During his terms in Congress, Randolph, the stepson of Tucker, one of Virginia's most distinguished jurists and abolitionists, worked to maintain the abolition of the African slave trade and to keep slavery out of those areas of the United States where it had been proscribed. Although an opponent of slavery and the slave trade, his voting record in Congress always followed the State's Rights view of the Constitution. Therefore, Randolph voted against any bill that came before Congress that tended to increase the Federal government's power (i.e., power not delegated to it by the Constitution) even if the bill tended to decrease slavery or the slave trade. Thus, some commentators have asserted that Randolph was voting to defend slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. Randolph and other Southerners were voting in defense of the Constitution. As John Randolph, John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, and a host of other Southerners would proclaim, there is no virtue in trampling upon the principles of the Constitution in the pursuit of a worthy cause. To do so is only to fall victim to the notion of letting the ends justify the means. Trampling upon the Constitution in order to emancipate slaves, and thus destroying the protection of freedom from Federal tyranny, would only promote the evil of bondage to all Americans. British politician, orator, and author Edmund Burke warned that in pursuing a worthy goal by unjust means one would "deprecate the value of freedom Preventing this deprecation of freedom was the major motivating factor for Randolph, Calhoun, Davis, and other Southerners.
Not only did Southern and English statesmen oppose the view that the ends justify the means, so did a noted Northern jurist. Chancellor James Kent, in Commentaries on American Law, noted that "[n]o nation had a right ... to procure an eminent good by means that were unlawful; or to press forward to a great principle, by breaking through other great principles that stood in the way" [emphasis added].39 It should be instructive to the skeptical that the above- mentioned statement by Kent was made because America would not allow its maritime vessels to be boarded by foreign navies in search of slave traders. Even in pursuit of the worthy goal of ending the slave trade, the sovereign rights of America upon the high seas could not be sacrificed. This view was upheld by the Congress and the president of the United States; therefore, one must ask, were they "defending slavery"? Even John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts got involved in the issue of protecting the maritime rights of America, and thus allowing the continuation of many slave-trading ventures.40 Can it be maintained that John Q. Adams was a defender of the African slave trade? The clear answer to this questions is no. What was being defended was the principle that the ends do not justify the means. This is the lesson which Burke, Kent, Adams, and a host of other notable statesmen were endeavoring to teach the world. That which was true in the early history of America is true today: Often in the mad rush to "do good," the very foundation of American liberty is endangered.
It was against the incessant push for change by the radicals of the North that Southerners such as John Randolph took their stand. Randolph saw in the North's never-ending demand for change, the leading edge of the floodtide of revolution. This is the very revolution that the Radical Abolitionists set loose upon America, a revolution that bears bitter fruit to this day.
Yet, this man, John Randolph of Roanoke, who resisted the radical change in society and the trampling upon constitutional rights in the pursuit of a worthy objective, was an enemy of slavery. Not only an enemy of slavery, he was a friend to his slaves. Randolph was the archetypical paternalistic Southern slaveholder. Prior to his death and at great expense to himself, Randolph made preparations for his slaves' emancipation. Upon his death, his slaves were granted their freedom and given homes in Ohio, bought and paid for by John Randolph. Unfortunately for his former slaves, the good freedom-loving people of Ohio would not allow Randolph's former slaves to live there.4' Yet, it is constantly proclaimed by the liberal establishment that Northerners, unlike their Southern neighbors, believe in equality and freedom for African-Americans.
Paternalism was a natural outgrowth of the institution of slavery as it existed in the South during the antebellum period. Unlike the slave/master relationship in the Caribbean, in the antebellum South the slave and master lived, worked, died, and were buried within sight of each other. This close working relationship in the South led to the slaveholder knowing more about the needs of his slaves than did the absentee masters of the Caribbean plantations. The care given to their slaves by Southern slaveholders is demonstrated by the phenomenal growth rate in the population of African-Americans during the antebellum period. From the introduction of slavery in the South until the advent of the War, around 400,000 Africans were imported into the South. From this modest number (remember that more than 20,000,000 Africans were taken from Africa to the New World), the African-American population in the United States grew to more than 4,000,000. The fact remains, that of all the slave cultures within the New World, it was only in the American South that African-Americans reproduced themselves at such a phenomenal rate.42 In order to maintain a reliable labor force in South America and the Caribbean, it was necessary to maintain a continuous flow of new slaves from Africa. Although there was some demand for the renewal of the importation of slaves from Africa, the South never needed to resort to that necessity.
