U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2020, 08:42 AM
 
Location: NJ
721 posts, read 238,509 times
Reputation: 2711

Advertisements

This is less of a white owner black slave issue than it is a men vs everyone else issue. Women, rich or poor black or white or native young or old, were in constant danger. They were expected to travel in groups or with male companions. Dress modestly to not draw attention, not flirt or be untoward and were blamed and ostracized when they were raped, which was a reasonably common occurrence when women could not find men to protect her. Their fathers could beat them, their husbands could rape them. Soldiers raped women in fields and barns during campaigns. Men who happened upon women alone in alleyways or behind taverns raped them and left them there. Raping slave women was easy prey. They didnt have to chance upon a woman alone, slave women didnt have protectors like white affluent women did.

That being said, in response to relationships between owners and slaves, it had to have happened. Rape is different than a relationship and there is evidence of ongoing long term relationships. In a fair amount of cases, slaves who were born on a plantation spent their entire lives there with their families. Starting a torrid affair with the master or the masters son would have afforded them extra privileges. In a lot of the south there was no way to free a slave, it wasnt as easy as declaring them free. The owner would have had to appear before the local courts and prove their slave did something so great they deserved freedom and it was much more expensive than buying a slave and a lot of owners werent up to the task.

Additionally when a slave was freed they would have to leave the only home they ever had (home being used loosely here since it was a horrific institution) and travel far far north in order to get into free territory because a free slave could have been captured by someone else and reenslaved and noone would have been any wiser, so they also had to leave their family behind. Men who fell in love with a slave in a mutual relationship wouldnt have been able to free the woman and she most likely would not have wanted to leave her father and mother or sister and brothers or children behind.

Repeating a few previous posters, it is extremely important when remarking on history that while you maintain your outrage at the action of the people, you do not try and impose your moral understanding on them and color their actions with it, it is often very simple to judge people without considering the circumstances.

https://www.history.org/history/teac...anumission.cfm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 05:15 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,651 posts, read 10,198,441 times
Reputation: 9406
Quote:
Originally Posted by LO28SWM View Post
That being said, in response to relationships between owners and slaves, it had to have happened. Rape is different than a relationship and there is evidence of ongoing long term relationships. In a fair amount of cases, slaves who were born on a plantation spent their entire lives there with their families. Starting a torrid affair with the master or the masters son would have afforded them extra privileges.

What happened between a man and an enslaved woman over whom he had complete legal control to do whatever he wished could be called several things, but a torrid affair is not one of them, regardless of self-delusions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:44 AM
 
Location: Roaring '20s
1,968 posts, read 521,309 times
Reputation: 7680
Quote:
Originally Posted by LO28SWM View Post
Starting a torrid affair with the master or the masters son would have afforded them extra privileges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763 View Post
What happened between a man and an enslaved woman over whom he had complete legal control to do whatever he wished could be called several things, but a torrid affair is not one of them, regardless of self-delusions.
Indeed.

Having sex with your owner in order to get better food/clothing/shelter is not described by the term 'torrid affair'. It's entirely transactional. And the nature of that transaction is entirely derivative of the circumstances of being owned and utterly dependent on the good graces of your owner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:47 AM
 
Location: NJ
721 posts, read 238,509 times
Reputation: 2711
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763 View Post
What happened between a man and an enslaved woman over whom he had complete legal control to do whatever he wished could be called several things, but a torrid affair is not one of them, regardless of self-delusions.
Yeah...i checked the definition in case i was wrong....nope thats what i meant. Do delude ones self into thinking that women and men's emotions did not overtake their better sense in the most illogical of circumstances is silly. It wasnt right, it was probably stupid, but women had very few useful devices at their disposal and physical wiles was the top of the pile. If a woman could seduce a man, she could control him. This was probably not the case in 99% of the relationships but it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

And back to my other point, he also had complete legal control over his wife and children up to and including being able to beat and rape them too without much public outrage. And yet husbands and wives could still feel passion for one another, even if one or the other is forced into the interaction.

