Twelve Years a Slave
discussion
Why does Northup call Ford a "good man?"
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jordan
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Feb 17, 2013 11:40AM
Northup possesses a hatred of slavery, yet he is able to call Ford a good man and often speaks of him with a sort of admiration. How do you think Northup is able to reconcile his hatred of slavery with his opinion of Ford? Why does Northup think Ford is a good man?
reply
|
flag
The premise of the book is that the system and legalized institution of slavery was evil, independent of the will and character of anybody involved in it. The book was originally published under the auspices of the abolition movement and this was one of their standard arguments. Ford and a few others offered Northup the opportunity to highlight that point - as he carefully highlights many other abolitionist talking points. Actually, the whole purpose of the publication was to give you, the reader, everything you needed to know to argue the abolitionist corner.
Northup depicts Ford as having no personal responsibility for slavery as a system, nor any possibility of seeing outside it, since he was brought up in it (whereas Northup sees it with an outsider's eyes).
Ford is 'good' in Northup's eyes because he doesn't practice any of the cruelties and physical abuses quite usual and even acceptable in that time and place, and because he is genuinely devout and sees his slaves as his equals before God. In fact, he is noticeably 'better' than his neighbors, and I suppose anyone who rises that far above the average for their society might justifiably be called 'good'. On the other hand, the book systematically exposes his inability to assure the safety and well-being of his slaves under a system in which people are property.
The same holds true of the other characters. Even where Northup doesn't have a high opinion of them, he's at pains to show how it's the system of slavery that makes them particularly dangerous, cruel or debased. With the wife and child of the Epps family, for instance, he's quite explicit about it.
@Anne, in part, I agree with you. In part I no not.I believe 12 days of Slavery depicts the inhumanity of the whole institution of slavery, as well as that of the slaver. Both black and white souls are harmed by the most vile institution.
Northup distinguishes Ford in a kind of naive way, but does not go so far as to believe Ford's plantation is a haven. It is relatively better than those other places he would labor. Remember, even on Ford's plantation, Northup incurs wrath. This wrath results from Northrup being intelligent and someone who acts beyond the limitations of the constraints of his enslavement.
Ibrahim wrote: "@Anne, in part, I agree with you. In part I no not.I believe 12 days of Slavery depicts the inhumanity of the whole institution of slavery, as well as that of the slaver. Both black and white s..."
Hi Ibrahim. I'm not sure we disagree at all. But which incident did you mean when you say Northup incurs wrath on Ford's plantation? His fight with Tibbeats or did I miss something? By that time, I think Northup had been sold to Tibbeats and under the system of slavery, Ford had only the slightest say in the matter, through a partial mortgage he had on Northup (ugh, this humans as property thing is just..)
Anyway, what I hold against Ford (as a person, beyond the system of slavery itself) is the tragedy with Eliza being separated from her children. I do think by the time he agreed to buy her there was nothing he could have done that wouldn't make things worse. But then, when Eliza didn't recover from her loss, he sold her on, to someone he surely knew would treat her cruelly. Because she was 'moping about the place'...
So... I'm no friend of Ford's and not the least impressed with his piety either, but I did want to answer in terms of what Northup said about him.
The only good person I found in this story was Bass who refused to own slaves. A white man risking his own life to save a black man was huge. Bass voiced his opinion about slavery, but was afraid to do anything to help one until Solomon's idea looked safe enough to try.
Gala wrote: "The only good person I found in this story was Bass who refused to own slaves. A white man risking his own life to save a black man was huge. Bass voiced his opinion about slavery, but was afraid t..."Agreed!
I think Solomon only said Ford was a good man because he did not beat him frequently and listened to him when Tibbeats wanted to kill him. They were all cruel, hard men as far as I can see. Bass being the only redeemable soul amongst them.
In some ways this topic is very philosophical and yet I find it so interesting. Three of you agree that Bass is the only 'good' person in the story, yet to me he grew up in an area where slavery was illegal and abhorred. It didn't actually require any special 'goodness' on his part to go along with what everyone around him believed, although it might require some to go on asserting his native culture in a different society and to endanger himself by assisting Northup. But I might call that 'courage' rather than 'goodness'.
On the other hand, Northup emphasizes that Ford and the others grew up in a slave society and took slavery for granted. Wouldn't a person who goes against the dictates of their own education and society be more than just good, but saintly? What are the criteria for assessing the goodness and badness of individuals in a society we disapprove of?
