« ForrigeFortsæt »
ciation with the Negro slaves with results detrimental to the development of the children." All this was mentioned by Jefferson, while the Southern slave owners did not all see any harm in such association. That the Negroes represented a hopelessly inferior race was not at all doubted by Jefferson, who saw the solution of the Negro problem in the liberation of the slaves, with their subsequent return to Africa.
Such was the attitude of the various elements of the Southern population towards the Negro, slavery, and the Negro problem. There remains the interesting question, of the actual treatment of the slaves by their owners. To a great extent it was a personal matter, and depended a great deal upon the personality of the individual slave owners. Nevertheless, it may be reasonably assumed that disregarding individual peculiarities some average conditions asserted themselves. In general, the treatment of the slaves was kinder in the North than in the South, perhaps mainly because in the North the slaves were domestic servants. A great many Negroes were employed in the homes of their owners in the South as well, and these also received more favorable treatment. Bonds of friendship often arose between these slaves and their owners, the slave owner's children grew in the society of the slave, and often developed almost filial or fraternal feelings for their nurses or the comrades of their youth. From this class of Negroes the majority of the freedmen in the North as well as in the South were recruited. Into this class the majority of the Mulattoes and Quadroons were drafted; for in general, the most intelligent and civilized were chosen for domestic labor. These Negroes had exceptional advantages; their kindhearted mistresses took pains to convert them to Christianity, when towards the end of the eighteenth century the prohibition of such missionary work was removed.
But these patriarchial relations were limited to domestic servants as early as the end of the 18th century. Even then the great majority of the slaves were utilized for work in the field. These Negroes could not enjoy the advantages of personal relations with their masters; in their treatment the business principles predominated; and the object was to extract as much labor of them as possible, while making their support as cheap as possible. Here the point of view which considered the Negro a beast was the most convenient one, and undoubtedly influenced the treatment of the Negro, while the conditions of life which were the result of this treatment served to corroborate the beast theory. Into this group the newly imported African Negroes were admitted, and this continuous admixture of perfectly savage Negroes to the semi
civilized one could not, of course, serve to elevate the general level of civilization of the mass of the field Negroes.
The efforts of the white man to elevate this level of civilization were not many; on the contrary there was a strong opposition to all efforts in that direction, especially as far as the field Negro was concerned. In the beginning, even Christianity was a forbidden fruit, and this was defended by the curious argument that the ownership of Christian slaves would be against the spirit of the English law. But the clergy in its zeal for missionary work and the salvation of black souls, convinced the slave owners that there was no antagonism between Christianity and slavery. In the defense of this theory the dogma of a lower race, destined to serve the higher white race, proved a useful argument; thus Christianity became a strong force in support of the institution of slavery and a force of little civilizing value for the slaves. The English clergyman quoted, who wrote in 1768, points out that there are two kinds of Christianity and education, one kind which might inculcate dangerous ideas in the head of the Negro, and the other kind which will convince him of the essential justice of his position. Educated clergymen were a luxury which was granted only to the Negroes about the house; for the Negroes of the fields black preachers were considered sufficient, and those were naturally preferred who were ready to preach them the gospel, that religion demanded slavery, patience, obedience and industry. Notwithstanding all these precautions the majority of the slaves in the end of the 18th century was still unbaptized.
Even when the Negroes were baptized, their marital relations were but seldom solemnized by any religious ceremony, and even in those cases where such a ceremony was performed, its commands were absolutely disregarded by the slave owners. Incidents similar to that which serves as a plot for the famous novel of Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, were undoubtedly more common in the eighteenth century. than at the time, which the novel purports to describe, but in those earlier days they did not call forth any serious objection, and did not cause such deep anguish in view of the rather weak attachment of the primitive Negro to his wife. and children. This weakness of the family bonds in the opinion of Southern society, was sufficient excuse of the infringements of family ties. But in reality the moral effect of these acts was much more harmful in the middle of the 18th century, than one hundred years ago. In the latter cases they were only isolated cases of cruelty which caused considerable suffering to individual families, but in the earlier days they
undermined the family morality of an entire race, instead of inculcating moral ideas.
In Africa the Negro lived in the normal stage of polygamy, which probably was no worse than the polygamy of the Mohammedans.
