View source for Week 10 Questions/Comments

Woloch’s book--I found the reading The Cruel Mistress, to be a form of abolitionist propaganda to raise the argument about how inhumane slavery is. Angelina Grimke Weld would give great credibility to the abolitionist movement because of her observations of the southern community as she was once a southern herself.  These observations are highly detailed as if it was fresh from her memories yet these accounts in her memories are at least fourteen years old.  Thus it begs the question, did these mistresses really conduct themselves this way according to what Weld had witnessed? Are her memories that reliable? Or are these observations, in how mistresses treated their slaves, facts or exaggerations of the facts? –John Furner  

I think it is likely that these mistresses did conduct themselves in a way very similar to Weld's accounts even though a decent amount of time had passed between when she had witnessed the actions and when she recorded them for publishing. The treatment that she described I believe was very common of the slave owners to not see their slaves as fully human and therefore not treat them as such. However, the treatment that stood out most to me during this entry was how the mistress would not beat the slaves herself but have that slave's brother or sister beat them. I would think this would make them want to act out more.- Elizabeth Frank

As much as I doubt Grimke was lying, as something of an expatriate from Southern society, she had reason to make the South and slavery seem worse than it was, and her own interactions were certainly not the most positive with the institution.--A. Meyer. 

I think another interesting aspect of Weld reading was that the "Cruel Mistress" was a very devoutly religious person and was actively Christian.  Though this seems to be contradictory, it just shows (as previously mentioned) that slave owners did not view their slaves as people.  The Cruel Mistress did not feel that her Christian charity included African Americans, only white people. - F. Cobb

I agree with both the points made about “The Cruel Mistress.” I definitely agree about it seeming like a propaganda piece. As Andrea said, Weld probably wasn’t lying, but I think that since she was a Southern expatriate, she certainly could have been spicing up her observations in order to further her cause. I was also stricken by the religious aspect that Weld brings up and agree with the point that F. Cobb makes about the Mistress only thinking of white people as human beings. It seems to me that people are always talking about how God loves everyone equally in church. If this was the case back then, I feel like The Cruel Mistress probably would not have been treating her slaves so harshly. -- Kaitlyn G.

Donald Matthew's Religion in the Old South discusses this idea of the cruel owner, and even the owner in general as a person practicing cruel activities who is so religious, and the hypocrisy. Matthews develops the idea that the slaves are being "saved" and it's the duty of the Southerners, who are in a unique position to be trying to help their slaves, which the North "can't" understand. I think "The Cruel Mistress" fits very nicely with his ideas about how frustrated Southerners were. --A. Meyer

In Woloch's book I was intreged by Sarah Haynesworth Gayle's diary entries.  She sounded hurt by the actions of her slaves, as if she considered them to be her wayward children in a way.  It goes back to what we discussed in class about the idea that slaveowners believed they were "helping" their slaves and that the slaves owed their masters for that.  She sounded very disappointed for instance when some of her slaves started slacking off in their tasks as it were, and then she had to sell one of her favorite slaves because of it.  I guess it is one thing to hear it in class and another in writing from the time the idea that they couldnt understand why the slaves would be unhappy. --Mary P.

Going along with Mary, I was pretty bewildered by Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves. She says "it will not pain me now to part with the negroes... excessive indulgence has ruined them - they are idle yet full of complaints... I doubt if any of them would not believe a change of ownership could benefit them." She seems pretty annoyed at their behavior with this statement. She's almost getting sick of their attitude - and that leads me to what we discussed in class about white thoughts of slaves being like children. Gayle is getting sick of their attitude and is two seconds away from putting them in a time-out; it's just in this case the time-out is being sold to a different owner. -- Vanessa Smiley

Continuing with what Vanessa and Mary have said, I thought that Gayle's entries excellently demonstrated the seemingly-contradictory attitudes towards slaves as both children and property.  Vanessa compares Gayle to a mother frustrated with her wayward children, yet most mothers would still be pained by permanently parting with even the most disagreeable child.  It's interesting to see how Gayle goes back and forth between affection and dismissal of her slaves depending on the circumstances.  I also noticed that Gayle found some of her own self-worth in the respect of her slaves.  She wrote, "I no longer feel confident that my orders will be obeyed, and often when they are the obedience is accompanied by murmuring, sour looks, and often surly language, that almost put me beside myself."  She seems to be questioning her own abilities as a result of the slaves' disobedience.  What did other people think about this? --Ashley H.   

