Watter keuse het slawe gehad oor hul seksuele outonomie?

UH hL YS pX wD Cu lx Fc hx zI NV Le DY qb rG aL SU Bn XW IL

In watter mate het slawe in die Verenigde State van Amerika gesels¹oor hul seksuele outonomie?

Is dit in enige wet gekodifiseer?

_{1. Gestel die omvang is die VSA, gegewe die bron van die Roots TV -reeks, wat deur die OP gesê word.}

Die kort antwoord is: Glad nie.

Volgens die "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" deur Harriet Jacobs:

Slawe en die wet
Suidelike verkragtingswette bevat dubbele standaarde wat op ras gebaseer is. In die antebellumperiode is swart mans wat van verkragting beskuldig word, met die dood gestraf. Blanke mans kan vroulike slawe verkrag of seksueel mishandel sonder vrees vir straf. Kinders, vrye vroue, bediende en swart mans het ook soortgelyke behandeling van hul meesters of selfs hul meesters se kinders of familielede ondergaan. Terwyl vrye of blanke vroue hul oortreders van verkragting kon aankla, het slawevroue geen regsgeding gehad nie. Hul lyke het volgens die wet aan die eienaars behoort. Die seksuele misbruik van slawe was gedeeltelik gewortel in 'n patriargale suidelike kultuur wat alle vroue, swart en wit, as eiendom of losband behandel het.
Vanaf 1662 het die suidelike kolonies die beginsel van partus sequitur ventrem in die wet aanvaar, waardeur kinders van slawevroue die status van hul moeders inneem, ongeag die identiteit van die vader. Dit was 'n afwyking van die Engelse gemenereg, soos dit van toepassing was op Engelse vakke, wat meen dat kinders hul vader se status inneem. Sommige vaders van slawe -eienaars het hul kinders bevry, maar baie het dit nie gedoen nie. Die wet onthef mans van die verantwoordelikheid om hul kinders te onderhou, en beperk die 'geheim' van misvorming tot die slawekwartiere.
Gemengde ras kinders
Die geloof in rasse -suiwerheid dryf die suidelike kultuur se sterk verbod op seksuele verhoudings tussen wit vroue en swart mans, maar dieselfde kultuur beskerm in wese seksuele verhoudings tussen wit mans en swart vroue. Die gevolg was talle gemengde kinders. Die kinders van wit vaders en slawemoeders was gemengde rasse, wie se voorkoms oor die algemeen as mulatto geklassifiseer is (hierdie term het eers 'n persoon met wit en swart ouers beteken, maar het blykbaar 'n skynbaar gemengde ras gehad).
Baie gesinne van gemengde rasse dateer uit die koloniale Virginia, waarin blanke vroue, gewoonlik bediendes, kinders het met mans van Afrikaanse afkoms, beide slaaf en vry. As gevolg van die status van die moeder, is die kinders vry gebore en trou hulle dikwels met ander vry mense van kleur.
Slawe -teling
Slawe teling verwys na die praktyke van slawe -eienaarskap wat daarop gemik was om die voortplanting van slawe te beïnvloed om die wins en rykdom van slawehouers te verhoog. Hierdie teling is deels gemotiveer deur die federale verbod op die invoer van slawe in 1808, en in die lig van die Westerse mededinging in katoenproduksie. Slawe -teling behels gedwonge seksuele verhoudings tussen slawe en vrouens, seksuele verhoudings tussen meester en slaaf met die bedoeling om slawekinders te produseer, en die bevoordeel van vroulike slawe wat 'n relatief groot aantal kinders gebaar het.

Gesinne
Onder slawerny het slawehouers hele gesinne slawe besit, beheer en verkoop. Slawe -eienaars kan besluit om gesinne of familielede as wins te verkoop, as straf, of om skuld te betaal. Slawehouers het ook slawe weggegee aan volwasse kinders of ander familielede as trou -nedersettings. Hulle het beskou dat slawekinders gereed was om te werk en die huis verlaat nadat hulle 12-14 jaar oud was.
Byvroue en seksuele slawe
Sommige vroulike slawe wat 'luukse diensmeisies' genoem word, is op 'n veiling verkoop in byvroue of prostitusie, wat die 'luukse handel' genoem word.
In die beginjare van die kolonie Louisiana het Franse mans vroue en minnaresse uit die slawe geneem. Hulle het dikwels hul kinders van gemengde ras bevry en soms die minnaresse self. 'N Aansienlike klas gratis mense van kleur het ontwikkel in en om New Orleans en Mobile. Aan die einde van die 1700's het New Orleans 'n relatief geformaliseerde plaassisteem onder kleurleure, wat onder die Spaanse bewind voortgeduur het. Moeders het onderhandelings of bruidskat onderhandel om hul dogters meesteres van wit mans te wees. Die mans het soms betaal vir die opvoeding van hul kinders, veral hul seuns, wat hulle soms na Frankryk gestuur het vir skoolopleiding en militêre diens.
Verhouding van velkleur tot behandeling
In baie huishoudings behandel die slaaf die velkleur van die slaaf. Slawe met 'n donker vel het in die veld gewerk, terwyl slawe met 'n ligter vel as huisknegte gewerk het en betreklik beter klere, kos en huisvesting gehad het. Soms het planters, soos in president Thomas Jefferson se huishouding, slawe van gemengde rasse as huisknegte gebruik of ambagsmanne begunstig omdat hulle hul eie kinders of kinders van familielede was. Ses van Jefferson se latere huishoudelike slawe was die volwasse kinders van sy skoonpa John Wayles en Wayles se minnares Betty Hemings. Jefferson se vrou Martha het hulle saam met Betty Hemings en ander slawe geërf 'n jaar na haar huwelik met Jefferson, na die dood van haar vader. Op daardie tydstip was sommige van die Hemings-Wayles-kinders baie jonk; Sally Hemings, wat volgens baie mense later Jefferson se minnares geword het na die dood van sy vrou, was 'n baba ten tyde van Martha se erfenis. Hulle is opgelei as bekwame huisbediendes en het die top van die slawehiërargie in Monticello beklee.

Die slawe -kodes is vir elke staat geïndividualiseer, maar ek het geen seksuele outonomie waarna ek verwys het nie, of selfs direk met seks van enige aard gemoeid. Hulle was meer bekommerd oor die eiendomsreg en verantwoordelikhede en die beheer van die moontlikheid van opstand of opstand deur slawe teen die blanke establishment.

Waar seksuele (misbruik) gekodeer is, was dit in die ongelyke wette soos dit geskryf is vir dinge soos verkragting. Die verkragtingswette was egter in die suidelike state baie erger as wat jy jou kan voorstel. Slawe was die eiendom van hul eienaars. Tydperk. Hierdie denkwyse, min of meer, vertaal in enige wit man, sou kon doen soos hy wil met enige slawe.

Enige slaaf wat skuldig bevind is aan brandstigting, verkragting van 'n blanke vrou of sameswering om in opstand te kom, is doodgemaak. Aangesien die slavin egter losbandig was, was 'n wit man wat haar verkrag het, slegs skuldig aan 'n oortreding op die eienaar se eiendom. Verkragting was algemeen op die plantasie, en baie min gevalle is ooit aangemeld.
Slawe lewe en slawe kodes

Maar as dit by die koperbande kom, kon enige Blanke 'n slaaf met geweld neem en nooit teregstaan op aanklag van verkragting nie. Dit was eenvoudig nie. Enige blanke vrou kan (en sou) 'n swart verkragter as sodanig aankla. Trouens, 'n Southern White Belle, selfs met 'n negerliefhebber, sou die slaaf bloot beskuldig van verkragting en die man sou doodgemaak word.