ETA: Also, if a man fell in love with a slave and didnt have the means to free her and decided to cohabitate with her (as there is evidence has happened) then it is absolutely a willing and consensual relationship. I am not saying that owning people is ok or that it didnt give the owners ALL the power, but when a man and a woman moved out of the master owner relationship into a husband wife/partner relationship things changed in how they interacted and what the ownership meant
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:01 AM
 
5,523 posts, read 6,834,010 times
Reputation: 10928
Quote:
Originally Posted by LO28SWM View Post
Yeah...i checked the definition in case i was wrong....nope thats what i meant. Do delude ones self into thinking that women and men's emotions did not overtake their better sense in the most illogical of circumstances is silly. It wasnt right, it was probably stupid, but women had very few useful devices at their disposal and physical wiles was the top of the pile. If a woman could seduce a man, she could control him. This was probably not the case in 99% of the relationships but it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

And back to my other point, he also had complete legal control over his wife and children up to and including being able to beat and rape them too without much public outrage. And yet husbands and wives could still feel passion for one another, even if one or the other is forced into the interaction.

ETA: Also, if a man fell in love with a slave and didnt have the means to free her and decided to cohabitate with her (as there is evidence has happened) then it is absolutely a willing and consensual relationship. I am not saying that owning people is ok or that it didnt give the owners ALL the power, but when a man and a woman moved out of the master owner relationship into a husband wife/partner relationship things changed in how they interacted and what the ownership meant
I have two family lines that included individuals married to slaves. It remains a bit murky because today none of us can see into their hearts or really know what happened. But we cannot assume that all alternatives aren't possible.

There is no way I can guess how much free will was involved with either, how pragmatic an arrangement it was, or if horrible circumstances were involved. All happen in life. and without contemporary sources to settle that, as far as I am concerned, it just is and I wish them well in retrospect.

But remember the TV show Roots in the 1990s?. That showed the rape side. Then the follow on with the other family line, Queenie there was a willing and loving relationship between a slave and the owner's son resulting in a family they raised together. Roots got lots of acclaim. Queenie not as much, even though Queen was based upon sources and the author's knowledge of his grandmother, Queenie. Alex Haley I believe his name was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:35 PM
 
10,042 posts, read 10,596,656 times
Reputation: 7547
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrollerEnvy View Post
I have read that George Washington had sex with female slaves and might have had children with slaves. The same goes for other US presidents. I have heard over the years that many slave owners raped female slaves. Is this true or did many female slaves in American history want to have sex with the owners?
I ask this because today most women are attracted to men with money and power so it would make sense that these women back in early American history would think the same.
Most American blacks don't don't look completely African. This means that there must have been alot of black and white relations at some time in our countries past. What is the true story to this?

Today women have their own money and power. I have know many men today whose lives are better because they married a woman with money and power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:15 PM
 
Location: The High Desert
7,969 posts, read 4,317,370 times
Reputation: 15056
After 1808, it was illegal to import new slaves from Africa. We know that some were smuggled in but not in huge numbers. And yet, the slave population grew to keep up with the expansion of the slave states well after 1808. Gee, I wonder how that happened? One of the ugly chapters in my home state of Missouri was the breeding efforts -- practically stock farming -- that produced slaves for sale "down the river". Some owners participated, maybe not all, but it was a common thing.

Slaves were considered property. I always (and smugly) patted myself on the back that there were no slave owners in my family. That was until I saw a court record where an ancestor in upstate New York (who was wealthy but did not own slaves and was presumably neutral or anti-slavery) was awarded a young female slave in a civil case because the defendant didn't have money to pay the settlement. The stipulation was that the defendant should buy her back when he had the money. She was collateral, to be forfeited in the event of a default. There were several plaintiffs and they all got a slave. I hope she was manumitted but there is no further court record. This was in the mid-1700s and slavery ended in NY in 1827.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top