I agree with Mary, I think that it was interesting that Sarah Haynesworth Gayle was shocked that her slaves would rebell against her because it reflects the ideas we talked about in class where the masters would believe they were helping the slaves and they should be greatful. What also surprised me about this excerpt was that it shows that personal attachments between masters slaves did happen. Maybe these are just superficial attachments that don't really count as friendships, but it's closer than I would have initally thought possible. She made it seem like she cared about her slave Mike and thought about him long after he had gone. This is probably rare, but this shows that it did happen. -- Jennifer Feldhaus

I feel as though Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves were originally somewhat atypical.  She seemed to really care about her slaves and not really want seem like the overbearing plantation mistress.  However, when the slaves began to rebel in minor ways, like we learned in class, I believe her feelings became just.  I know this sounds kind of awful, but really, what's the point of having domestic help if they're not going to do anything? Gayle even mentions that her servants were driving her crazy because for about four months they have done absolutely nothing.  It kind of shows that shift towards the rebellious nature of slaves and the way they affected their masters in minor ways instead of an all out revolt. - Kelly W 

As Kelly pointed out, you can definitely see a form of slave resistance in the diary of Sarah Haynesworth Gayle. She notes that she doesn't know if her orders will be obeyed, and if they are, they are typically accompanied with murmuring and sour looks. Also, they were sluggish and inattentive. As we've learned through Prof McClurken's lectures, this was a way for a slave to maintain some form of dignity and self-respect.- Lisa W  

In "The Cruel Mistress" by Angelina Weld, I found it shocking how slave adults and children were treated the same when it came to punishment. From a slaveowner's point of view, it would make sense to me that if someone was your "property" that you would want to keep that "property" in the best shape possible, because then from a business perspective, you could get the  most use out of "it". This makes me wonder why such drastic beating occurred for minor offenses? Flogging a slave until he/she can't work doesn't help anything. The master would lose money for the time the slave could not work and had to recover from the harsh beating. It is implied that children were severly whipped and harshly scolded, as well. Again, this does not make sense. You would want your "property" to grow big and strong, not take a chance at beating him/her to a bloody pulp and risk killing off such a valuable investment.- Lisa W.

Woloch’ Book—Reading Louisa S. Cheeves McCord attack on Stowe was a bit difficult to swallow. It seems to me that she plays right into the Patriarchal system of having to assume the role to take care of those less fortunate.  Otherwise, she attempts to give credence to southern white man’s burden for the purpose to have slaves.  I find it amusing when she writes, “We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless.” (219)  Why I find this amusing is that she believes the white race must assume a god like status in the care of the less fortunate, thereby the less fortunate group could only prosper in a civilized world,  if they were enslaved by the white race; white man’s burden.  However, if the white race were so godlike or given providence as she claims, then why are southern slave owners dependant on slaves for their very existence?—John Furner

When I read that quote by McCord I immediately thought of paternalism in that they truly believed they were helping the less fortunate who could not care for themselves.  She goes on to say that "slavery, even in his own land, is his destiny and his refuge from extinction."  --Alex K.  

I had a hard time understanding McCord's arguments. She put forth a conservative viewpoint that did not necessarily match her own  power. McCord was educated, managed her own plantation with 200 slaves (until her marriage) and had a public forum for her opinions. She received most of her education in the North. Knowing how deep racism was ingrained in the southern lifestyle, I still expected a more enlightened view from a woman of such independence. -- Kelly Martin

In this week’s readings we see the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse and sexual exploitation of black women. Even whites were morally opposed to the institution of slavery as seen by Mary Chestnut’s diary. I was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women. I knew it was a practice, however I was under the impression that slave breeding was not very popular, and mostly masters relied on natural reproduction. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of slave breeding? In the essay by Jennings, she explicitly discusses the role of white, slave owners in the sexual abuse of women. Did masters rape and abuse women simply because they could or did the sexual stereotypes of African American women of the time (“animal – like”, foreign, African queens, exotic, sexually aggressive, etc.) play into it? How did mistresses react to the relationships between masters and female slaves and illegitimate children? Are there examples of mistresses mistreating a woman she suspected was sleeping with her husband (I know Weld discusses the “cruel mistress” but I did not get the impression that her violence was deemed inappropriate or based on accusations of infidelity). Was there any advantage(s) to sleeping with the master? -Mary Beth D.

Going along with Mary Beth, having to do with the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse of black men...I too was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women, and thought it was less popular than portrayed in the reading. It was a bit of a surprise to me...-Katie D.