Die taai paaltjie was egter dat geen White Southern Gentleman van verkragting aangekla (of sou) kon word nie enige vrou, van enige ras of slawestatus. As 'n blanke 'n blanke vrou seksueel sou aanrand, sou hy nie skuldig bevind word aan verkragting nie. Hy mag wees gemaak om te betaal (hetsy geldelik, of miskien deur 'n gedwonge huwelik of uit die skuilplek) deur die familielede van die betrokke vrou en slegs as hulle goed verbind was. As 'n eienaar se dogter seksueel deur 'n heer geneem word, sou niemand dit eers raaksien nie. Daar sal beslis geen werklike aanklagte ingedien of aanvaar word nie, want daar is geen misdaad gepleeg nie.

(Maak hierdie opspringvenster toe om op hierdie bladsy te bly)

Vir die negentienjarige Celia, 'n slaaf op 'n plaas in Missouri, was vyf jaar se herhaaldelike verkragting deur haar middeljarige eienaar genoeg. In die nag van 23 Junie 1855 sou sy later aan 'n verslaggewer sê: "Die duiwel het in my vasgekeer" en Celia het haar meester noodlottig geklap toe hy haar in haar kajuit nader. Die moordverhoor van die slaaf Celia, in 'n tyd toe die twis oor slawerny nuwe hoogtes bereik het, het fundamentele vrae laat ontstaan oor die regte van slawe om terug te veg teen die ergste slawerny se misbruik.

Rondom 1820 het Robert Newsom en sy gesin Virginia verlaat en weswaarts gegaan en uiteindelik grond langs die Middelrivier in die suide van Callaway County, Missouri, gevestig. Teen 1850 (volgens die sensus) het Newsom agt-honderd hektaar grond en vee besit wat perde, melkkoeie, vleisbeeste, varke, skape en twee osse insluit. Soos die meerderheid van die boere in Callaway County, het Newsom ook slawe besit- vyf slawe van 1850 af.

Gedurende die somer van 1850 koop Newsom van 'n slawe -eienaar in die naburige Audrain County 'n sesde slaaf, 'n veertienjarige meisie met die naam Celia. Kort nadat sy saam met Celia na sy plaas teruggekeer het, het Newsom haar verkrag. Vir vroulike slawe was verkragting 'n 'steeds 'n bedreiging' en, te dikwels, 'n werklikheid. In die volgende vyf jaar sou Newsom talle trekke na Celia se slawehut maak, geleë in 'n vrugtebome 'n entjie van sy hoofhuis af, en seks eis van die tiener wat hy as sy byvrou beskou het. Celia het tussen 1851 en 1855 twee kinders gebaar, die tweede was die seun van Robert Newsom.

Iewers voor 1855 het 'n ware minnaar, nog een van Newsom se slawe met die naam George, Celia se lewe binnegekom. George het by verskeie geleenthede in Celia se kajuit 'gebly', hoewel dit onbekend is vir 'n paar uur of 'n hele nag. Aan die einde van die winter, in Februarie of vroeg in Maart, van 1855, het Celia weer swanger geword. Die swangerskap het George geraak en veroorsaak dat hy daarop aandring dat Celia 'n einde maak aan die patroon van seksuele uitbuiting deur Newsom wat tot op daardie tydstip voortgeduur het. George het Celia in kennis gestel dat "hy niks meer met haar te doen sou hê as sy nie die ou man verlaat nie" [verhoorgetuienis van Jefferson Jones].

Celia het die dogters van Newsom, Virginia en Mary, genader en hul hulp gevra om Newsom te kry 'om op te hou dwing terwyl sy siek was'. Dit is nie duidelik of een van die Newsom -dogters enige poging aangewend het om namens Celia in te gryp nie, maar dit is bekend dat die seksuele aanrandings voortgeduur het. In wanhoop het Celia Newsom gesmeek om haar alleen te laat, ten minste deur haar swangerskap, maar die slawe -eienaar was onontvanklik vir haar pleidooie.

Op 23 Junie 1855 het Newsom aan Celia gesê "hy kom die aand na haar kajuit." Omstreeks 22:00 verlaat Newsom sy slaapkamer en stap die vyftig meter na Celia se baksteenkajuit. Toe Newsom vir Celia sê dat dit tyd is vir seks, trek sy terug na 'n hoek van die kajuit. Hy vorder na haar toe. Celia gryp toe 'n stokkie wat vroeër die dag daar geplaas is. Celia lig die stok op, 'omtrent so groot soos die boonste gedeelte van 'n Windsor -stoel, maar nie so lank nie', en slaan haar meester hard oor die kop. Newsom kreun en "sak op 'n kruk of na die vloer toe." Celia klop Newsom 'n tweede keer oor die kop en vermoor hom [getuienis van Jefferson Jones] .

Nadat sy seker gemaak het dat 'hy dood is', het Celia 'n uur of wat daaroor nadink oor haar volgende stap. Uiteindelik besluit sy om Newsom se lyk in haar kaggel te verbrand. Sy het buitentoe gegaan om stawe bymekaar te maak en dit gebruik om 'n woedende vuur te bou. Toe sleep sy die lyk na die kaggel en stoot dit in die vlamme. Sy hou die vuur deur die nag. Vroegoggend het sy beenfragmente uit die as opgetel en teen die haardstene geslaan en die deeltjies weer in die kaggel gegooi. 'N Paar groter stukke been sit sy "onder die haard en onder die vloer tussen 'n slaapbank en die kaggel." Kort voor dagbreek het Celia van die as na die erf gedra en toe gaan slaap.

In die oggend, toe die gesin van Newsom al hoe meer besorg was oor Robert se verdwyning, het Celia die hulp van Newsom se kleinseun, Coffee Waynescot, ingeroep om as uit haar kaggel en in 'n emmer te skop. Koffie getuig later besluit hy om te help toe die slaaf sê: "sy sal my twee dosyn okkerneute gee as ek die as uitdra, sê ek lekker lek." In opdrag van Celia, versprei Coffee die oorskot van sy oupa langs 'n pad wat na die stalle lei.

Ondersoek en ondersoek

Die oggend van die 24ste het Virginia Newsom na haar pa gesoek langs die nabygeleë rivieroewers en baaie, uit vrees dat hy moontlik sou verdrink het. Teen die oggend het die soekgeselskap gegroei met verskeie bure en Newsom se seun, Harry. Na vrugtelose ure se soektog, begin die vermoede hom wend tot George, wat vermoedelik gemotiveer was om Newsom uit jaloesie dood te maak. William Powell, eienaar van beide slawe en 'n aangrensende plaas van 160 hektaar, het George ondervra. George ontken enige kennis van wat met Newsom gebeur het, maar voeg by-agterdogtig "dat dit nie die moeite werd was om na hom te soek nie, behalwe naby die huis." Gekonfronteer met heel waarskynlik ernstige dreigemente, het George uiteindelik 'n ekstra verdoemende bietjie inligting verskaf. Hy het aan Powell gesê "hy het geglo dat die laaste stap wat [Newsom] gedoen het, langs die pad was, en wys na die pad wat van die huis na die negerhut lei." George se kommentaar het ondersoekers onmiddellik tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat Newsom in Celia se kajuit vermoor is.

Toe 'n soektog in Celia se kajuit nie die lyk van Newsom kon opspoor nie, het Powell en die ander Celia haar gewone pligte in die kombuis van die Newsom -huis gevind. Powell beweer valslik dat George aan die soekgeselskap gesê het dat 'sy weet waar haar meester is', in die hoop dat hierdie benadering 'n vinnige bekentenis van Celia kan veroorsaak. In plaas daarvan ontken Celia enige kennis van haar meester se lot. Gekonfronteer met toenemende dreigemente, waaronder die dreigement dat haar kinders van haar weggeneem word, het Celia voortgegaan om op haar onskuld aan te dring. (Sy het ongetwyfeld verstaan dat die erkenning van die moord op haar meester 'n nog ernstiger bedreiging vir haar verhouding met haar kinders sou wees.) Uiteindelik het Celia egter erken dat Newsom inderdaad haar kajuit besoek het op soek na seks die vorige aand. Sy het daarop aangedring dat Newsom nooit in haar kajuit ingegaan het nie, maar eerder dat sy hom geslaan het toe hy by die venster ingeleun het en "hy het buite geval en sy het niks meer van hom gesien nie." Ten slotte, nadat sy ''n geruime tyd geweier het om nog iets te vertel,' beloof Celia om meer te vertel as Powell 'twee mans [Newsom se twee seuns] uit die kamer sou stuur. Toe Harry en David vertrek, het Celia die moord op Robert Newsom erken.