The closeness of the slave/master community on the plantations of the Old South was not solely the product of Southern altruism. After all, the one major problem in maintaining a slave society was keeping the slaves docile. How does one maintain an orderly life not only for the slaves but also for the master class if one is holding people in a work force against their will? The South, with its biblical world-view answered that question by creating a system of labor in which the slave would be well treated. This was not a one-sided effort. Both the slave and the master had much to gain by fostering a paternalistic system of forced labor. The master would gain not only the favor and loyalty of his slaves, but also a group of contented workers. The slaves would gain a lenient master who would be considerate of their lives and wellbeing, one to whom the slaves could appeal for assistance in times of trial. In essence, both master and slaves found a way to ameliorate the harsher elements of the institution of slavery.43 Thus, each participant in the institution of slavery enlisted to make life within the slave/master relationship more tolerable. One thing is for sure, the paternalism of the Old South was a tacit recognition of the humanity of the slave. This tacit recognition of the slave's humanity, coupled with state laws that recognized the slave's dual identity as property and as a person, is proof positive of paternalism within the institution of Southern slavery.44 Thus, as many Southern slaveholders would attest, slaves were more than just property. Each Southern state recognized the humanity of the slaves by passing and enforcing laws for the benefit of the life of those in bondage. The rediscovery of this more humane aspect in the slave/master relationship has led some historians to assert that the slave was more than just an object of white oppression. Rather than being an object of the white man, the slave, in many ways, can be described as a subject in his own right.45 In other words, the slave played a more important role in antebellum society and had more input into the functioning of that society than either the liberals or the racists would have the nation believe.
Nothing is more revealing about the nature of the slave's life than the stories told by the former slaves themselves. During the Great Depression, the Federal government paid journalists to search out and record the accounts of the lives of America's last living slaves. Most of these folks were well into their seventh or eight decade when questioned about life during slavery. One of the most remarkable consequences of these accounts is the high number of former slaves who had positive recollections about their life as slaves and their relationship with their former master. These positive statements about slavery by former slaves have been criticized by many liberals. Allowing for some overstatement due to the passage of time, the words of these former slaves will be taken at face value. The following quotations from them will help
to demonstrate how well the paternalistic attitude between slave and master worked.
Ole Marster dead an'gone an Ole Mistis too, but I 'members `em jus'lak dey was, when dey looked atter us whenst we belonged to 'em or dey belong to us, I dunno which it was.... De times was better fo'de war ... I goes to church an' sings an' prays, an' when de good Lord teks me, I'se ready to go, en I specs to see Jesus an' Ole Mistis an' Ole Marster when I Bits to de he'benly land'!46
Even after the War, many slaves stayed on the plantations with their masters. Although not always the case, often a master who was on good terms with his slaves before freedom was the recipient of the good will and affection of his slaves after freedom. Former slave Ezra Adams noted:
De slaves on our plantation didn't stop workin' for old marster, even when dey was told dat dey was free. Us didn't want no more freedom than us was gittin' on our plantation already. Us knowed too well dat us was well took care of, wid plenty of vittles to eat and tight log and board houses to live in. De slaves, where I lived, knowed after de war dat they had abundance of dat somethin' called freedom, what they could not eat, wear, and sleep in. Yes, sir, they soon found out dat freedom ain't nothin' 'less you is got somethin' to live on and a place to call home. Dis livin' on liberty is lak young folks livin' on love after they gits married. It just don't
Former slave Simon Phillips of Alabama noted:
People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him.... Sometime we loaned the massa money when he was hard pushed.4"
From Texas, former slave Felix Haywood offers an insight into why slaves did not rise up and kill their masters during the War:
If every mother's son of a black had thrown 'way his hoe and took up a gun to fight for his own freedom along with the Yankees, the war'd be over before it began. But we didn't do it. We couldn't help stick to our masters. We couldn't no more shoot them than we could fly. My father and me used to talk 'bout it. We decided we was too soft and freedom wasn't goin' to be much to our good even if we had a education.49
The assertion by this former slave is substantiated by white Louisianian Kate Stone who wrote, "We would be practically helpless should the Negroes rise, since there are so few men left at home. It is only because the Negroes do not want to kill us that we are still The feelings of love and respect granted to the master's family by his bondsmen was the outgrowth of years of loving care extended by the master's family toward the slaves. On March 8, 1801, Oliver Hering wrote the following to Mary Helen Hering Middleton;
The pleasure of pleasing those poor people who labour for our advantage is a great argument with me in favor of living among them and will I doubt not compensate you for the trouble & fatigue of a 60 miles journey over bad roads.... I used to fancy myself the Father of a large Family in whose affection & fidelity I lived with the most perfect confidence.51
In a letter dated May 16, 1824, Mary Helen Hering Middleton wrote to Oliver Hering expressing her belief that their slaves lived in better conditions than the poor workers of England. Mrs. Middleton wrote, "It has often struck me that the slaves there are much better off in many respects than the poor in England who are doomed to labour and to starve."52
While editing the South Carolina Slave Narratives, Belinda Hurmence noted that former slaves often reported life during slavery in a rather stereotypical pro-Southern manner. While questioning the validity of such an image of life under slavery, she nevertheless noted that the more she studied the narratives, the more this view was reinforced. She even noted that there was little if any indignation displayed by former slaves toward their former masters.53 Again, this conclusion flies in the face of accepted knowledge about the institution of slavery "down South." Yet, the words of many historians and the very words of former slaves dispute the theories of modern liberal politically correct society. Indeed, life under slavery was trying and not one the author would wish to be visited upon any person or group of people. This is true not only because of the deprecation of the slave as an individual, but more important because of the deprecation of freedom itself. As Jefferson Davis noted, "The idea of freedom is captivating, that of slavery repellent to the moral sense of mankind in general."54 As sad as the consequences would be if an individual were reduced to slavery, the consequences would be even sadder if freedom were cheapened within a society by the acceptance of the system of slavery.