Maybe we can clarify the question by turning the spotlight on our own? Some societies are vegan and individuals amongst mine assert that meat-eating is plain wrong. Peter Singer, author of How Are We To Live, says we can all see driving cars is bad, no excuses, just stop doing it. Most of us have been told that our coffee, tea, chocolate, bananas, clothing, shoes, furniture, etc are brought to us at the expense of gross exploitation of the producers and irredeemable depredations to the environment. Or there is the huge moral uncertainty about the right to life versus the right to reproductive autonomy. And then, I live in an area where a considerable number of people think it is proper and virtuous for parents to select their offspring's marriage partners and the rest of us are 'less good' (minimally) because of our rather different approach to the question.*
These issues are to us what slavery was to 19th century Americans. There is debate on what is right or wrong and there is a sense in which we're inextricably embroiled in our own social systems. Can the people of the future therefore pass judgement on us and say the majority of us are 'bad' people depending on the position we've taken? Is there a possibility for any of us to be 'good' in social systems that may (depending on who you believe) be abusive and evil? Do any of you sincerely believe that we live in the best of all possible worlds in which we are able to be objective: true, slavery was a bad idea but all those other controversies I mentioned will just blow over - they're the work of extremists and idealists? Or do you believe that in passing judgement on Ford, Epps, etc. as individuals rather than on their society, we should be willing to take a similar judgement on ourselves?
* I hope this won't turn into a debate on any of these issues individually. I just wanted to raise the question of what it's like to live in a society with moral norms and moral debates and how that relates to the 'goodness' or 'badness' of individuals.
Wow! I enjoyed reading this post. You did a great job of comparing our way of living and the choices we make to the bad choices that Colonial America made a long time ago. Talk about history repeating itself.
@anne. I re-examined some aspects of what you wrote and literally felt shocked. For one, you describe Ford as someone who is devote. Second, you state your only issue with him was that he insensitively treated one of his slaves. OK, when should I start to think here? When do we begin to try to reconcile being devote with not only owning other human beings, but also exploiting their labor for the sole purpose of acquiring more? There is nothing devote about such. Nor is there any aspect of that slaver that distinguishes him from an inherently evil institution. Worst, at the end of the day, he is exactly the same as the other slavers, less extreme acts of violence.I would ask that you rethink your position in the context of your own humanity or lack thereof. If someone were to substitute white women in place of those black souls (including little girls) whose labor was exploited through sex trafficking, would you conclude under any circumstance that their pimps were humane? Would it make a difference if the pimps did not beat "their white women"? Would it matter if the pimps (in place of a giving a black soul a violin) gave a nice dress to their white sex workers?
Lets forgot the above examples of sex trafficking. Llet's just replace the southern US states with the Polish labor camps of WWII. Under what circumstance would a Nazi jailor be humane? Any?
I am waiting for a reply. If you still feel the same way about either Ford or your earlier ideas, I will walk away with serious questions about your ability to see immorality within your own soul.
Ibrahim wrote: "I would ask that you rethink your position in the context of your own inhumanity. If someone were to substitute white women in place of those black souls (including little girls) whose labor was exploited through sex trafficking, would you conclude under any circumstance that the pimps were humane?"I'm happy to discuss the question with you Ibrahim. Perhaps you forget that for centuries, white women, (like women in many other cultures) were essentially traded for sex regardless of their will. Their pimps were their fathers who assigned them to men of the fathers choosing for sex and domestic chores. The women had no choice in the matter, no property, no recourse, no alternatives, no right to refuse sex, it was legal to beat them and common to do so. Does this mean that every man living under that social system was personally and individually evil? That's the question I'm asking and it wasn't a rhetorical one.
You mention labor camps and nazis but perhaps you forget (or don't know) that the US has a significant proportion of its population incarcerated on slight pretexts and engaged in forced labor essentially for free. It breaks families and communities - the majority of them black and in many ways it closely resembles slavery in the US. It quite likely has historical links with it. I have some contacts with campaigns to oppose this and I know we are all inextricably involved with those systems - it isn't even really practical to boycott the commercial products that come out of them. The only solution seems a legislative one. In the meantime are you prepared to accept that you (and I, and everyone around us) is immoral because we participate in and benefit from this exploitation? That isn't a rhetorical question either but a genuine one.
Before I pass judgement on Ford as an individual, I have to tackle the question of whether individual goodness can exist in an evil society. If not, there's no need to even have a debate about whether Ford was good or not. We would have decided that he is not by definition and we would be left to conclude that Northup meant goodness in a very different way from ourselves.