Na die bekentenis van Celia het die soekgeselskap Newsom se as langs die pad na die stalle opgespoor. Hulle het ook stukkies bene bymekaargemaak uit Celia se kaggel, groter beenfragmente onder die haardsteen, en Newsom se verbrande gespe, knope en swart sakmes. Die versamelde items is in 'n boks geplaas om uitgestal te word tydens die geregtelike doodsondersoek.

Op 'n beëdigde verklaring wat deur David Newsom ingedien is, het die saak van die staat Missouri teen Celia begin, 'n slaaf. Twee vrederegters, ses plaaslike inwoners uit 'n geregtelike doodsondersoek en drie geroepe getuies wat almal op die oggend van 25 Junie byeengekom het in die Newsom -woning. . Die twaalfjarige Coffee Waynescot het aan jurielede van Celia se versoek gesê dat hy die as van sy oupa langs die pad moet versprei. Die derde en laaste getuie was Celia, wat herbevestig het dat sy Newsom vermoor het, maar daarop aangedring het dat "sy nie van plan was om hom dood te maak toe sy hom tref nie, maar hom net wou seermaak." Die geregtelike doodsondersoek -jurie het vinnig vasgestel dat die moontlike oorsaak bestaan dat Celia Robert Newsom op 'n opsetlike en opsetlike wyse vermoor het, en die slavin is beveel om na die gevangenis van Callaway County in Fulton, nege kilometer noord van die plaas Newsom, geneem te word.

Twyfel daaroor of Celia haar misdaad sonder hulp sou kon afskrik, en die balju van die County County Sheriff, William Snell, het twee mans, Jefferson Jones en Thomas Shoatman, toegelaat om Celia in haar tronksel verder te ondervra. Celia het 'n paar ekstra besonderhede by haar oorspronklike verhaal gevoeg en beskryf die geskiedenis van verkragting en seksuele uitbuiting wat kort na haar aankoms op die plaas Newsom begin het, maar sy
het steeds ontken dat George 'n rol gespeel het in die dood van Newsom of die beskikking van sy liggaam.

Celia se verhoor het gekom in 'n tyd van toenemende spanning oor die kwessie van slawerny. In 1854 het die Kongres die Kansas-Nebraska Act goedgekeur, wat die Missouri-kompromie van 1820 herroep het en setlaars in daardie gebiede toegelaat het om self te besluit of slawerny binne hul grense toegelaat word. Noordelike opposisie teen die nuwe wet het gelei tot die stigting van die Republikeinse Party en veldtogte deur beide pro-slawerny en anti-slawerny groepe om die uitkomste van die verkiesing in Kansas te beïnvloed. Sommige prominente Missouri -figure, soos
Die Amerikaanse senator David Atchinson en die president van die Universiteit van Missouri, James Shannon, het hul inwoners van die slawe-staat aangemoedig om die pogings van afskaffers wat na Kansas verhuis het, aan te spoor in die hoop om dit sonder slawe te hou. Die menigte van Missouriërs het beide Vrye-kiesers in Kansans aangeval en mede-Missouriërs gedreig wat dit gewaag het om hul boelietaktiek te kritiseer. Teen die somer van 1855 was Missouri oorstroom met proslavery -retoriek en toenemend aktiewe waaksaamheidsgroepe wat georganiseer is om te verseker dat Kansas as 'n slawestaat die Unie sou betree. Op 6 Oktober, drie dae voor die aanvang van Celia se verhoor, arriveer John Brown in 'n Kansas met twee staatswetgewers, een wat Kansas se toelating as 'n vrystaat ondersteun en een wat slawewette aanneem. Aan die westelike grens van Missouri het die moontlikheid van burgeroorlog werklik gelyk.

Die politieke implikasies van Celia se verhoor kon die regter William Hall nie ontgaan het nie. Sekerlik, het hy geweet, het die slawerny Missourians verwag dat Celia sou hang. Hall se keuse as die verdedigingsadvokaat van Celia, John Jameson, was veilig. Jameson se reputasie as 'n bekwame, geniale lid van die balie en sy gebrek aan betrokkenheid by die hewige slawernydebatte (ondanks die feit dat hy self 'n slawe -eienaar was) het verseker dat sy keuse nie ernstig betwis sou word nie. Jameson kon die verweerder bevredigende-maar nie te bevredigende-voorstelling gee. Boonop het Hall twee jong advokate, Isaac Boulware en Nathan Kouns, aangestel om Jameson by te staan in sy verdediging.

Die jurielede van Celia was natuurlik almal manlik. Hulle wissel in ouderdom van vier en dertig tot vyf en sewentig en was, met een uitsondering, getroud met kinders. Almal was boere. Verskeie was slawe -eienaars.

Die eerste getuie van die vervolging, Jefferson Jones, het sy gesprek met Celia in die gevangenis in Callaway County beskryf. Hy het die jurielede Celia vertel van die moord en hoe sy van die lyk ontslae geraak het. By kruisondervraging het Jameson Jones uitgevra oor wat Celia gesê het oor die seksuele aard van haar verhouding met die oorledene. Jones het getuig dat hy Newsom 'kort na haar aankoop by 'n boer in Audrain County' gehoor 'het verkrag, en dat Celia hom meegedeel het dat Newsom in die volgende vyf jaar steeds seks geëis het. Jones het ook erken dat Celia aan hom gesê het dat sy 'nie van plan was om' Newsom dood te maak ', net om hom seer te maak.

Virginia Waynescot, die oudste dogter van Newsom, getuig daarna. Sy het die soektog na haar pa tydens direkte ondersoek beskryf en getuig: "Ek het op al die paadjies en wandelinge en elke plek vir hom gejag", insluitend "grotte en langs die spruite", maar "ek het geen spoor van hom gevind nie." Virginia staan voor ondervraging oor kruisondervraging oor die moontlike motief van Celia vir die moord. Sy het erken dat Celia in Februarie swanger geraak het ('siek geword') 'en sedertdien siek was'- te siek om selfs vir die Newsom te kook.

Nadat Coffee Waynescot vir jurielede sy onwetende storting van sy grootvader se as beskryf het, het William Powell standpunt ingeneem. Jameson het Powell kragtig ondervra en erken dat hy die leier van die soekgeselskap erken het dat hy Celia gedreig het met die verlies van haar kinders en met hang om haar bekentenis te verkry. Powell het ook getuig dat Celia gekla het dat Newsom herhaaldelik seks geëis het en dat die slavin ander familielede van Newsom genader het om die verkragting te stop. Powell het ook erken dat Celia aan hom gesê het dat haar aanval op Newsom uit desperaatheid gekom het en dat sy net haar meester wou beseer, nie doodmaak nie. Na Powell se getuienis het die vervolging twee dokters wat die beenfragmente in Celia se kajuit gevind het, gebel as dié van 'n volwasse mens. Na die getuienis van die dokters het die staat sy saak berus.

Dr James Martin, 'n Fulton -dokter, het eers vir die verdediging getuig. (Celia, as 'n slaaf, is nie as 'n getuie geroep nie. Onder die bestaande wet in Missouri en die meeste ander state kon 'n kriminele beskuldigde nie-onder "die reël van die belanghebbende party"-getuig nie.) Jameson stel vir Martin vrae wat ontwerp is om aan te dui dat Celia nie die hulp van 'n ander persoon kan pleeg nie. Die advokaat het gevra of 'n menslike liggaam binne 'n bestek van slegs ses uur so heeltemal in 'n eenvoudige kaggel vernietig kan word, maar die vraag het 'n vervolgingsbeswaar gekry, wat regter Hall opgedoen het. Jameson het probeer om die vraag op 'n paar verskillende maniere te omskryf (bv. "Wat sou u, volgens u mening as 'n wetenskaplike geneesheer, die tyd neem om 'n volwasse menslike liggaam te vernietig?"), Maar dit het nie beter gegaan met die besware nie en was gedwing om laat vaar die vraaglyn.

