The Boston guide to slave management

[RobertP]

I thought this would be an interesting and more timely followup to yesterday's thread on the Roman Guide to Slave Management. This interesting tidbit comes from Philbreck's wonderful book, Bunker Hill, which I highly recommend to folks interested in what I consider an unbiased history into the causes of the American Revolution at its epicenter in Bean Town. From p. 23-24 in the book:

"On the road from Cambridge to the ferry landing at Charlestown was a landmark that spoke to the legacy of slavery in New England. In 1755 the slave Mark had been executed for conspiring to poison his abusive master. Whereas his female accomplice had been burned to death, Mark had been hanged; his body was then stuffed into an iron cage that was suspended from a chain at the edge of the Charlestown Common, where the corpse was left to rot and be picked apart by birds. Long after the physical remains of the executed slave had disappeared, the place where Mark was hung in chains; continued to be a much commented-on part of the landscape surrounding Boston. Slavery was more than a rhetorical construct for the city's white residents; where African men, women, and children were regularly bought an sold and where anyone taking the road into or out of nearby Charlestown had no choice but to remember what had happened in 1755 when a black man threatened to overthrow his oppressor."

Now if anyone wants to equivocate that, have at it.

 

[wilber6150]

And your point is what? That slaves faced harsh treatment as well from Northern owners ? Who is arguning otherwise; but by 1790 the federal census had listed no slaves in that state...
Hey, maybe we can examine the fate of slaves accused of killing their owners in Texas next?

 

[CMWinkler]

This story seems at least as relevant to understanding the plight of slaves in the United States as a fictious account of a Roman slaveowner.

 

[RobertP]

And your point is what? That slaves faced harsh treatment as well from Northern owners ? Who is arguning otherwise; but by 1790 the federal census had listed no slaves in that state...
Hey, maybe we can examine the fate of slaves accused of killing their owners in Texas next?

What is your point? You did it too? Call me shocked.

 

[RobertP]

This story seems at least as relevant to understanding the plight of slaves in the United States as a fictious account of a Roman slaveowner.

Further, Mark's bones were left chained in the cage for 20 years, the site was even mentioned by Paul Revere in recounting his ride. Unless there was a sea change of heart in old Boston by 1776, the year after his remains were removed, it's doubtful that the line "all men are created equal" applied to African Americans even if some would wish it so.

 

[ErnieMac]

Mark and Phillis (the female slave that was burned) were in fact convicted of murder as their owner had died of arsenic poisoning. Apparently there were other slaves whose fate is unknown, but the attached link speculates they were sold as field hands to the sugar colonies in the Caribbean which was "a standard form of punishment at the time."
http://www.celebrateboston.com/crime/puritan-mark-and-phillis-executions.htm

Paul Revere had stated in a letter about his famous Midnight Ride of 1775: "After I had passed Charlestown Neck, and got nearly opposite where Mark was hung in chains, I saw two men on horseback under a tree."

 

[RobertP]

Mark and Phillis (the female slave that was burned) were in fact convicted of murder as their owner had died of arsenic poisoning. Apparently there were other slaves whose fate is unknown, but the attached link speculates they were sold as field hands to the sugar colonies in the Caribbean which was "a standard form of punishment at the time."
http://www.celebrateboston.com/crime/puritan-mark-and-phillis-executions.htm

Paul Revere had stated in a letter about his famous Midnight Ride of 1775: "After I had passed Charlestown Neck, and got nearly opposite where Mark was hung in chains, I saw two men on horseback under a tree."

Hard to believe they were still burning people at the stake in 1755.

 

[Henry Whitworth]

"Equivocate that?"

Is this really a "The North had slavery too!" thread?

 

[RobertP]

"Equivocate that?"

Is this really a "The North had slavery too!" thread?

Not at all. It's a spin-off on the Roman Slave Management thread. Wilber is trying to make it into a you did it too discussion.

 

[Henry Whitworth]

Not at all. It's a spin-off on the Roman Slave Management thread. Wilber is trying to make it into a you did it too thread.

