Master / Slave Partnerships in the Ante-Bellum Period

A New Paradigm

of Interpersonal Relationships

by: Dennis Kubicki

Slavery was overwhelmingly a brutal and dehumanizing institution

Forced expulsion

Deadly passage

Family separation

Marginal existence

Oppressive oversight

Hopelessness

The institution was diverse in scope

• Plantations– Sugar– Tobacco

• Industry• Mining• Forestry• City Trades• Small Farms

Small farms were a unique subculture

• 50,000 slaveholders owned 5 or fewer slaves

• One family owned another

• Common labor• Common recreation• Intimate settings

My thesis

• The intimacy of small farm existence suggests a different interpersonal dynamic

• Daily life for slaves on small farms was more benign than elsewhere

• Master and slaves worked toward common goals…this effort termed a “partnership”

• These partnerships can be characterized by friendship, shared values and affection

The life of slaves on large plantations was generally harsh

• Long work days

• Primitive housing

• Limited clothing

• Restricted diet

• Uncertain future

House slaves offer a contrast

• Less grueling labor• Variable housing• More diverse diet• Better clothing• Intimate contact with

the master’s family …leading often to close interpersonal bonds

Can we interpret the contradiction?

What made small farms unique?

“Up in our country deh white folks hev no real big plantations like deh has heah. Some of dem has five or six n____s and deh lives and talks wid em and dey treats em most as if dem was dar own chile.”

Frederick Law Olmsted“The Cotton Kingdom”

Mealtime activities stimulated close relationships

The experiences of children help explain future partnerships

• Care for infants of both master and slave

• Young children

• Adolescents

The care of the sick and the aged strengthened relationships

Social events and religious observances strengthened bonds

Surplus labor offered mutual benefits to both master and slave

Excess capital could result in improvement to the lives of both

families

The American Civil War manifested the master / slave partnership

• 80% of white southerners served in the military

• Slaves underpinned the CSA wartime economy

• Bondsmen contributed to the South’s defenses

My conclusions

• Institutionalized slavery was omnipresent

• Unique conditions prevailed on small farms

• These conditions led to an intimate and cooperative relationship between master and slave

My Principal Sources

• Berlin, Ira. Generations of Captivity: A History of African-American Slaves.

• Blassingame, John W. The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Ante-Bellum South.

• Franklin, John Hope, and Alfred A. Moss. From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans.

• Genovese, Eugene D. Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made.

• Horton, James Oliver, and Horton, Lois E. Hard Road to Freedom: The Story of African Americans.

My Principal Sources

• Olmsted, Frederick Law. The Cotton Kingdom: A Traveler’s Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States.

• Raywick, George P. American Slave Narratives: An Online Anthology (Database on-line); available from: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/wpa/wpahome.html

• Stampp, Kenneth M. The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New York: Vintage Books, 1989.

• Yetman, Norman R. Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writer’s Project, 1936-1938. (Database on-line); available from: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/snhome.html