Die tweede en laaste verdedigingsgetuie, Thomas Shoatman, het getuig dat Celia tydens haar onderhoud in die tronk gesê het dat nadat sy Newsom getref het die eerste keer dat hy "sy hand opgesteek het om haar te vang." Die regter het egter weer 'n beswaar aangeteken teen die getuienis, en die jurielede is opdrag gegee om die getuienis wat daarop dui dat die tweede en noodlottige slag voorgekom het, te ignoreer nadat Celia fisies bedreig is. Miskien tevrede dat die jurie ten minste die redes vir Celia se desperate daad gehoor het, het Jameson sy saak beredeneer.

Regter Hall se instruksies van die jurie maak vryspraak onmoontlik. Hy verwerp al nege voorgestelde verdedigingsinstruksies wat die kwessie van motief of graad van skuld aanspreek. Onder die wat uitgegooi is, was instruksies wat die jurie sou toegelaat het om 'n 'onskuldige' uitspraak terug te keer as die jurie glo dat Celia Newsom vermoor het in 'n poging om sy seksuele vooruitgang te beveg. Die verdediging het byvoorbeeld voorgestel dat die jurie meegedeel word dat hulle Celia kan vryspreek op grond van 'n selfverdedigingsteorie as sy glo dat sy ''n dreigende gevaar van gedwonge seksuele omgang is' '. In plaas daarvan om 'n lewensvatbare argument vir selfverdediging voor te stel, het Hall die jurielede opdrag gegee dat "die verweerder geen reg het om [Newsom] te vermoor nie, omdat hy in haar kajuit gekom het en met haar gepraat het oor omgang met haar of enigiets anders." Gegewe die bedreiging wat die voorgestelde instruksies van die verdediging aan gevestigde verstandhouding oor die minimale regte van slawe voorgelê het, moes Hall se opdragte vir vervolging geen verrassing gewees het nie. Enigiemand in die Callaway County-gerechtsgebou was waarskynlik ook nie verbaas toe die jurie op 10 Oktober vinnig vir Celia skuldig bevind aan moord in die eerste graad nie.

Die prokureurs van Celia het weer die volgende dag in die hof verskyn om 'n nuwe verhoor aan te gaan, gebaseer op regter Hall se bewysuitsprake tydens die proses en sy beweerde verkeerde instruksies. Regter Hall het vier-en-twintig uur geneem om die verweerskrif te oorweeg, verwerp dit dan en veroordeel Celia om "op die sestiende dag van November 1855 aan die nek gehang te word". Die verweerskrif dat die appèl teen die uitspraak van die regter by die hooggeregshof in Missouri toegestaan is, word toegestaan.

In die tronk in afwagting van haar teregstelling, het Celia 'n doodgebore kind gebaar. Toe die datum vir haar teregstelling nader kom, het Jefferson City nog geen woord gekry oor haar appèl wat by die hooggeregshof in Missouri ingedien is nie. Die moontlikheid dat sy voor haar appèl opgehang sou word, lyk vir Celia se verdedigingspan en vir wie sy ook al onder haar ondersteuners mag tel, meer werklik. Iets moes gedoen word.

Op 11 November, vyf dae voor haar afspraak met die galg, is Celia en 'n ander gevangene uit die gevangenis van Callaway County verwyder, hetsy met die hulp of met die kennis van haar advokate. Die verdedigingspan het in 'n brief aan die hooggeregshofregter Abiel Leonard wat minder as 'n maand na haar ontsnapping geskryf is, opgemerk dat Celia "deur iemand uit die tronk gehaal is" en dat hulle "meer as gewone belangstelling namens die meisie voel" Celia "weens die omstandighede van haar daad. Celia is laat in November tronk toe gestuur-deur wie dit nie bekend is nie-eers nadat haar geskeduleerde teregstellingsdatum verby was. Na haar terugkeer het regter Hall 'n nuwe teregstellingsdatum van 21 Desember vasgestel-'n datum wat die verdediging gehoop het, wat die hooggeregshof tyd sou gee om sy beslissing oor hul appèl te neem.

Die hooggeregshof het in haar appèl teen Celia beslis. In hul bevel van 14 Desember het die staatsregters gesê dat hulle 'goed geag het om die gebed van die versoeker te weier', omdat hulle 'geen waarskynlike rede vir haar appèl gevind het nie'. Die uitstel van teregstelling, het die regters geskryf, word 'geweier'.

Slawe kodes

Slawe -kodes was wette wat in elke staat ingestel is om die status van slawe en die regte van hul eienaars te definieer.

Leerdoelwitte

Verduidelik die doel van slawekodes en hoe dit in die Verenigde State geïmplementeer is

Belangrike wegneemetes

Kern punte

Slawe -kodes was staatswette wat ingestel is om die status van slawe en die regte van hul eienaars te bepaal.
Slawe -kodes het streng beperkings op slawe en reeds beperkte vryhede geplaas, dikwels om opstand of ontsnapping te voorkom, en het slawe -eienaars absolute mag oor hul slawe gegee.
Die slawe -kodes van elke staat het gewissel volgens die wet van die spesifieke streek.
Sommige kodes verbied slawe om wapens te besit, die plantasies van hul eienaars sonder toestemming te laat en 'n hand teen 'n blanke op te lig, selfs uit selfverdediging.

Sleutel terme

Slawe kodes: Slawe -kodes was wette in elke Amerikaanse staat wat die status van slawe en die regte van hul eienaars definieer en slawe -eienaars absolute mag oor hul slawe gee.

Slawe -kodes was staatswette wat ingestel is om die verhouding tussen slaaf en eienaar te reguleer, asook om die instelling van slawerny te legitimeer. Hulle is gebruik om die status van slawe en die regte van hul eienaars te bepaal. In die praktyk het hierdie kodes streng beperkings op slawe en reeds beperkte vryhede geplaas en slawe -eienaars absolute mag oor hul slawe gegee.

Afrikaanse slawe wat in die sewentiende-eeuse Virginia werk, deur 'n onbekende kunstenaar, 1670: Slawe is streng onder beheer gehou deur die opstel van slawekodes, of wette wat hul status en regte bepaal.

Baie bepalings is ontwerp om slawe -bevolkings te beheer en opstand te voorkom. Slawe is byvoorbeeld verbied om te lees en te skryf, en eienaars is verplig om gereeld slawehuise te soek vir verdagte aktiwiteite. Sommige kodes verbied slawe om wapens te besit, die plantasies van hul eienaars sonder toestemming te laat en 'n hand teen 'n blanke op te lig, selfs uit selfverdediging. Soms het slawe -kodes slawe regsbeskerming in die geval van 'n regsgeskil gebied, maar slegs na goeddunke van die eienaar van die slaaf.

Dit was algemeen dat slawe verbied is om vuurwapens te dra of om te leer lees, maar daar was dikwels belangrike variasies in slawekodes tussen state. In Alabama mag slawe byvoorbeeld nie die eienaar se perseel verlaat sonder skriftelike toestemming nie, en mag hulle ook nie goedere onder mekaar verruil nie. In Virginia is slawe nie toegelaat om binne die myl van hul meester of tydens openbare byeenkomste in die openbaar te drink nie. In Ohio is 'n geëmansipeerde slaaf verbied om terug te keer na die staat waarin hy of sy 'n slaaf was.

Slawe -kodes in die noordelike kolonies was minder streng as slawekodes in die suidelike kolonies, maar het baie soortgelyke bepalings bevat. Dit sluit in die verbod op slawe om die eienaar se grond te verlaat, blankes te verbied om alkohol aan slawe te verkoop en straf te spesifiseer vir pogings om te ontsnap.

