Introduction
It is a common knowledge that the end to the slavery was put only at the end of the nineteenth century. Before this some people were forced to put up with the fact that somebody was more powerful and thus had a right to be not only in charge of them but to do with them everything possible. Of course, there existed certain law of slavery but it protected the slaves very rarely and did not give them a clear right to stand up against their masters. The relations between the slaves and their masters could never be harmonious and a lot of resentments could be easily noticed on the part of slaves who thought that even their least existing rights were neglected. Some of the slaveholders were more favorable whereas the others were cruel and severe. Certain complexity of relations between slaves and their masters could be observed and there were several reasons for that.
Main body
What should be mentioned above all is that some friction between slaves and slaveholders emerged mostly due to the asymmetry of interaction between them. There is no secret that the goal of most of the slaveholders was to use their slaves to the maximum degree possible in order to have more work done and, as a result, more money gained. This is typical for people who possess certain powers as together with the ability to exercise control and to rule somebody or something the person gets the desire to show to the others how much use of this power he can make. So, while the slaveholders were concerned with exploiting their slaves as much as possible, the slaves were interested in how not to get too much exploited and to minimize their burden which was difficult as it was. No one wanted to be exploited and no one wanted to do the work which he or she considered too difficult but the word of the master was the law and the violation of this law led to the punishment. The one who made orders had an absolute right to punish the one who refused to obey. From this it follows that slaves and their masters had different purposes in their lives. Moreover, they had different destinations, and when each of them tried to fulfill the destined function and to make the fulfillment of it easier, this inevitably led to a conflict and to a certain struggle between those who ruled and those who had to obey: “What masters and slaves do is struggle: sometimes noisily, more often quietly; sometimes violently, more often surreptitiously; infrequently with arms, always with the weapons of the mind and soul” (Orlando Paterson, 207). Sometimes there could be no evident reasons for this struggle but the only idea that slaves and their masters were uneven would cause the struggle between them. The asymmetry in their society functions and striving for better could not help but complicated the relations between slaves and their masters.
What’s more, the fact that slaveholders and their slaves were interdependent added even more complexity to their relations. It is well-known that the slaveholders were dependent on their slaves, especially on the male slaves who were used for hard work which could not be done without them. Strange as it may seem but dependence of the slaveholders on their slaves did not make the former treat their slaves better at least because they were in need of them. On the contrary, namely the idea of this dependency complicated their relations. Slaves, on their part, depended on their masters mostly due to the fact that there was nothing else they could do in their lives but serving and executing somebody else’s orders. They got used to it and most of them considered their masters the people who provided them with all the necessary things they might not have if they were not their masters’ slaves. This can be seen from the relations of Frederick Douglass and his master. Frederick Douglass was a slave who resented being a subordinate as once being a slave he experienced violence on the part of his master: “My home at my old master’s was charmless to me; it was not home, but a prison to me…” (Frederick Douglass, p. 135). Nevertheless, he stated that most of the slaves knowing that they were greatly dependent on their masters loved and respected them as most of them thought that their life with this or that slaveholder was not the most terrible one: “However, slaves are like other people and imbibe similar prejudices. They are apt to think their condition better than that of others. Many, under the influence of this prejudice, think their own masters are better than the masters of other slaves; and this, too, in some cases, when the very reverse is true” (Frederick Douglass, p. 118). Some of people preferred staying where they were as they did not know what would happen with them if they become free. Therefore, this interdependency between slaves and their masters contributed to the complication of relations between them mostly because the slaveholders could not appease with the idea that they could depend on their slaves.
And finally, unfair treatment with the slaves is what made the relations between them and their masters even more intolerable. No matter how hard the masters tried to make their slaves respect them, most of the latter bore nothing but hatred and contempt in their hearts which could not but result in numerous conflicts. The one who is subdued, humiliated and made to obey will never be able to love and respect the one who made him suffer and who restricts his liberty. Love and respect can never be bought or ordered to have; they are supposed to be earned. Solomon Northup is a vivid example of such an unfair treatment with the slaves. He was born free but later turned into a slave. He openly hated and despised his master: “He was my master entitled by law to my flesh and blood, and to exercise over me such tyrannical control as his mean nature prompted; but there was no law that could prevent my looking upon him with intense contempt” (Solomon Northup, David Wilson, p.109). Solomon Northup, as compared to what the slaves were allowed to do, could be a hero for other slaves of those times. He stood up against his master and even attacked him for he, being convinced that he is right, refused to be punished for what he did not do: “I felt, moreover, that I had been faithful – that I was guilty of no wrong, and deserved commendation rather then punishment” (Solomon Northup, David Wilson, p. 110). The complexity of relation namely between Solomon Northup and his master lied in the fact that Solomon was born free whereas people who were born slaves were able to resent very rarely as consent and faithfulness to their masters were in their blood. Disobedience of a slave is what none of the slaveholders would stand this is why no matter how much Solomon regretted his attack on the master he was seriously punished for that and hatred and contempt to his master became only stronger in his heart. Thus, it can be noted that mutual disrespect and injustice on the part of the slaveholders is what contributed greatly to already complicated relations between slaves and their masters.
All in all, the complicated relations between slaveholders and their slaves have a lot of explanations. People who experience inequality are unlikely to put up with this fact but they would never rebel if being unequal with their masters they are treated right. Namely the behavior of the masters and their desire to show their power is what made their relations with the slaves so unfriendly and what caused numerous rebels at the end of the nineteenth century. Thus it can be concluded that inequality and interdependence between slaveholders and their slaves as well as injustice on the part of slaveholders was what made the relationship between them complicated. The fact that not all the masters, as well as slaves, were the same also cannot be denied though no matter how good the relations between some of the slaveholders and their slaves might have been, slavery is nothing but restriction of the rights of people who did not deserve it.
Works Cited
- Frederick Douglass. My Bondage and My Freedom… Miller, Orton & co., 1857.
- Solomon Northup, David Wilson. Twelve Years a Slave: Narrative of Solomon Northup, a Citizen of New-York, Kidnapped in Washington City in 1841, and Rescued in 1853, from a Cotton Plantation Near the Red River, in Louisiana. Miller, Orton & Mulligan, 1855.
- Orlando Patterson. Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Harvard University Press, 1982.