Source: Boiling Frogs Post
Andrew Gavin Marshall
Between
1619 and 1860, the American legal system, from that imposed by the
British Empire to that constructed following the American Revolution,
“expanded and protected the liberties of white Americans – while at the
same time the legal process became increasingly more harsh as to the
masses of blacks, with a steady contraction of their liberties.” This
process marked the ‘social construction’ of race and with it, racial
superiority and inferiority, delegated to whites and blacks,
respectively.[1] Interesting to note was that between 1619 and the
1660s, the American colonial legal system was “far more supportive for
blacks; or, phrased differently, the early legal process was less
harsh.” Georgia’s original charter, in fact, had three prohibitions: no
alcohol, no free land titles, “and no Negro slaves.” In Virginia, as
late as 1672 and 1673, there were legal records of some slaves “serving
limited terms as indentured servants rather than being sentenced to the
eternity of slavery.”[2]
Important
to note has been the ways in which slaves were used as the main labour
force, and thus blacks were identified and being sustained as a
lower-class labour force. Following the Civil War, abolition of slavery
and the Reconstruction Period, there were coordinated moves – a
‘compact’ – between the North and South in the United States, to devise a
way of keeping blacks as a submissive labour force, and one which was
confined to a new form of slavery: penal slavery. Thus, we see emerging
in the 1870s and into the 20th century, a rapid expansion of
prisons, and with that, of southern penal systems using prisoners as
forced labour. This new legal system, which was “far less rigid than
slavery,” had been referred to as “involuntary servitude,” and, wrote
one scholar, “was a fluid, flexible affair which alternated between free
and forced labor in time to the rhythm of the southern labor
market.”[11]
Andrew Gavin Marshall
Slavery & the Social Construction of Race
Between
1619 and 1860, the American legal system, from that imposed by the
British Empire to that constructed following the American Revolution,
“expanded and protected the liberties of white Americans – while at the
same time the legal process became increasingly more harsh as to the
masses of blacks, with a steady contraction of their liberties.” This
process marked the ‘social construction’ of race and with it, racial
superiority and inferiority, delegated to whites and blacks,
respectively.[1] Interesting to note was that between 1619 and the
1660s, the American colonial legal system was “far more supportive for
blacks; or, phrased differently, the early legal process was less
harsh.” Georgia’s original charter, in fact, had three prohibitions: no
alcohol, no free land titles, “and no Negro slaves.” In Virginia, as
late as 1672 and 1673, there were legal records of some slaves “serving
limited terms as indentured servants rather than being sentenced to the
eternity of slavery.”[2]
The colonies in the Americas required
a massive labour force, “Between 1607 and 1783, more than 350,000
‘white’ bond-labourers arrived in the British colonies.”[3] The Americas
had both un-free blacks and whites, with blacks being a minority, yet
they “exercised basic rights in law.”[4] Problems arrived in the form of
elites trying to control the labour class. Slaves were made up of
Indian, black and white labourers; yet, problems arose with this “mixed”
population of un-free labour. The problem with Indian labourers was
that they knew the land and could escape to “undiscovered” territory,
and enslavement would often instigate rebellions and war:
The social costs of trying to
discipline un-free native labour had proved too high. Natives would
eventually be genocidally eliminated, once population settlement and
military power made victory more or less certain; for the time being,
however, different sources of bond labour had to be found.[5]
Between 1607 and 1682, more than
90,000 European immigrants, “three-quarters of them chattel
bond-labourers, were brought to Virginia and Maryland.” Following the
“establishment of the Royal African Company in 1672, a steady supply of
African slaves was secured.” Problems became paramount, however, as the
lower classes tended to be very rebellious, which consisted of “an
amalgam of indentured servants and slaves, of poor whites and blacks, of
landless freemen and debtors.” The lower classes were united in
opposition to the elites oppressing them, regardless of background.[6]
Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 was of
particular note, as bond-labourers, black and white, rebelled against
the local elites and “demanded freedom from chattel servitude.” For the
colonialists, “[s]uch images of a joint uprising of black and white,
slave and bondsman, proved traumatic. In the face of a united rebellion
of the lower orders, the planter bourgeoisie understood that their
entire system of colonial exploitation and privilege was at risk.”[7]
In response to this threat, the
landed elite “relaxed the servitude of white labourers, intensified the
bonds of black slavery, and introduced a new regime of racial
oppression. In doing so, they effectively created the white race – and
with it white supremacy.”[8] Thus, “the conditions of white and black
servants began to diverge considerably after 1660.” Following this,
legislation would separate white and black slavery, prevent “mixed”
marriages, and seek to prevent the procreation of “mixed-race” children.
Whereas before 1660, many black slaves were not indentured for life,
this changed as colonial law increasingly “imposed lifetime bondage for
black servants – and, especially significant, the curse of lifetime
servitude for their offspring.”[9]
A central feature of the social
construction of this racial divide was “the denial of the right to
vote,” as most Anglo-American colonies previously allowed free blacks to
vote, but this slowly changed throughout the colonies. The ruling class
of America was essentially “inventing race.” Thus, “[f]reedom was
increasingly identified with race, not class.”[10]
The ‘Reconstruction’ of Slavery in Post-Civil War America
Important
to note has been the ways in which slaves were used as the main labour
force, and thus blacks were identified and being sustained as a
lower-class labour force. Following the Civil War, abolition of slavery
and the Reconstruction Period, there were coordinated moves – a
‘compact’ – between the North and South in the United States, to devise a
way of keeping blacks as a submissive labour force, and one which was
confined to a new form of slavery: penal slavery. Thus, we see emerging
in the 1870s and into the 20th century, a rapid expansion of
prisons, and with that, of southern penal systems using prisoners as
forced labour. This new legal system, which was “far less rigid than
slavery,” had been referred to as “involuntary servitude,” and, wrote
one scholar, “was a fluid, flexible affair which alternated between free
and forced labor in time to the rhythm of the southern labor
market.”[11]
A famous American botanist and agricultural editor of the Weekly News and Courier
wrote in 1865 that, “There must… be stringent laws to control the
negroes, & require them to fulfill their contracts of labour on the
farms.” Southern legislatures, then, began to enact what were referred
to as Black Codes, “designed to preserve white hegemony.”[12] The
12-year period following the end of the Civil War, known as the
‘Reconstruction,’ saw the continued struggle of newly-freed blacks to
attempt to break free from being “forced back under the political and
economic domination of the large landowners,” and to do so, they were
demanding land ownership rights to the tune of “40 acres and a mule.”
This was, of course, unacceptable to vested interests. While the
Republic Party had freed the slaves, the main core of the Party had
become dominated by Northern wealthy interests, and “were unwilling to
press for thoroughgoing reform, and by 1877 had become convinced that
their interests were better served by an alliance with Southern white
conservatives than the largely illiterate and destitute ex-slave
population.” In the North at this time, the captains of industry and
kings of capital (the bankers and industrialists) were waging a
continued war against organized and increasingly radicalized labour.
Thus, there was very little interest in seeking to enfranchise black
labour in the South. As the New York Times suggested, the
demands for “40 acres and a mule” hit at “the fundamental relation of
industry to capital,” and “strikes at the root of all property rights in
both sections. It concerns Massachusetts quite as much as
Mississippi.”[13] …Read more