Voorbeeld slawe kodes

Die slawe -kodes van die tabakkolonies (Delaware, Maryland, Noord -Carolina en Virginia) was gebaseer op die Virginia -kode wat in 1667 gestig is. Die Virginia -kode van 1682 het slawe verbied om wapens te besit, die plantasies van hul eienaars sonder toestemming te laat en 'n hand teen 'n blanke, selfs uit selfverdediging. Boonop kan 'n weggeloopte slaaf wat weier om oor te gee, sonder straf doodgemaak word.

Suid -Carolina stel sy slaafkode in 1712 vas, met die volgende bepalings:

Slawe is verbied om die eiendom van die eienaar te verlaat, tensy hulle toestemming verkry of deur 'n wit persoon vergesel is.
Elke slaaf wat probeer weghardloop en die kolonie verlaat, het die doodstraf gekry.
Elke slaaf wat vir 20 dae of langer gevangenskap ontwyk het, moes in die openbaar geslaan word vir die eerste oortreding wat met die letter “R ” op die regterwang gemerk is, sodat die tweede oortreding een oor verloor as hy 30 dae afwesig was vir die derde oortreding en om gekastreer te word vir die vierde oortreding.
Eienaars wat weier om die slawe -kode na te kom, is beboet en het eienaarskap van hul slawe verbeur.
Elke twee weke is daar na slawehuise gesoek na wapens of gesteelde goedere. Straf vir oortredings sluit in verlies van ore, handelsmerk, neusafskeiding en dood.
Geen slaaf is toegelaat om koring, ertjies of rys te betaal om varke, beeste of perde aan te hou om 'n boot te besit of 'n boot te bestuur of klere te koop, te verkoop of te dra as 'n negro -lap nie.

Die slawe -kode van Suid -Carolina is in 1739 hersien deur middel van die Negro Act, wat die volgende wysigings bevat:

Geen slaaf kon geleer word om te skryf, te werk op Sondag of om meer as 15 uur per dag in die somer en 14 uur in die winter te werk nie.
Opsetlike moord op 'n slaaf het 'n boete van 700 pond opgelê, en 'n passie vir moord op 350 pond.
Die boete vir die verberging van wegholslawe was 1 000 pond en 'n gevangenisstraf van tot een jaar.
'N Boete van 100 pond en ses maande gevangenisstraf is opgelê vir die in diens van enige swart of slaaf as bediende, vir die verkoop of gee van alkoholiese drank aan slawe en vir die onderrig van 'n slaaf in lees en skryf.
Die vrylating van 'n slaaf is verbied, behalwe deur die daad, en na 1820 slegs met toestemming van die wetgewer.

Die regulasies vir slawe in die District of Columbia, van wie die meeste dienaars van die regeringselite was, was van krag tot in die 1850's. In vergelyking met sommige suidelike kodes was die regulasies van die District of Columbia relatief matig. Slawe mag hul dienste huur en los van hul meesters woon, en gratis swartes mag selfs in die stad woon en skole bedryf. Die kode is dikwels gebruik deur prokureurs en klerke wat daarna verwys het by die opstel van kontrakte of opdragte.

Na die kompromie van 1850 is die verkoop van slawe in Washington DC verbied, en slawerny in die District of Columbia eindig in 1862 met byna 3 000 slawehouers 'n vergoeding. Die amptelike gedrukte slawe -kode van die distrik is slegs 'n maand vooraf uitgereik.

My Body, My Choice: Why the Principle of Bodily Autonomy Can Unite the Left

September 13, 2017

A woman dressed as the Statue of Liberty participates in a reproductive rights rally in New York City. Right now, the principle of bodily autonomy is most often invoked in the fight for reproductive justice. (Reuters / Henny Ray Abrams)

Teken in op Die Nasie

Kry Die NasieSe weeklikse nuusbrief

Deur aan te meld, bevestig u dat u ouer as 16 is en stem u in om af en toe promosie -aanbiedings te ontvang vir programme wat ondersteun word Die NasieSe joernalistiek. U kan ons Privaatheidsbeleid here.

Sluit aan by die Books & the Arts nuusbrief

Teken in op Die Nasie

Ondersteun progressiewe joernalistiek

Sluit vandag nog aan by ons Wynklub.

In the face of the constant terrors brought about by the misrule of President Donald Trump and his GOP enablers, how do we organize politically? Come up with a laundry list of laudable policies? Abandon identity politics (as if there are any politics that aren’t about some form of identity)? Micro-target the needs of specific communities? The diversity of the American left is where we find our strength, but it presents challenges to organizers and sloganeers alike.

As an advocate for disability rights, I’ve been seeking ways to link my core issues to those of other groups—people who prioritize reproductive justice, racial justice, decriminalization of narcotics, queer rights, antipoverty measures, and so much more. Each of us exists at specific intersections of needs and concerns. To win, we must find ways to unite our struggles without erasing our differences. One place they connect: the need to defend bodily autonomy.

“Bodily autonomy,” as an abstract philosophical principle, dates back at least to the ancient Greek philosophers. Over the centuries, legal scholars and political philosophers have thought hard about the relationship between rights and laws, the individual and the group, and the sovereign state and the autonomous individual. In American activist circles, bodily autonomy is most often invoked around the fight for reproductive rights. But what I haven’t seen is an effort to harness this principle in a way that binds our seemingly separate movements together.

Let’s start with the disability piece. I’m the father of a boy with Down syndrome. My concerns for him and for the extended disabled community include opposition to institutionalization, forced sterilization and other eugenic practices, involuntary surgery, mandatory drug regimes, denial of rights for disabled parents, protection for disabled children from violent caregivers and teachers, and lack of accommodations for non-typical bodies. In each case, these issues require a government that refrains from coercing disabled bodies and protects disabled bodies from private coercion. Bodily autonomy extends over these seemingly quite disparate issues.

We’re Failing Our Test Run for the Age of CRISPR

Reproductive rights has long been the most obvious place where we must empower each individual to exercise sovereignty over their bodies. Time and again, “pro-life” Democrats demand to be included within the party. Despite Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez’s flirtation with that faction, our response should be clear. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and to develop practices based on those beliefs, but the government may not regulate anyone’s access to full reproductive choice. A woman exercises sovereignty over her body and that’s not subject to debate, whether we are talking about abortion, birth control, or stopping sexual violence.

Reproductive rights and disability rights are often seen as being in tension, but they don’t have to be. As recently argued by attorney and autistic activist Shain Neumeier, history shows us that allowing the government to exercise control over reproduction always goes badly for disabled people. This is most famously visible in the history of eugenic sterilization of disabled men and women in the United States, but continues in more subtle battles about whether disabled people should be allowed to have sex at all. Disability rights and reproductive rights find common ground over resisting governmental intrusion into individual reproductive decisions. The abstract principle of bodily autonomy unites rather than fragments.

Bodily autonomy can extend into other rights campaigns, protecting, for example, Americans who identify as LGBTQ. The principle supports the basic right of transgender people to access surgery, hormones, and other medical care without discrimination. Moreover, while we’ve largely decriminalized non-heterosexual sexual practice, far-right theocrats always loom, looking to find new ways to legally punish homosexuality. Vice President Mike Pence allegedly supported conversion therapy when was he running for Congress in 2000 (Pence has denied this). Bodily autonomy gives us yet another way to articulate our opposition to this barbaric practice.

Huidige probleem

In fact, the rights of children emerge as particularly important, beyond the troubling issue of conversion therapy. Female genital mutilation, for example, runs against the right to control one’s own body, as does pain-based corporal punishment in all contexts.

Concerned about mass incarceration and the war on drugs? The principle works here too. You have the right to put substances in your body so long as you do so in a way that does not endanger others. We’re also going to need to decriminalize sex work as part of our respect for bodily autonomy. To all the libertarians disappointed in Attorney General Jeff Sessions, welcome back to the Democratic Party.