Southern paternalism was a system that bound master to slave just as surely as it bound slave to master. The master was obligated to see to the needs of his "people" from cradle to grave. No doubt, one reason why so many slaves remained loyal to their "white folks" during and after the War was their desire for the security that their masters provided.
As McManus noted, the average slave who escaped from the South to the North was a young, aggressive male, under forty years of There was a tacit agreement between the slave and master which stated that in exchange for the slave's service to his master during his productive years, the master would take care of the slave in his old age. This was a form of antebellum social security. A slave above the age of forty, having spent his life working for a good master, had much to lose by fleeing the plantation. As Phillips notes, "[T]o the slave himself, or to the community, the master was responsible for maintenance throughout life and for needful medical services.... The aged and infirm must be cared for along with the young and able-bodied, to maintain the good will of their kinsmen among the When told by his master that he was now a free man and no longer his slave, Toby, an old slave, remarked to his master, "You brought me here from Africa and North Carolina and I goiner' stay wid you as long as ever I get so►npin to eat. You gotter look after Thus is seen at work within the system of Southern paternalism, the need of the master to maintain the good will of his work force, its well as the need of the slave to be able to exercise some form of control over his life. Obviously, it was the self-interest of both the master and the slave that drove this relationship. While acknowledging that this Southern system of paternalism had its faults and blatant failures, the author cannot allow the neo-Radical Abolitionist view to stand unchallenged.
While the Southern plantation is often viewed as the only home for slaves "down South," only 12 percent of all slaveholders in the South were members of the planter class. In other words, more slaveholders were small holders of slaves than were rich plantation owners. At the time of the War for Southern Independence, 75 percent of Southern families did not own a slave. Out of a total white population of 8 million people, only 385,000 were slaveholders. Of those who did own slaves, 50 percent owned only one to five slaves, 38 percent owned from five to twenty slaves, and 12 percent owned twenty or more slaves, which was the minimum for classification as a planter.58
Claiborne Parish, Louisiana, provides a small glimpse into the life of slaves on some of the smaller slaveholding estates in the South. The slaves of that area made up approximately 47 percent of the population. A record of slave accounts at Old Germantown store yields quite a bit of information about the lives of the slaves on these small farms. The fact that slaves often worked and earned money for their own use is often scoffed at by liberals. Liberals assert that slaves could not own property; yet from the records of Germantown, it is possible to determine just how much property these particular slaves actually owned and how much freedom they enjoyed.
From early 1850, local slaves bought and sold items at the Germantown store. They maintained their own accounts with the store and bought freely from the owners.59 After working for their masters, the slaves were allowed free time to work and earn their own money. Many of the products of the slaves' own labor were used to purchase items at the Germantown store. Many slaves were hired by the store owners and paid the same wages that white laborers were being paid. Slaves sold many different items to the store such as eggs, vegetables, corn, charcoal, and handmade articles like horse collars; they even worked as shoe repairmen. No doubt there was an active trade going on betw
een white people and slaves in the area. Many slaves went into partnership with other slaves to produce goods for sale. For example, one partnership yielded 527 bushels of corn grown and sold; another partnership yielded more than 1,107 pounds of cotton. Again, it must be pointed out that this produce was the property of the slaves who worked the fields that their masters had given to them. But there was more than just selling going on.
Records of the Germantown store provide enlightenment as to what items were being purchased by the slaves. Due to the fact that a master was obligated to maintain the basic necessities of life for his slaves, all the money the slaves made in their free time could be considered "discretionary" income. Therefore, few items such as work clothes or basic foodstuffs are recorded as being sold to the slaves. The food that was purchased could be listed as snack items such as gingerbread, candy, molasses, cheese, raisins, honey, and sugar. Although reading and writing was not routinely taught to the slaves, sales of slates, ink, pencils, and pens has also been noted.°° Items listed as being bought by slaves fell into the following categories: food, sewing materials, clothing, household articles, and other miscellaneous articles. It should be noted that the clothing items consisted of luxury items such as a fine silk bonnet, white gloves, goatskin boots, a silk hat, and patent leather shoes.s' These luxury items were purchased by the slaves with money they had earned and with the approval of their masters.
Even whisky and tobacco were bought by slaves at Germantown. But even more surprising, the slaves bought knives of all descriptions as well as gunpowder and percussion caps. This fact surely debunks the liberal concept of the downtrodden oppressed slaves of the Old South. In the nineteenth century, knives were equivalent to the modern-day Saturday night specials. Slaves making their own money and buying knives, gunpowder, percussion caps (needed for the firing of arms), and writing materials-this list does not fit the description of Southern slavery in Roots or Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Myths of American Slavery Page 14
