judge wisely these issues, he wrote that, “paternalist explanations allowed people who benefited from the exploitation of others to mask the contradiction [of slavery]. They do not want to deny the personhood or humanity of the exploited, nor do they wish to endorse the idea that certain human beings could be used… so… paternalism is a way to achieve what they want without having to commit themselves to positions that they find unacceptable.”[29]

For a people committed to such a rationalization and under such strong delusions of grandeur, the simplicity of a “sentimental” novel existed as a potion and dangerous thing. In her creation of the adversaries Simon Legree and Uncle Tom, Harriet Beecher Stowe asked an entire nation a potent question. Tell me whose side you would rather defend? In a mediation on the work of Stowe, F.W. Burnham asks another question as he discusses the scene in which the fates of Simon and Tom are set, and a nation was ratled:

“ ‘Eternity!’ exclaims Uncle Tom. ‘My soul’s woven into the very web of eternity!’

‘Calvary!’ sings Dora Greenwell. ‘My soul is so unspeakably precious in the eyes of the Son of God that, if it had been the only soul ever created, He would have gone to the Cross for its redemption!’

He who lends an ear, first to the husky voice of the old American slave, and then the captivating notes of the sweet, young English singer, will go on his way asking himself an unanswerable question: ‘What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?’”[30]

It was an unanswerable question vexed a nation and caused a war. It was a question should continue to vex nations for years to come.

Appendix 1:

Here is a sample letter from Randall Miller’s publication and analysis of the Skipwith and Cocke families. The letter published here is from George Skipwith to John Cocke[31]:
Appendix 2: Charles Sackett Syndor’s Supporting Information[32]

Here is a chart describing the cotton prices for the 15 years proceeding the Civil War:

Here is the table amortizing the profits and losses for a Mississippi slave plantation of 50 slaves in year 1850:

Here is a table showing a compiliation of one plantation’s slaves, their costs and projected incomes to the plantations:

Appendix 3: Defining Slavery

The following are three charts presented by Tommy Lott in his article attempting to bring a philosophically acceptable definition of slavery.[33] The first chart represents the attempt by Thomas Hobbes to define slavery in differation to servanthood on the basis of liberty. The second chart represents the attempt by John Locke to make a similar comparison based upon the idea of coercion. The last chart represents Lott’s attempt to synthesize the two views.

Sources Consulted:

Berke, Matthew. “The Myth of the Civil War” in First Things Magazine [archive on-line] (New York:      Institutes on Religion and Public Life Publishing Services, 1991, accessed Nov. 14, 2007).

Boreham, F.W. The Gospel of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. London: Epworth Press, 1956.

 

Boxill, Bernard R. “Radical Implications of Locke’s Moral Theology: The Works of Frederick Douglass.”             Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and Social Philosophy. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998.

 

Dear Master:’ Letters of a Slave Family. Randall Miller, ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1978

 

Genovese, Eugene D. “The Slave System: An Interpretation.” American Negro Slavery: A Modern Reader.             Allen Weinstein and Frank Otto, ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 1968).

 

Gone with the Wind. Prod. David O. Selznick. Dir. Victor Fleming.  435 min., MGM, 1939, videocassette.

Greenberg, Kenneth. Masters and Statesmen: The Political Culture of American Slavery. Baltimore, Md: John Hopkins UP, 1985.

Jordan, Winthrop D. “Modern Tensions and the Origins of American Slavery.” American Negro Slavery: A             Modern Reader. Allen Weinstein and Frank Otto, ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 1968).

Lott, Tommy, L. “Early Enlightenment Conceptions of the Rights of Slaves.” Subjugation and Bondage:             Critical Essays on Slavery and Philosophy. Tommy L. Lott, ed. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 1998.

­­­—–. introduction to Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and Social Philosophy. New   York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998.

McGary, Howard. “Paternalism and Slavery.” Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and Philosophy. Tommy L. Lott, ed. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 1998.

Miller, Randall. Introduction to ‘Dear Master:’ Letters of a Slave Family. Randall Miller, ed. Ithaca, NY:             Cornell UP, 1978.

Morascvik, Julius. “Slavery and the Ties that Bind.” Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery           and Philosophy. Tommy L. Lott, ed. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 1998.

Phillips, Ulrich Bonnell. “A Benign View.” American Negro Slavery: A Modern Reader. Allen Weinstein            and Frank Otto, ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 1968).