If the morality of the men did not reach the height of European ideals, nevertheless polygamy in all probability proved an effective safety valve. When wives were personal property the coveting of another man's wife like the coveting of another man's property called forth severe punishment. With the exception of the custom of offering one's wives to one's guest, the Negro women like the women of all polygamous races probably were more moderate in their sexual life than their white sisters. The total and sudden destruction of the polygamous family without its substitution by a protected monogamous family could but lead to one result irregular and promiscuous sexual relations. The African Negro was not familiar with prostitution. The Negro woman, who began as the possession of the slave owner or the overseer, and then changed hands from one owner to another, and changed husbands each time she changed her boss, and was often forced into separation from her children, even if it happened without any serious protest from her side, gradually fell to the level of a prostitute. And having caused this sexual demoralization the Southern slave owner pointed to, this lack of moral principle as an example of racial inferiority.
What wonder, that under the influence of these factors there grew the contempt for the Negro slave, which was later transfered upon the Negro freedman? Side by side with special legislation aimed at the Negro slave, the codes of the American colonies contained provisions intended for the free Negro. In the early days the freeing of the slave depended only upon the good will of the owners; and this remained the law in the Northern colonies up to the very liberation of all the slaves; but in the South an excessive number of freed slaves soon began to be considered a menace to the principle of slavery, and so the manumission of slave was made dependent upon administrative permission, to be issued by the governor. A wandering Negro had to prove that he was a free man; failing to do this he was to be sold at public auction. This is the final step in an interesting evolution of opinions. Towards the end of the 18th century the principle was established that "only Negroes could be slaves"; from this the next conclusion was drawn, that "Negroes could be slaves only"; and that each exception to that rule had to be judged on its own merits; besides the economic and social condi
tions of the Negro freedman in the South were scarcely better than those of the Negro slave. He was not permitted to travel from one colony into another; he was not permitted to own land, nor to practice professions and most trades, so that about the only trade open to him was that of a hired agricultural laborer, for wages which hardly provided him with a better living than what he had as a slave. Free Negroes could not appear as witnesses against white men, could not enter military service, had no political rights, but had to pay all the taxes on an equal basis with the white neighbors. I. M. ROBBINS.
(To be continued).
The Political Outlook. The size of the Socialist Party vote, while not a matter of such vital importance as many take it to be, is always a matter of interest to socialists. And when all is said and done, the size of the vote depends far more on causes beyond our control than on our methods of propaganda, no matter how good nor how bad these may be. Let us take a brief glance at some of the factors that may help or hinder us this year. Our advantage four years ago was that Roosevelt and Parker alike stood for things as they were, so that the easiest way for the discontented Bryan men to voice their discontent was to vote for Debs. Now Bryan himself seems sure to be a candidate, and he will surely win back some of the old admirers who were with him in 1904. But he has been growing safe and sane these last four years, and meanwhile the Republican administration has been waging spectacular war on the Bad Trusts. So if Taft gets the Republican nomination, it should not be hard for us to show that the two old parties stand for the same things and that working people who want something different should come to If on the other hand the Magnates of the Bad Trusts succeed in putting up their own man in place of Taft, then doubtless Bryan's Third Battle will be as thrilling to the little business men and to the wage-workers with small-capitalist minds as was the first. In that case the labor conference of which our associate editor writes so hopefully on another page may even be stampeded for Bryan, and the socialist vote may drop to something like the number of revolutionists who know what they want. But this number is growing all the time, and the capitalists are giving us invaluable help from day to day in adding to its strength.
Two Points of View. When the Eisenachers and Lassallians buried the hatchet and consolidated into the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Karl Marx, an exile in England, protested. But the event seems to have proved that Marx was wrong and the German comrades were right. We are reminded of this by the contrast between the elaborate argument by Ernest Untermann contributed to this month's Review and the terse editorial by A. M. Stirton which we clip for our News aud Views department from a recent issue of The Wage Slave. Untermann is an exile in the mountains of Idaho, cut off from active work in the Party as completely as was Marx in 1875. Stirton is in the midst of the fight in the one Western state (Michigan) where the strength of the Socialist Labor Party as compared with our own party strength is the greatest, and where therefore the question of uniting or not uniting is of more practical importance than elsewhere. (And here it should be remembered that the motion for a unity conference was endorsed by the state