In regards to slave breeding, I think the white masters forced it upon their slaves for purely economic reasons.  Slaves were expensive to buy and they wouldn't have to buy them if they were born into slavery.  They wanted the "strong, stoutly" slaves to reproduce with one another so they would have strong children to work for them.  - F. Cobb

In Rose William's Story, that deals with an important issue of the extent to which slave owners interfered in slave familty life and encouraged slaves to reproduce...I enjoyed reading how it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children, and child bearing increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the liklihood of her sale and separation from family members. It was in the owners interest to encourage reproduction and thereby increase the extent of his slave property.-Katie D.

I know that this is going to sound horrible and in many ways wrong, but the slave holders viewed their slaves as property, almost on the same grounds as cattle, right?  That being said, maybe in thier minds they saw the breeding of slaves as nothing more then a farmer would see breeding cattle.  Making sure the bloodlines were such that the product of the union will be of value and also insuring a certain number of offspring being born. As I said it sounds horrible but who knows what they might have been thinking, wrong thinking seems to be common place for slaveholders. --Mary P.

I agree with Mary.  Slave owners did consider their slaves as livestock.  If he manages to get a good breeding pair, it would save him a lot of money.  If I were Rose, I would have felt sorely tempted to run that hot poker through the master and than Rufus.  I admire the fact that Rose can be quite an understanding person. ---Cheryl

Rose's story was indeed a very good example of how slave owners envisioned slaves as a very good investment and that the female slaves would indeed reproduce and, in turn, increase the number of slaves on one owner's property without the owner having to pay anything more.  I felt bad that the master manipulated Rose, however, but I can completely understand how she felt she owed her master in return for keeping her with her family.  It seemed like a very bizarre situation and it makes me wonder, was this typical?  Were slaves normally made to feel guilty in order to obey their master, aside from the usual whipping or beating? - Kelly W

I was saddened by Rose's story for a variety of reasons, but I particularly noticed her choice never to marry because "one 'sperience am 'nough for dis nigger.  After what I does for de massa, I's never wants no truck with any man."  I wonder if it was common for women used in such a way at a young age to avoid sexual relations permanently. --Ashley H.


In the readings one of the things that stood out the most to me was in Modern Problems the article by Mrs. Virgina Hayes Shepard when she mentions Diana. I was surprised to see that when the master went to Diana to have sexual relations with her Diana actually went to her mistress for help. I thought that white mistresses would react badly to the idea that their husbands would be sleeping with the slaves but in DIana's case the mistress sympathized instead of becoming angry. It is stated that in part this is because she was also afraid of her husband. Is it possible that this is more common than we know because both the slave women and the mistresses were scared to bring it up?- Elizabeth Frank

I think that Diana would be the exception to the rule. In class we talked about how severe racial hierarchy was and while both women and African Americans were oppressed they did not form a bond. I think that white women more frequently used slaves to exercise the limited power to which they had access (like in Cruel Mistress). -Kelly Martin

I thought the document titled "Lucinda, a Free Woman, Asks to Be Reenslaved" was really interesting.  She probably thought about what her life would be like for her as a free Black woman, and she probably realized that there weren't that she wouldn't have a very good life.  Her life as a slave might be slightly better than her life as a free Black woman because as a slave she was with her husband, had a small place to live and got some food.  Her situation is similar to the situation of some criminals today.  Sometimes criminals who have just been released from jail want to go right back to jail, because they might have a better life in jail than out of it. In jail, they at least have a roof over their head and food to eat.  ~Katherine Stinson~

I too was intrigued with Lucinda's plea to be reenslaved.  I'm not sure I would say that she thought life would be "better" for her in slavery but rather perhaps she understood that in slvary she would find some sense of security.  She would be reunited with her husband but at the same time there was no telling that he wouldn't be sold to another owner at some later point in time.  I think it's difficult to understand or identitfy what Lucinda's rationing was in asking to be reenslaved other than the fact that she would be reunited with her husband.--E. Hufford

I agree with Katherine. Lucinda probably felt like life would be too difficult for her in a state she wasn't familiar with and with people she didn't know. It would be difficult and scary to leave behind everything you know. It is also interesting to see a relationship of obvious affection if not love between slaves on different farms. However, why doesn't the book tell us what happens? I think the decision made by the commonwealth would be really interesting to read. -- Allison J. 