Black lives do matter. The basic human-rights and racial-justice framing remains paramount. But if we organize around the principle that a body is sovereign to itself, we are required to push back at stop-and-frisk and to limit the use of lethal force by cops. Black bodies deserve autonomy equal to all others’.

When we prioritize rights over one’s body, we have to defend universal access to healthy food, safe housing, and clean air and water. We fight against sexual assault and torture, and defend the rights of prisoners (including disabled prisoners, an issue of special concern to me).

There’s no use in pretending that coalition building is easy. No principle, including bodily autonomy, should be adhered to absolutely, as we’re going to need compassion and flexibility in order to coalesce. We live entangled lives filled with conflicting rights and choices. At the far limits where we argue extreme cases, basic principles often break down (think free speech or pacifism, for example). But a commitment to bodily autonomy could emerge as a core tenet of today’s left-wing movements.

In this difficult time, the forces afraid of change will try to divide us. If each activist group is fixated only on one slice of policy, then we can be pushed to compete over the scraps of reform. That’s not a recipe for electoral victory, let alone for justice.

Principles reveal the places where seemingly divergent campaigns overlap. We can join together around the fight for bodily autonomy and support specific policy initiatives that might otherwise seem outside our area of activism. It’s vital for a person chiefly focused on disability rights to labor for decriminalization of narcotics. Those who want to legalize marijuana should also join the struggle for reproductive freedom. These specific agendas are, and always have been, part of the same battle.

The complex leverage of concubines

Among the most complicated “relationships” during slavery were the intimate ones between enslaved women and their white enslavers. “These relations ran the gamut from rape and sodomy to romance, from chance encounters to obsession, concubinage and even ‘marriage,’” notes Brenda E. Stevenson, a professor of history at University of California, Los Angeles.

For the most part, scholars refer to the enslaved women in these relationships as 𠇌oncubines.” Often described as attractive mixed-race women who planters saw as desirable, many worked in the domestic realm, wore finer clothing than most enslaved women and experienced their first sexual encounter as a result of this “relationship.” History has recorded the names of many such women forced to be concubines𠅊mong them, Sally Hemings and her mother Elizabeth Hemings, Corinna Omohundro, Elizabeth Ramsey and her daughter Louisa Picquet, Julia Dickson and Elizabeth Keckley. Some shared their experiences in narratives, while others’ stories appear in the autobiographies of relatives or were buried in the private papers of their enslavers.

In North Carolina, Harriet Jacobs became one white man&aposs concubine, hid in a tiny attic garret for seven years and fled to the north, all to avoid being sexually exploited by her enslaver and to keep her children out of slavery. She later published a book called Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, becoming a prominent abolitionist and one of the first people to publicly broach the topic of sexual harassment of enslaved women.

We cannot know whether or not these exchanges were consensual, but we do know that enslaved women were usually the property of the men who exploited them, and this fact alone complicates our interpretation of this history. It’s hard to ignore the power dynamic involved, the often-significant age gap, the sometimes-incestuous connections or the varying social status of all people involved in these 𠇌onnections.” It’s even difficult to find appropriate nouns to describe them: “unions” and “relationships” seem presumptuous while “interactions” and 𠇎xchanges” seem benign, given that many concubines were sexually abused.

But despite the inherent power imbalance, some enslaved women used these forced interactions to find a better space for themselves, or secure freedom for their offspring. Some might have entered (assuming they could go into these willingly) these “unions” in order to escape the auction block, the field or other work spaces. But could enslaved women 𠇎nter” such relationships? Did they have a choice? If they did, could they exercise it? What was their negotiation angle?

Foremost was their capacity to bring new lives𠅊nd laborers—into the world. In an economy where black bodies were commodities, childbearing women were crucial economic multipliers. If they reliably added to their enslaver’s net worth, perhaps they could earn small privileges for themselves and their family—such as time off to nurse newborns or care for sick children, or visit a family member at a nearby plantation. And concubines who bore children to their white enslavers could sometimes leverage those deeper familial connections to secure better situations for themselves and their offspring, such as relief from certain work assignments, the chance to be educated and eventually set free. However, enslaved women who tried to leverage this power, and these interactions, had varying degrees of success. And these strategies were not always premeditated, as many enslaved women dreaded the idea of motherhood and preferred not to bring children into a world of captivity.

Lisa Picquet haggled for months with an enslaver, trying to purchase her mother&aposs freedom. She eventually got the price dropped from $1,000 to $900.

12 Years a Slave Examines the Old South’s Heart of Darkness

The audience leaving the theater after a recent screening of 12 Years a Slave looked deeply shaken. When asked about their intense reaction to the film, some described feeling as though they had just experienced slawerny. The movie felt believable, they reported, due not only to the caption indicating its basis in fact, but because the settings and characters gekyk authentic. Director Steve McQueen succeeded in connecting emotions to history, making viewers care about Solomon Northup's sudden descent into slavery.

Apologists may dismiss the gut-wrenching picture of human bondage drawn in 12 Years a Slave as over-the-top, Hollywood melodrama-arguing that master-slave relations were never as bad as the movie suggests-but McQueen has a convenient response: this is a movie based substantially on Solomon Northup's 1853 narrative, Twelve Years a Slave . At least two historians, Sue Eakin and Joseph Logsdon, have confirmed that Northup presented a remarkably accurate picture of antebellum slavery and plantation society near the Red River in Louisiana.

As indicated in both the book and movie, Solomon Northup lived as a free man with his wife and children in Saratoga Springs, New York. In 1841 two visitors tricked him into traveling to Washington, DC, to earn money in a circus. Once Northup was in the nation's capital, the men drugged him, marketed him as a slave, and earned several hundred dollars for their crime. Northup was shipped to the slave auctions of New Orleans and thereafter spent 12 years laboring in the cotton and sugar plantations of Louisiana until a white carpenter from Canada sent a communication to Northup's friends in New York. After some delay, help arrived. In 1853 Solomon Northup returned to his family as a free man.

With assistance from legal authorities, Northup endeavored to make his kidnappers pay for their crime. He failed to win convictions in a court of law, but succeeded in a broader sense. Twelve Years a Slave , written with assistance from David Wilson, a New York lawyer, became enormously popular, selling 30,000 copies. Twelve Years a Slave educated Americans about slave life in the Deep South and contributed to the growth of anti-slavery sentiment before the Civil War.

Steve McQueen's movie feels more like an unrelentingly hellish view of slavery than does Northup's book, which depicts the occasional opportunities slaves had for relief from the brutal plantation regimen-a few days during the Christmas holidays for rest, celebration, and good eating. Talented slaves could experience small degrees of liberty. On Sundays, Northup visited other locales, played his fiddle for whites at social events, and kept some of the earnings. Although McQueen portrays some of these activities, his two-hour movie cannot present the full range of observations that Northup offered in his 336-page narrative. McQueen's principal message concerns the horrors of slavery, both physical and psychological. The director cannot be faulted in this choice, for virtually all of the tragic scenes in his production are documented in Northup's book.

Much of the book and movie are devoted to the ten years that Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) lived and worked on the plantation of Edwin Epps, played by Michael Fassbender as a deranged sadist. In the book, Northup attributes much of Epps's violence to bouts with the bottle, but also provides enough evidence to give a director license to explore a more psychological interpretation. The movie shows Epps frequently using the whip or urging its use, a portrayal Northup's narrative supports: "It was rarely that a day passed by without one or more whippings." A "delinquent" slave who failed to bring in the requisite weight of cotton "was taken out, stripped, made to lie on the ground, face downwards, when he received a punishment proportional to the offense." McQueen dramatizes another disturbing aspect of Epps's behavior. Northup wrote about Epps's sexual exploitation of a talented slave woman, Patsey. "Her back bore the scars of a thousand stripes," wrote Northup, "because it had fallen her lot to be the slave of a licentious master and a jealous mistress."