Sure thing. Well, have fun.

 

[RobertP]

Sure thing. Well, have fun.

It makes me uncomfortable as it should you.

 

[James B White]

I was thinking it'd be interesting to write a US version, but this thread points out one of the problems: things changed over time. In the 18th century, management was more cruel--life in general was more cruel--but by the 19th century, especially the time just before the war, things had settled down a little and the more gruesome extreme punishments like heads on pikes, burning bodies in public, that kind of thing, were far rarer and less run of the mill. Yes, I know, in the post-war lynching era it came back. But someone accused of poisoning would be more apt to have a lawyer, a trial, and be transported in the 19th century, than be publicly burnt (just saw ErnieMac pointed out that might have happened to the others with Mark too).

But one could certainly write an 18th century guide--and I don't know if there were regional variations then--and a 19th century Richmond guide, and a very different 19th century Selma Alabama guide.

There are actually some real guides from the period, which obviously are written to look very humane because the masters are so proud of them. I think there's one or two in DeBow's Review called "Manaagement of Negroes." Let me go look.

Okay, this is what I was thinking of, but wow, try googling "management of negroes" and you'll get swamped with period articles.

http://invention.smithsonian.org/centerpieces/whole_cloth/u2ei/u2materials/deBow.html

The above is readable, a bunch of short rules in short paragraphs. These others, not so much.

The following is just brutal for its lack of paragraphs, but it's about the same topic from the Commercial Review, 1851

http://www.agsas.org/howto/racerelations/management2.shtml

Then we have below two Virginia slaveowners debating management in 1837, also without many paragraphs:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5801/

And that's just from one quick search. I haven't read them all. Sticks in my mind there's more in DeBow's, and looks like there's more elsewhere too. Needless to say, such things are like the Martha Stewart of slave management, so at best they can be taken as the upper limit of what was considered necessary, but a more realistic "fictional" modern guide would be better going by what seemed to be average.

 

[FahanParish]

Providence Rhode Island was a major "intake port" for African slaves through the 1700s. The colonial wealth that was Providence's was derived from building and outfitting ships for the slave trade and from the trade itself - all northern colonies allowed slavery in the 1700s and the slaves owned in the northern colonies came through Providence. There's a fascinating book and documentary made by a descendant of the DeWolf family who discovers that her family's continuing wealth was first built as the nation's largest slavetraders.

It's painful for me to read accounts such as the one you posted - not because it happened in the North but because it's horrific. Having taught 18th and 19th century American history for many years, I'm familiar with the slow and difficult process of emancipation in the North and with the fact that ultimately slavery did not prove profitable in the North. Slavery along with the cotton industry was actually in decline in the South until a clever Yale graduate invented the cotton gin and revived the cotton industry and in doing that revived slavery.

If slavery in the long run had proved itself profitable in the North, the emancipation movement there - largely initiated by Quakers - may well not have taken hold. As a historian, I cringe when every US textbook says there were no slaves in the North by the time of the Civil War because it's not true and worse - can leads to a very mistaken righteous attitude. Lincoln's touted Emancipation Proclamation specifically excluded slaves in any northern states and the letters and diaries of Union soldiers - not all but more than a few - reflect their disapproval and disgust with the Emancipation Proclamation saying they'd enlisted to put down a rebellion not to free slaves.

History when you really get into it holds many uncomfortable truths.

 

[James B White]

As a historian, I cringe when every US textbook says there were no slaves in the North by the time of the Civil War because it's not true and worse - can leads to a very mistaken righteous attitude.

Do you mean there were slaves among the states that didn't secede? Absolutely. The whole border was full of slave states: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, DC (not a state, I know), Delaware. So if one defines "the north" as "not part of the Confederacy," the textbooks are wrong.

If one defines "the north" geographically, though, it would be hard to argue those states were northern ones, and the only slaves north of them, so far as I know, consisted of a handful in New Jersey and that was it, so under that definition, the textbooks are right.