Can I just remind you that the original question was essentially one of comprehension of the text - why did Northup appear to have a particular belief about Ford? I took my first answer from Northup's text and you've rather mixed together my report on Northup's stated opinions and my own. For example, I said Ford's alleged devotion meant nothing to me but it apparently did to Northup. Now we're talking about our own ethics which is fine as well.
@Anne wrote: "Perhaps you forget that for centuries, white women, (like women in many other cultures) were essentially traded for sex regardless of their will. Their pimps were their fathers who assigned them to men of the fathers choosing for sex and domestic chores. The women had no choice in the matter, no property, no recourse, no alternatives, no right to refuse sex, it was legal to beat them and common to do so...."Here is what you have forgotten. In every instance where one finds exploitation, one also finds more examples of the opposite. Even in the USA, populations of both free whites and their enslaved brothers fought to end a most inhumane institution. Remember, this was not a matter of isolation. The Southern states actually began what would become a civil war, in order to preserve the institution (and profits derived therein) of slavery. Their fight was against US states that sought to end the institution. This is a real context.
The prison industrial complex, if one were to look at it closely, is not one that is populated by free laborers. The system is one that seeks to wholly destroy all aspects of the soul of the African-American family. The prison industrial complex's products are not economically significant. It makes its money by over-populating private prisons with vulnerable and defenseless souls. In exchange for such, the owners of the prisons benefit with handsome profits. Related, one does not defeat the industrial prison complex by boycotting things that captured persons produce; one ends the complex by demanding that legislators fund jobs and educational opportunities for the poor. If the politicians fail to comply with this demand, they realize a political consequence. The consequence? Defeat by candidates who have the guts to oppose the new Jim Crow legislative initiatives.
While they are at it, it would not hurt if the public attached significant tax consequences to private prisons that cannot reduce rates of recidivism among those who they release into the society.
Back to the novel. If you will recall, Solomon would, after a while, destroyed the violin he was gifted. It seems that he lost optimism for a most dark and peculiar institution. Apparently, he exercised his entire distain against the institution of slavery.
We can further discuss these matters off-line. I don't want to take up too much of the reader's time with a matter that has gotten a bit off the mark.
Ibrahim wrote: "We can further discuss these matters off-line. I don't want to take up too much of the reader's time with a matter that has gotten a bit off the mark."You're right. Let's leave the thread for now and see what others think.
Yes! We have reached an agreement. Sorry for any misunderstanding. :-)
Anne wrote: "Ibrahim wrote: "I would ask that you rethink your position in the context of your own inhumanity. If someone were to substitute white women in place of those black souls (including little girls) wh..."Actually, Ibrahim, the northern states were in general NOT interested in ending slavery in the south. The abolition movement was not nearly as powerful as we would like to remember - and it is controversial among historians of the period whether Abraham Lincoln would have freed the slaves if the south had not preempted him by seceding (afraid that he might.) My history prof, Civil War scholar Joe Glatthaar (the same professor who told me to read this book many years ago,) insisted that Lincoln never intended to do such a thing, and that the abolition movement likely would have needed another 40-50 years to become influential enough to force it to happen.
And I don't point this out only to be contrary, but in lead-up to a point about the original question. It's easy to forget that Northup was not a literary character who was developed along careful lines to present a particular philosophy. He was a real person. Real people tend to judge others by comparison, and it is quite likely that compared to almost all of the southerners and even a solid majority of the northerners he had known, Ford was a good (compassionate) person towards him.
But the points for his reasoning aren't necessarily all outlined in the book. Again, this is an account of a real life, and every moment is not captured. The author's assertion that Ford was a good man may have been a way of encapsulating a broad range of experiences and observations that he did not have the space or the time to relate. At some point we just have to trust him, that he told it to us the way he saw it, as best he could. The point was that even though Ford was a good man, he wound up being guilty of terrible things. Northup's concern was not to convince you of *why* Ford was good, it was to get you to think about the implications of the situation, *given* that he was good. If you do not believe that he could possibly have been a good person while owning slaves, then I think that means you disagree with Solomon Northup's basic worldview. It's a valid stance.
It's been more than a decade since I visited the book though, so forgive my lack of detailed back-up.
Daria wrote: "the northern states were in general NOT interested in ending slavery in the south. The abolition movement was not nearly as powerful as we would like to remember - and it is controversial among historians of the period whether Abraham Lincoln would have freed the slaves if the south had not preempted him by seceding (afraid that he might.)"That matches my understanding of the situation, based on Wendell Phillips Liberty's Hero which I once read for research purposes. The abolitionists were not very happy with Lincoln or the Reconstruction process for that matter.