The shortcoming in McQueen's depiction of slave life lies elsewhere. The movie's persistent focus fails to capture the small ways that slaves influenced their situations, managing to establish degrees of social and economic autonomy. Some discovered ways to negotiate relationships with masters and overseers on their own terms, and the slave community sustained its members during the harshest periods of Louisiana's cotton and sugar booms. Northup's book presents a more complex picture of slave life than does the movie, which concentrates sharply on themes of oppression and victimization.

Steeds, 12 Years a Slave offers many teachable moments for historians. Attention to details in the story can open opportunities for classroom discussion.

In the film's early scenes, Northup and other chattel are shipped from Washington, DC, to the market in New Orleans as part of the interstate slave trade that historian Ira Berlin has called the "Second Middle Passage." Those relocations created profound disruption in the lives of more than a million slaves. In the movie's scenes of a slave market in New Orleans, McQueen characterizes the slaves as helpless victims, never suggesting the degree of agency over their lives that some historians have argued slaves achieved. In Soul by Soul (1999), for instance, Walter Johnson shows the ways that slaves sometimes manipulated relationships in the marketplace, influencing potential buyers through facial expressions, body language, and responses to questions.

McQueen's movie gives a brief nod to Eugene D. Genovese's influential book Roll, Jordan, Roll (1974). Genovese argued that religion created an important survival mechanism for the slaves. Near the end of the film, Northup suffers emotional pain while members of the slave community sing the spiritual " Roll, Jordan, Roll. " Gradually, Northup finds comfort in the music's message and adds his robust voice to the singing.

In the book and in the movie, Northup's first master is a kindly man, who treated Northup and his other slaves relatively well. Yet, rather than diminish Northup's hunger for freedom, Master Ford's generosity stoked it. The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave provided a memorable and similar commentary on this idea: "I will give Mr. Freeland the credit of being the best master I ever had, till I became my own master."

Historians have long asked why so many slaveless whites, victims too of a political and economic system that favored slaveholders, defended the "peculiar institution." McQueen's film suggests that poor whites felt elevated socially through their oppressive behavior toward blacks. Northup believed southern whites acted with excessive aggression in their relationships with each other because they had long been in the habit of beating slaves. Slavery fostered a culture of violence, a fact that historians have documented extensively.

Audiences may be curious about events that occurred after the film ends. Information about Northup's last years is incomplete. He purchased property with the $3,000 he earned from sales of his book and lived for several years with his wife and son in the home of his son-in-law. The date of Northup's death is not known. Samuel Bass, the Canadian carpenter who was instrumental in Northup's rescue, remained in Louisiana. Whites living near the plantation where Northup worked did not learn about Bass's role in Northup's freedom because Northup refused to reveal Bass's name to the press. Bass died in 1853 at the home of a free black woman.

In 1863, when Union troops invaded the region of Louisiana where Northup worked, a New York lieutenant recorded in a diary that his men were in the vicinity of "old Epp's plantation," a man "made famous by the circumstance of his owning Solomon Northup." Later, when Union troops pulled out, 4,000 of the region's slaves quickly chose freedom. They marched off with the Union army.

The unique character of Northup's narrative made his book an unusually attractive subject for cinematic development. Most of the popular slave narratives of the antebellum period describe an individual's escape from slavery to freedom. Northup's case involved the unusual trajectory of freedom to slavery. Audiences can easily relate to the protagonist's situation, since Northup is depicted early in the movie as a proud, hard-working family man. The setting is 1841, but viewers cannot miss the connections to middle-class life in our times. McQueen's drama follows Northup as he descends into the hell of slavery.

Hollywood has produced several history-based films about wars and famous people in recent years, but has largely overlooked the subject of American slavery. Now, with the screening of 12 Years a Slave , curiosity about slavery in the antebellum South has been refreshed. Commentators on radio and television have been discussing the veracity and relevance of the portrayals in McQueen's film. Several movie reviewers have suggested 12 Years a Slave could receive several Oscars. Interest in Solomon Northup's once-obscure book is now intense. Electronic and print copies of his 1853 narrative are selling briskly. In recent weeks executives at the History Channel have announced they will sponsor a remake of the famous 1977 television miniseries Wortels . The popularity of 12 Years a Slave evidently influenced that decision. These reactions suggest that Steve McQueen's searing depiction has engaged the public's interest in a tragic chapter from American history.

Rise of the Democrats and the Advent of Jim Crow

In 1870, the conservative Democrats gained control of the North Carolina legislature and forced Superintendent Ashley out. His replacement, Alexander McIver, did not believe in integrated schools, nor did he seem to care about African American education in general. Democrats immediately adopted an amendment mandating segregated schools and enacted legislation that transferred public school funding from a state tax to a county tax, crushing the previous Republican system. 59 The efforts of white supremacy within the Democratic party were gaining steam.

School segregation was a topic of heated debate during the Constitutional Convention of 1875. White Republicans abandoned African American legislators in the state General Assembly, leaving them no choice but to acquiesce in order to preserve the rights they had. 60 White Republicans pushed instead for &ldquomutuality,&rdquo essentially arguing that African Americans should have control over their communities separate from whites. Mutuality later morphed into a Democratic argument for segregation. Voters ratified the new state constitution in 1876, legally mandating segregated schools. 61

In the early to mid-1880s, the education system in North Carolina remained ineffective for both African Americans and poor whites. Nearly half the state&rsquos population was illiterate. Racial and class conflict bred a general animosity towards education, especially publicly funded education. Whites, in particular, did not want their taxes to help fund black education, feeling, as the Greenville Eastern Reflector wrote in 1887, that educating blacks &ldquoruined a field hand.&rdquo 62 Sharecropping had, in effect, replaced slavery and guaranteed a reliable black labor force, but education could threaten everything.

Dayton Industrial School in Carthage, Moore County around 1880s.

In 1881, the federal government began offering aid to states that met certain requirements under the Blair Bill, which &ldquocalled for a direct appropriation from the national treasury, to be distributed to the states based on illiteracy.&rdquo 63 The Republican-controlled state senate championed a series of Blair&rsquos bills over the next decade, but the Democrat-controlled house blocked their efforts every time. While Democrats did support the idea of federal aid for education, they did not believe the federal government should place requirements on that aid, especially tax increases. 64

The most ardent supporters of federal aid for education were African American legislators and educators. For example, James E. O&rsquoHara, an African American state legislator, introduced companion legislation to the Blair Bill in 1886 that died in committee. African American educator and editor Charles N. Hunter convinced Blair himself to speak on the subject of education at the Negro Fair in Raleigh on November 11, 1886. In his speech Blair proclaimed that freedmen needed &ldquoland and education&rdquo and that &ldquothe first quality of a freeman is knowledge, for knowledge is power.&rdquo 65

Political debates over federal aid raged throughout the 1880s meanwhile, the state system of educational funding through taxes became highly unequal. In 1881, the General Assembly passed a bill providing property taxes from white landowners to fund white schools and from black landowners to fund black schools. Because whites made up the vast majority of landowners in North Carolina, this bill was a boon to white schools. For example, in 1886 in New Bern, per-pupil spending at the local public schools was $11 per white student, but $5 per black student. 66 Said the Democratic Raleigh News and Observer: &ldquoEach race should be responsible for the education of its children.&rdquo 67

Though segregation and Jim Crow continued to strengthen in the state, in 1886 the state Supreme Court found the 1881 tax law unconstitutional, citing the discrepancy in public education funding based upon race. 68 White backlash over this decision reverberated throughout the state, as shown when a local paper in New Bern said,

&ldquoA constitution that will not allow the white people to tax themselves for the benefit of their schools, after they have contributed liberally to negro schools, is not the constitution that the white people of North Carolina want.&rdquo 69

During the gubernatorial campaign of 1900, Charles B. Aycock tapped into the racism of white North Carolinians and used it to his political advantage. Aycock, a Democrat who had been lauded as the state&rsquos &ldquoeducation governor,&rdquo ran on a platform of black voter disenfranchisement and universal education. After his electoral triumph in 1900, Aycock and the Democrats soon etched obstacles to voting into the state constitution.

Charles Brantley Aycock, North Carolina governor 1901-1905.

Indeed, Aycock was no progressive southerner when it came to education his intentions were directly connected to suffrage and white supremacy. According to North Carolina&rsquos grandfather clause, all white males whose ancestors could vote in 1867 would be allowed to vote, whether they were literate or not. Most African Americans could not satisfy such criteria, since free blacks were banned from voting in North Carolina in 1835, while newly freedpeople did not gain the right to vote until 1868. Moreover, any white man who could read and write by 1908 would be able to vote thereafter, yet black men faced more difficult challenges to voting, such as the threat of white violence, even if they were literate. Thus, Aycock began advocating education for poor whites in order to ease illiterate whites&rsquo fears of disenfranchisement. 70

The Aycock administration also changed the tax code as it related to education funding, placing a higher tax burden on African Americans while disproportionately allocating funds towards white schools. James Y. Joyner, a staunch ally of Aycock and the North Carolina superintendent of public instruction from 1902 to 1919, traveled the state advising local districts on how to allocate education funds to favor whites. In one letter to a local superintendent, Joyner wrote: &ldquoIn most places it does not take more than one fourth as much to run the negro schools as it does to run the white schools for about the same number of children. The salaries paid to teachers are very probably much smaller&hellipif quietly managed, the negroes will give no trouble about it.&rdquo 71

James Y. Joyner.

The gap between black and white public education in North Carolina increased dramatically. From 1904 to 1920, annual spending per white school averaged $3,442 but only averaged $500 for black schools. School terms were longer in white majority counties that levied local taxes than in black majority counties. For example, in 1914 the average term for locally taxed white counties was 137 days, compared to 120 days in black counties. 72 Funds for rural black schools in North Carolina often went instead to rural white schools: Charles More, field organizer and inspector of rural schools in North Carolina at the time, wrote the State Department of Education that,

&ldquothousands of dollars earmarked for black education had actually been spent to build schools, hire additional teachers, or increase the school term for whites.&rdquo 73

Funding discrepancies created daunting obstacles for African American teachers and students. Most African American teachers were women because their lack of education, plus the opportunity to make more money in industrial and agricultural labor, steered many African American men away from the profession. Even educated black women had few professional options, so many became educators, despite significant challenges. Historian Valinda Littlefield found that African American teachers in North Carolina were paid an average of $20 less per month than white teachers, regardless of education or experience. Black teachers faced much larger classroom sizes and were given highly inadequate resources compared to white teachers. 74 According to one contemporaneous African American teacher in North Carolina, named Lola Solice,

&ldquo[T]he only supplies black teachers received from the county were a broom and a bucket [&hellip.] [T]extbooks for the black schools were rented by African American parents, and they were always second hand books from the white schools.&rdquo 75

Conditions were so poor that white northern philanthropists, pitched by Booker T. Washington and other black southern education leaders, began to send aid to southern black schools.

5 Creole Slave Revolt

Die Creole was a slave ship headed for New Orleans with a &ldquocargo&rdquo of 135 slaves&mdashbut it would never make it to port, because there was a real-life Django on board. Madison Washington was the ship&rsquos cook and a man who&rsquod escaped from slavery once before. He&rsquod fled to Canada, but returned to Virginia to rescue his wife, Susan. Unfortunately, he was captured and sold, but he had every intention of finishing his mission. Soos die Creole sailed through the Atlantic, Washington began making escape plans with 18 other slaves.

On the night of the rebellion, the chief mate suspected that something was going on. He confronted Washington, but the cook fought back, sparking the revolt. The rest of the slaves rushed their captors, and in the struggle, one slave and one slave owner were killed, and the captain was wounded. The slaves were now in control of the ship, and unlike the captives aboard the Amistad, these guys were experts in slave law, sailing, and geography. They knew their best chance was to sail for the Bahamas, a British colony where slavery was illegal. They also knew about navigation so they weren&rsquot going to be fooled like the Amistad slaves. They ordered the crew to take them to the Bahamas or be thrown overboard. The sailors chose wisely.

When they arrived in the Bahamas, all the slaves were freed except for Washington and his 18 conspirators, who were tried for mutiny. Fortunately, they were found not guilty and released. While the incident led the American government to create the Negro Seaman Act of 1842, which made life harder for black sailors, the story had a happy ending for Madison Washington. In a cliche straight from a Hollywood movie, it turned out that, unbeknownst to Washington, his wife had been a slave aboard the Creole the entire time, and the two were finally reunited.

What degree of choice did slaves have over their sexual autonomy? - Geskiedenis

The Meaning of Freedom:
Black and White Responses to the End of Slavery

Confederate defeat and the end of slavery brought far-reaching changes in the lives of all Southerners. The destruction of slavery led inevitably to conflict between blacks seeking to breathe substantive meaning into their freedom by asserting their independence from white control, and whites seeking to retain as much as possible of the old order.

The meaning of freedom itself became a point of conflict in the Reconstruction South. Former slaves relished the opportunity to flaunt their liberation from the innumerable regulations of slavery.

Immediately after the Civil War, they sought to give meaning to freedom by reuniting families separated under slavery, establishing their own churches and schools, seeking economic autonomy, and demanding equal civil and political rights .

Slave Resistance and Uprisings

Die Stono -rebellie

One notable uprising that became known as the Stono Rebellion took place in South Carolina in September of 1739. A literate slave named Jemmy led a large group of slaves in an armed insurrection against white colonists, killing several before militia stopped them. The militia suppressed the rebellion after a battle in which both slaves and militiamen were killed, and the remaining slaves were executed or sold to the West Indies.

Jemmy is believed to have been taken from the Kingdom of Kongo, an area where the Portuguese had introduced Catholicism. Other slaves in South Carolina may have had a similar background: Africa-born and familiar with whites. If so, this common background may have made it easier for Jemmy to communicate with the other slaves, enabling them to work together to resist their enslavement even though slaveholders labored to keep slaves from forging such communities.

In the wake of the Stono Rebellion, South Carolina passed a new slave code in 1740 called An Act for the Better Ordering and Governing of Negroes and Other Slaves in the Province—also known as the Negro Act of 1740. This law imposed new limits on slaves’ behavior, prohibiting slaves from assembling, growing their own food, learning to write, and traveling freely.

The New York Conspiracy Trials of 1741

Eighteenth-century New York City contained many different ethnic groups, and conflicts among them created strain. In addition, one in five New Yorkers was a slave, and tensions ran high between slaves and the free population, especially in the aftermath of the Stono Rebellion. These tensions burst forth in 1741.

That year, 13 fires broke out in the city, one of which reduced the colony’s Fort George to ashes. Ever fearful of an uprising among enslaved New Yorkers, the city’s whites spread rumors that the fires were part of a massive slave revolt in which slaves would murder whites, burn the city, and take over the colony. The Stono Rebellion was only a few years in the past, and throughout British America, fears of similar incidents were still fresh. Searching for solutions and convinced slaves were the principal danger, nervous British authorities interrogated almost 200 slaves and accused them of conspiracy. Rumors that Roman Catholics had joined the suspected conspiracy and planned to murder Protestant inhabitants of the city only added to the general hysteria. Very quickly, 200 people were arrested, including a large number of the city’s slave population.

After a quick series of trials at City Hall, known as the New York Conspiracy Trials of 1741, the government executed 17 New Yorkers. Thirteen black men were publicly burned at the stake, while the others (including four whites) were hanged. Seventy slaves were sold to the West Indies. Little evidence exists to prove that an elaborate conspiracy, like the one white New Yorkers imagined, actually existed. The events of 1741 in New York City illustrate the racial divide in British America, where panic among whites spurred great violence against and repression of the feared slave population. In the end, the Conspiracy Trials furthered white dominance and power over enslaved New Yorkers.

The New York Conspiracy Trials of 1741: In the wake of a series of fires throughout New York City, rumors of a slave revolt led authorities to convict and execute 30 people, including 13 black men who were publicly burned at the stake.