Sellars, Charles Grier. “The Trevail of Slavery.” American Negro Slavery: A Modern Reader. Allen           Weinstein and Frank Otto, ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 1968).

Stammp, Kenneth. “Southern Negro Slavery: ‘To Make Them Stand in Fear.’” American Negro Slavery: A             Modern Reader. Allen Weinstein and Frank Otto, ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1968.

Syndor, Charles Sackett. Slavery in Mississippi. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1965,

Weinstein, Allen and Frank Otto. introduction to American Negro Slavery: A Modern Reader. Allen        Weinstein and Frank Otto, ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1968.

Willett, Cynthia. “The Master-Slave Dialetic.” Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and             Social Philosophy. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998.

Woodman, Harold. “The Profitability of Slaves.” American Negro Slavery: A Modern Reader. Allen        Weinstein and Frank Otto, ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 1968).

****    Projections to 2006 dollars compiled from reference guide edited by Robert C. Sahr, Political Science Dept., Oregon State University. Available on-line http://www.oregonstate.edu/political_sci/fac/sahr/sahrhome.html


[1] Kenneth Greenberg. Masters and Statesmen: The Political Culture of American Slavery. (Baltimore, Md: John Hopkins UP, 1985), 91.

[2] Greenberg, 95.

[3] Gone with the Wind. Prod. David O. Selznick. Dir. Victor Fleming.  435 min., MGM, 1939, videocassette.

[4]Allen Weinstein and Frank Otto.  introduction to American Negro Slavery: A Modern Reader. Allen Weinstein and Frank Otto, ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 1968), 3

[5] For an excellent overview of these concerns, see the essay “Early Enlightenment Conceptions of the Rights of Slaves” in Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and Philosophy. Tommy L. Lott, ed. (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 1998. See appendix one for three charts representing various ways philosophers have thought about slavery.

[6] Tommy L  Lott. introduction to Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and Social Philosophy. (New York: Rowman and Littlefield), xiii.

[7] Ibid.

[8] For a discussion of these concerns see pages 94-98 of Greenberg’s book.

[9] Ibid, 174.

[10] Randall Miller. Introduction to ‘Dear Master:’ Letters of a Slave Family. Randall Miller, ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1978), 25.

[11] Miller, ‘Dear Master,’ 27.

[12] Price in 1840 dollars would equate to $3,150 in 2006 dollars.

[13] Peyton Skipwith. “Peyton’s Letters.” ‘Dear Master:’ Letters of a Slave Family. Randall Miller, ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1978), 60.

[14] Ibid, 80.

[15] Ibid, 82-3.

[16] George Skipwith. “George’s Letters.” ‘Dear Master:’ Letters of a Slave Family. Randall Miller, ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1978), 157.

[17]  Lucy Skipwith. “Lucy’s Letters.”‘Dear Master:’ Letters of a Slave Family. Randall Miller, ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1978),, 202.

[18] Kenneth Stammp. “Southern Negro Slavery: ‘To Make Them Stand in Fear.’” American Negro Slavery: A Modern Reader. Allen Weinstein and Frank Otto, ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 1968), 59.

[19] Ibid, 55.

[20] See Appendix 3 for a chart showing 3 ways various philosphers have chosen to define slavery.

[21] Julius Morascvik. “Slavery and the Ties that Bind.” Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and Philosophy. Tommy L. Lott, ed. (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 1998),173-4.

[22] F.W. Boreham. The Gospel of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. (London: Epworth Press, 1956), 50.

[23] Stammp, 58.

[24] See Appendix Two for supporting materials from Sackett’s study.

[25] Syndor, 200.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Charles Grier  Sellars. “The Trevail of Slavery.” American Negro Slavery: A Modern Reader. Allen Weinstein and Frank Otto, ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 1968), 188.

[28] Charles Sackett Syndor. Slavery in Mississippi. (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1965), 61.

[29] Howard McGary. “Paternalism and Slavery.” Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and Philosophy. Tommy L. Lott, ed. (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 1998), 202.

[30] Boreham, 19.

[31] George Skipwith. “George’s Letters.” ‘Dear Master:’ Letters of a Slave Family. Randall Miller, ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1978),  166-7.

[32] Charts and graphs on this page taken from Syndor Chps: “Buying, Selling, and Hiring”  and ´”The Profitability of Slavery.”

[33] Tommy L Lott. “Early Enlightenment Conceptions of the Rights of Slaves.” Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and Philosophy. Tommy L. Lott, ed. (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 1998), 115.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: