Rough introduction

I have written a rough introduction to my paper, and I’d like some feedback.  In the actual paper, my historiography coverage will be more in depth, I just wanted to get the broad contours for this first draft.  Specifically, I’d like feedback on two things: is my argument about the significance of Texas’s self-enslavement law clear? And also, perhaps more importantly, after reading this introduction, how do you think an argument like that will need to be supported by the evidence? You can give me feedback in the comments, or just in class tomorrow. 


On January 27, 1858, the Texas Legislature passed “An Act to permit Free persons of African descent, to select their own Master and become Slaves.”  Historians have often analyzed these laws in an effort to assess transformations in the social position of free blacks within southern communities.  Randolph B. Campbell argues in his seminal text on slavery in Texas that the self-enslavement law of 1858 reflected white fears about the influence of free blacks on Texas’s slave population, and their notions that blacks were suited only for slavery.[1]  Ira Berlin seems less sure than Campbell that the passage self-enslavement laws in the South offer a lens through which to view free blacks’ social position, and posits, rather, that they served as a way for whites to “affirm their most cherished belief…of the positive-good” of slavery.[2]  Berlin argues that “[n]ewspapers throughout the South avidly spread enslavement stories.  The disproportion of interest to reality suggests that they searched these stories out as jewels to be collected, polished, and displayed as evidence of the beneficence of their society.”[3]  Melvin Patrick Ely largely agrees with this assessment, contending that while many regard self-enslavement laws as reflective of blacks’ declining position, Virginia’s law “signified little.  The state’s self-enslavement law may not even qualify as a concession to white popular sentiment, for it seems to have won little attention at the time.”[4]

Texas’s self-enslavement law tells us little about the experiences of free blacks in the state.  While a few free blacks in the state took the legislature up on this dubious privilege, their court petitions seem to tell us little about the motivating factors, as they generally echoed abstract, white, pro-slavery ideas towards free blacks, if they said anything at all.  What we can glean from the law’s passage, and subsequent newspaper reports of its use, is the way in which it served a rhetorical purpose for Texas pro-slavery advocates, as they felt the institution of slavery becoming increasingly besieged in the late 1850s.  While Berlin is for the most part correct in his contention that southern newspapers highlighted self-enslavement stories as “jewels” to be displayed for the public, self-enslavement stories received nowhere near the press coverage as other issues in their defense of slavery.  Articles discussing self-enslavement pale in comparison to those espousing the benefits of re-opening the slave trade, expressing concerns about the admission of non-slaveholding states to the Union and anxiety about the high price and scarcity of slave labor.

Historians’ desire, my own included, to understand the free black experience in the old South has masked what seems to be the real significance of self-enslavement laws.  Through an analysis of the content of Texas newspapers during the late 1850s and early 1860s, there exists a clear and growing urgency in mounting various defenses of slavery.  The most popular defense took the form of highlighting slavery as a having a positive influence on the enslaved, so much so that they argued that the African slave trade should be re-opened, so that slavery could Christianize and civilize as many blacks as possible.  Another popular defense of slavery as a labor system was the poor social and economic position of free blacks in the North, highlighting their incapacity as productive laborers.  It is only within this larger newspaper campaign to defend the institution of slavery that Texas’s self-enslavement law can be properly understood.  The existence of self-enslavement laws across the South allowed states to cite repeatedly the infrequent examples of free blacks choosing to return to slavery, as a part of their attempt to highlight the benefits of the institution.  Self-enslavement laws allowed southern newspapers to make important rhetorical maneuvers as a part of their much larger pro-slavery campaign in the late 1850s.

Texas’s self-enslavement law as well brings to light an interesting methodological issue, concerning scholars’ use of internet databases in historical investigations centered around newspapers and periodicals.  While these databases are extremely valuable in making hundreds of years of often difficult to acquire newspapers available on-demand, search results can often obscure larger, and more important stories within the documents.  While all of the articles discussing self-enslavement can be accessed through keyword searches—using terms like “return to slavery,” “choose master,” and “become slaves”—those results can be deceiving.  Singling out those articles, fairly easy to do through a database like America’s Historical Newspapers, obscures the fact that self-enslavement stories constituted only a small part of a larger campaign to defend the institution of slavery.

[1] Randolph B. Campbell, An Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821–1865, (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1991), 113.

[2] Ira Berlin, Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1974), 366.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Melvin Patrick Ely, Israel on the Appomattox: A Southern Experiment in Slavery and Freedom from the 1790s through the Civil War, (New York: Knopf Press, 2005), 373–74.

3 thoughts on “Rough introduction

  1. Hey John! I really liked that you included the methodological paragraph at the end. That was smart, and something that I definitely need to do.

    I am a little bit confused about your argument though, but this is probably just because my brain is really fuzzy right now. So do forgive me if this doesn’t make sense.

    You said that self-enslavement laws don’t actually tell us much about the free black experience, which is unfortunate, since that’s what a lot of people want to understand. What it does tell us is just how strident whites were becoming in their defense of slavery as a positive influence on society. It’s the first sentence of the third paragraph that’s tripping me up. It sounds like you are saying that historians’ attempts to use self-enslavement laws as a way of understanding the black experience has led them to ignore the fact that self-enslavement laws actually say more about what defenders of slavery thought. But your quotes from Berlin and Campbell sound like they have noticed that self-enslavement laws are a better example of white rather than black experiences. So maybe I’m just saying you should change that sentence? I wish I could come to class and talk about it tomorrow!

  2. What I didn’t make clear, I guess, is that while those historians hint at the fact that self-enslavement laws don’t say much about the free black experience, they basically leave it at that. Also, self-enslavement laws really only get significant attention from historians of free blacks. So I’m saying that while Berlin’s assessment, in particular, is basically right, they don’t go far enough in explaining what the larger purpose of these laws were. Does that make any sense?

  3. I like your observation about how little Texans actually talked about the law–if these were jewels to polish and hold up, why aren’t you finding more discussion of it? Maybe because the idea of “self-enslavement” is so problematic even in the terms of proslavery Southerners? The idea that a person of African descent had the power to “select” a master undercuts the notion that they are helpless without enslavement. I’m having flashbacks to Furstenberg’s article on freedom and autonomy here …

    Also like your observation that most historians who consider the law are primarily interested in free black social experience, so the point they are most eager to make is that the law doesn’t reflect social reality. But perhaps the law does reflect a different kind of reality: which is how serious Texans were about making slavery a permanent legal institution and closing any loopholes that might prevent that aim?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s