Comments on: Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Trade, by Walter Johnson

By: Scott T Nichols

Scott T Nichols — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:18:06 +0000

Unfortunately Brian has said pretty much everything I was going to say but I will reiterate on it and throw in my few cents.
The Chattel Principle was the cowardly way slave holders kept control over their slaves. Just like any human being that has a family, wife and children, borthers and sisters, uncles and aunts, (you catch my drift) would want to remain with that family. This was a soft spot for slaveholders to exploit and take advantage of. The second a male stepped out of line or a female did not abid to “masters orders,” the threat of being sold was held over them like a lead weight.

Another big misconceptio by slaveholders that slaves were inferior and not capable of advancement in civilization or inteligence, slaves were eventually learning the system of being a commodity. They would go as far as mutilating themselves to lower their value and in the worst case, suicide, which took them out of the evil loop of trade.

The way slaveholders would deal with this way of life was what I would call a case of severe denial. They had to lie to themselves so much that they corrupted their so called “southern christian values,” and justified their actions with the lies of paternalism. I am not to sure but I don’t recall my Christian upbringing telling me that when my kids act out of line that I will beat them, sale them, or even kill them. As much as I know slavery was a large part of America’s young structure, I am sickened that it is part of American History, and I am thankful that America is what it is today and these stories and events are passed on so that a moral and humane atrocity is never made again.

By: Brian Knaak

Brian Knaak — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:02:26 +0000

The chattel principal was the idea that slaves were to be viewed as economic commodities. It involved the notion that each particular slave held a certain economic value within the slave market. Sadly, this ideology was engrained in slave children at quite an early age. As Johnson points out, “From an early age slaves’ bodies were shaped to their slavery. Their growth was tracked against their value: outside the market as well as inside it, they were taught to see themselves as commodities. This often lead to great mistreatment of slaves. Through the use of slave narratives Johnson shows how these young children were often beaten. These beatings would occur for any number of reasons. These reasons ranged from not being the correct physical size to making mistakes in the field.

The chattel pricipal penetrated every aspect of society within the Antebellum South. Other than beatings there remained the intense fear of being sold. Being sold would often result in separation of family and friends and would often result in much more harsh working conditions. These harsh conditions could potentially lead to a slave being worked to death.

In Johnson’s quite interesting analysis of the situation the slaves economic value could be viewed as giving them more rights. Slaves began protesting in a number of ways. Some ran away while others demanded the ability to negotiate their own sale. It is precisely because they held economic value under the chattel pricipal that slaves were able to possess this kind of power. If the slaves ran away they were no longer of any economic value to their owners. Thus, many owners would have to take their slaves much more seriously. To avoid this increase in slave rebellion/protest slave owners would resort to lies, deception, secrecy and surprise. There is no doubt that these method often undermined slave rights. In the end however, it appears that given their economic benefit slaves began to try a gain more rights on a more human level. While not universal, in some instances slaves voices began to be heard.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:12:45 +0000

The owners of the slaves considered the slaves property and they needed to do what was best for the operation of their land. The slaves resisted commodification by preparing themselves for the struggle they were about to encounter to take the slaves position before them. Each individual slave has the same story of being sold from so many men. They also encountered losses and huges struggles in the fields. When they were leaving to go somewhere else they just kept their past in mind and had in their mind there were going to be in the same basic situation.

By: Roxanne

Roxanne — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 02:44:02 +0000

The chattel principle was treating the slaves like cattle. They were a commodity to be bought and sold at their masters will. The idea of paternalism along with the chattel principle shows that slave owners were being fathers to these poor uncultured people and taking care of them. This is of course false. A slave could wake up one morning and their family could have been sold off to another plantation. I don’t think any good father would ever say “Watch what you say or I’ll sell you” and this was exactly how the masters thought. If a slave was being disrespectful or not working hard enough, they could sell them and get a brand new one.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:04:25 +0000

Paternalism always took a back seat to the slave market, as demonstrated by the fact that the white man’s reasoning for the trade would often contradict paternalism.

By: djvoelker

djvoelker — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:05:04 +0000

Jan Lewis has an excellent review of Soul by Soul in Reviews in American History 28 (2000). If you have UWGB network clearance, you can read the review at:
http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.uwgb.edu:2048/journals/reviews_in_american_history/v028/28.4lewis.html

By: Amanda Crump

Amanda Crump — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:52:27 +0000

The chattel principle helps the idea of paternalism because it saw slaves not as people but as commodities and tools for working. Since they really weren’t people, then it would makes sense that the slave holder needed to care and protect for the slaves, and their investment, from others and themselves. In looking at is this way, they could justify what they were doing because if they didn’t, the slaves would be lost in a world of confusion. It’s a sick way of looking at paternalism.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:19:29 +0000

It is very interesting that the Slave traders actually provided reasoning to the slave trade. The owners often stated that it was the nature of business, and that they had to sell slaves. Odd enough that a slave owner would not have a problem selling a horse, keeping in mind that the slave owners justified slavery by stating that Africans were not intelligent to be real people and were more like farming equipment.

By: Corey Livieri

Corey Livieri — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:29:10 +0000

The chattel principle was viewing slaves strictly as commodity, and not as people. The characteristics of a slave were primarly examined from a economic standpoint, instead of who they really were. For example, younger, more fit slaves would be worth much more than those who were weak or sickly. When traders dealt with their slaves, they tried to make them look healthy and adequate of sale. It’s almost like somebody today trying to sell a car. First the seller fixes and cleans it up to get the most possible profit out of it. Johnson takes a totally different perspective on the slave trade. Most other historians only examine the moral treatment of slaves, but Johnson greatly focuses on the buisness aspect of the trade.