 

[RobertP]

Providence Rhode Island was a major "intake port" for African slaves through the 1700s. The colonial wealth that was Providence's was derived from building and outfitting ships for the slave trade and from the trade itself - all northern colonies allowed slavery in the 1700s and the slaves owned in the northern colonies came through Providence. There's a fascinating book and documentary made by a descendant of the DeWolf family who discovers that her family's continuing wealth was first built as the nation's largest slavetraders.

It's painful for me to read accounts such as the one you posted - not because it happened in the North but because it's horrific. Having taught 18th and 19th century American history for many years, I'm familiar with the slow and difficult process of emancipation in the North and with the fact that ultimately slavery did not prove profitable in the North. Slavery along with the cotton industry was actually in decline in the South until a clever Yale graduate invented the cotton gin and revived the cotton industry and in doing that revived slavery.

If slavery in the long run had proved itself profitable in the North, the emancipation movement there - largely initiated by Quakers - may well not have taken hold. As a historian, I cringe when every US textbook says there were no slaves in the North by the time of the Civil War because it's not true and worse - can leads to a very mistaken righteous attitude. Lincoln's touted Emancipation Proclamation specifically excluded slaves in any northern states and the letters and diaries of Union soldiers - not all but more than a few - reflect their disapproval and disgust with the Emancipation Proclamation saying they'd enlisted to put down a rebellion not to free slaves.

History when you really get into it holds many uncomfortable truths.

It's too bad this is turning into a rah rah cheer for the home team.

 

[Sid J.]

Providence Rhode Island was a major "intake port" for African slaves through the 1700s. The colonial wealth that was Providence's was derived from building and outfitting ships for the slave trade and from the trade itself - all northern colonies allowed slavery in the 1700s and the slaves owned in the northern colonies came through Providence. There's a fascinating book and documentary made by a descendant of the DeWolf family who discovers that her family's continuing wealth was first built as the nation's largest slavetraders.

It's painful for me to read accounts such as the one you posted - not because it happened in the North but because it's horrific. Having taught 18th and 19th century American history for many years, I'm familiar with the slow and difficult process of emancipation in the North and with the fact that ultimately slavery did not prove profitable in the North. Slavery along with the cotton industry was actually in decline in the South until a clever Yale graduate invented the cotton gin and revived the cotton industry and in doing that revived slavery.

If slavery in the long run had proved itself profitable in the North, the emancipation movement there - largely initiated by Quakers - may well not have taken hold. As a historian, I cringe when every US textbook says there were no slaves in the North by the time of the Civil War because it's not true and worse - can leads to a very mistaken righteous attitude. Lincoln's touted Emancipation Proclamation specifically excluded slaves in any northern states and the letters and diaries of Union soldiers - not all but more than a few - reflect their disapproval and disgust with the Emancipation Proclamation saying they'd enlisted to put down a rebellion not to free slaves.

History when you really get into it holds many uncomfortable truths.

In the general usage of the mid 19th century, "North" and "South" were commonly used as euphemisms for "free" or "slave" much along the lines of how "choice" and "life" are often used currently. This usage certainly does not reflect the prevelance of slavery in the 18th century, but rather reflects the divide as it existed circa 1820-1860.

For example one might see the phrase "Southern men denied access to the territories" in a speech or editorial from the late 1850s. This certainly does not mean a person hailing from VA would be refused admission, but rather that existing legislation would not protect his property in slaves. "Southern Rights" is a not a depiction of the right to sup mint juleps on the magnolia scented veranda under the moonlight, but rather understood, at that time, to mean slavery.

 

[wilber6150]

This story seems at least as relevant to understanding the plight of slaves in the United States as a fictious account of a Roman slaveowner.

What is the title of this forum? Is this thread a review of the book that this information came from or an attempt to back door create a flame thread from a short snippet of the book..

 

[wilber6150]

What is your point? You did it too? Call me shocked.

Not at all. It's a spin-off on the Roman Slave Management thread. Wilber is trying to make it into a you did it too discussion.

No Im trying to disuade posters from deliberatly misusing this forum like you did with the creation of this thread. And with that this thread is closed
posted as mod