I have a question - Lucinda petitioned to be reenslaved so that she could be with her husband; she didn't want to be sent off somewhere so she could be free and leave him where he was.  How typical was this?  Is this an abnormal situation or were emancipated slaves really asking for this sort of treatment regularly?  I feel as though this would be somewhat bizarre but I could be wrong.  Thoughts? Answers? - Kelly W

I thought Lucinda’s story was pretty intriguing too. Here she is with a chance for freedom, but is asking to be re-enslaved. I guess you guys have already said it all, but I guess the sense of security outweighed the appeal of freedom for her. I just found the whole thing to be interesting because there was no guarantee that her husband would not be sold to another farm or plantation. I wonder if there are any other records about this case. --Kaitlyn G.

I realize this may be a dumb question but here it goes anyway, why are there such discrepancies among masters and their treatment of slaves?  Are there any similiarities or connections among slave owners who were "kinder" to their slaves or among those masters who were unbearable?  Were some more religious than others, did the age of the master play a role, the location, etc.?  --E. Hufford

I was rather intrigued by the contrasting essays on freed black women, in Major Problems in American Women’s History.  The first essay that should the devotion and love a freed slave had for her husband was very heart warming.  She was willing to give up freedom in order to be with her love.  Then there are the next two essays that inspire free slave women to rally together and free all the slaves.  These last two essays cause me to believe that these women were highly educated because of the language they use to inspire others.---Cheryl

Wow. The essay that "Implores Other Free Black Women" to sign a petition to end slavery in D.C. is not so much imploring as yelling. I felt ashamed and lazy just reading it! This is really powerful writing and it is really very different from what I would have expected. The writer is obviously well educated, especially since they claim to be not only a woman but black as well. --Allison Johnson

I agree with Allison. The woman who wrote this obviously well educated, and she practically accuses all readers that they are slaves themselves - "a slave to hardness of heart." She's got some powerful words coming into play in this essay but she almost gets to the point of offensive. -- Vanessa Smiley

Thelma Jennings essay, "The Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women," really hits home all the major points of this topic we discussed in class. Like the idea of female slaves having a tougher life than male slaves because not only did they have to do the work equal of men, but they also had to bear and raise children and also "cope with sexual abuse" by their masters. And the idea of "slave breeding" affected the family life too - it "made it very difficult for couples to establish family relationships." The whole female gender role system we often place on women of modern times and white women of the period is completely disrupted and destroyed for black slave women. -- Vanessa Smiley

I was a bit confused by something in the reading that seemed contradictory.  In the author's description of the "Rose William's Story" piece, he explains that it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children because it increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the likelihood of her sale and separation from family members.  Then in the essay by Thelma Jennings she talks about women who practiced crude methods of birth control and abortion and inducing miscarriages   as a form of passive resistance.  She explains that this was common in a time when childbirth was dangerous and children could be sold at the master's whim.  So which is it? Can it be both? --Alex K.

The pros and cons of childbirth were weighed differently by different women.  While one woman might view having a child as extra security, another might view childbirth, especially in the case of breeding, as further oppression.  Forcing pregnancy on a woman against her will is a violation of the inalienable human right to choose your sexual partner, so some women would silently rebel through birth control methods.  Although most women could not prevent a forced sexual encounter, they could, to some degree control the fate of that encounter.  To successfully survive, a woman needed to learn how to exert some control over her future.  As Alex pointed out, the method of control varied with the experience of the woman. 

Its interesting to see the distinction between religious life of slaves and free-blacks.  Rose Williams stated, "Church?  Shucks, we-uns don't know what that means."  Whereas for Mary Still, organized religion is a big deal.  It was also interesting to see how "A Colored Woman" calls people slaves -slaves to their hard hearts.  Although I think her condemnation of many who seem apathetic is maybe a bit out of place.  Those free-blacks probably had a pretty good sense that their freedom was not necessarily set in stone, and if by some unfortunate circumstance they were to be enslaved, I don't think there would have been much of an investigation.  At the same time, her sense of urgency and power, though, are probably necessary to get people to act.  -Chris Plummer

In Sarah Haynesworth Gayle’s diary I wonder what “excessive indulgences” she was referring to that had made her slaves lazy, full of complaints, and defensive.  Sarah later blames her parents for her slaves disobeying her twenty-five years later because as a child her parents prevented her from abusing them.  When Sarah describes how she was unfairly treated by her parents compared to the slaves she sounds like a child who is jealous of an older sibling.  Sarah Gayle also seems to have less control over her life than other women we’ve read about.  For instance in another diary entry she writes about being too afraid to ask her husband where they are going to move and seems to accept the fact that he will make the decision without her input.  -Caitlin Quinn