Daria wrote: "Anne wrote: "Ibrahim wrote: "I would ask that you rethink your position in the context of your own inhumanity. If someone were to substitute white women in place of those black souls (including lit..."Doria, I think we are expanding this conversation a bit farther than the core question, but I will try to answer some of your points.
First, I would believe your professor would not have made any predictions about the slavery issue had he examined the whole of factors affecting both the civil war and the role of other things that impacted the issue of slavery.
This inquiry requires a really in-depth reading of what was going on at times leading to and following the civil war. Before the war, the question of the day was not about the immorality of slavery; it was about regional power and -- its chief precursors -- greed and money. Southern business interests were exceptionally powerful -- even in the northern states. With the exception of the State of New York, there was not an equivalent in power that matched that of any of the southern states. Moreover, the Southener had other power enhancers: trade relations with the English, the Spaniards, and the French. This enhancers assured that slave picked cotton and (to a lesser extent) tobacco made its way into Europe. Even the trade of slaves was a valued market.
The Northern states understood the Southerners' power, and worked to diminish such. Northern politicians and business interests interfered in trade relations between the English and the Southerners. These interferences came in many forms. Blocked trade routes, financial / banking manipulations, etc., were all intended to wreck the southern economy and its powerful business interests and politicians.
These money and power matters made the immorality of slavery one that was secondary issue. Given this, it is best not to conflate the issue of the morality of slavery with the fundamental causes of the civil war.
Where one can properly view the issue of slavery is how it effected the relative strengths of the northern and southern sides. It is not that the North so jealously guarded the rights of freedom for all men, it was that some of its states and populations therein, did oppose this dark institution. This opposition caused societal division, and thus weakened the North.
Moreover, one has to consider the US border states. These states were generally divided on the matter of slavery, as well as with whom they should align their interests. Those who opposed slavery either did so out of moral principles or because they jealously resented the money Southerns gained from exploiting black men, women, and children. So long as the southerner held slaves, he maintained a material advantage over the border and northern state residents in both the domestic and international market places.
This was not theoretical. White men in the border states could hardly earn a living because they had to compete against a matured and powerful southern economic institution called slavery. Putting an end to that near inherent advantage would benefit the envious border state business aspirants.
In addition, other men -- especially those in the border states -- who opposed slavery would not have likely engaged in a war to kill white men from southern states if, at the end of the day, slavery were expanded into the border and Northern states.
Moreover, even if slavery had spread through the whole of the border states, such would not likely have lead to any advantage to anyone. This is because an expanded slave economy would result in increases in products like cotton and other products. The results would have been significant increase in commodity supplies and price competition, and a corresponding diminution of commodity prices in general.
Just as significant, the north had populations of, "free" Blacks who not only opposed slavery, but also would fight to make assurances that the scourge of slavery did not extent into the northern states. Living mostly in states above the Mason-Dixon Line, these Black men would not have stood silently if the Northern states had not decided the issue of slavery. To the contrary, they likely would been exceptionally adept at bringing the North to its knees in the event the latter had not settled the issue of their freedom. Worker strikes, disruptions in transportation, and destruction of railroads and ships would have likely resulted.
Lincoln well understood these issues, and knew that such weakened the north, and ostensibly lead to the demise of America. These things account for his decision to take on the matter of slavery. He did not have much choice but to fight against it. For Lincoln, it was not a question of ending slavery on moral grounds; it was an issue of being able to preserve a most fragile America.
Lets not rule out the role of the slaves took to destroy the slave system. The Union states encouraged thousands of Southern slaves to make their way to union held forts in the South. From there, the slaves pledged loyalty to the union, boarded union boats, and made their way to New York and other places. Once trained as soldiers, they returned to the Southern states as fighters against their former plantation owners and slave masters. Under no circumstance would these men agree to fight for the preservation of the north and thereafter return to slavery. (The Union actually promised transfer Blacks to Canada in exchange for fighting against the south. It made good on its promise.)
OK, lets look at the abolitionist movement. It was significant in bringing about the debate of slavery to men and women in free and border states, and in scaring the hell out the white men and women. Remember the abolitionist movement consisted of divergent elements. The most prominent of these factors were the debates, near terrorist actions by the likes of John Brown, and black slave revolts. All figured in the question of ending slavery in the absence of war.
These debates caused significant divisions in the North because they not only went to the question of how slavery disaffected blacks, but also the soul of white men and women, and their society. Many, especially those who believed in God, did not want their souls to be dehumanized because they would not consider the immorality of slavery.
Related, although part of the abolitionists' debates were philosophical, they also had significant political consequences. In short, the philosophical debate caused divisions among the northern politicians, prominent intellectuals, and the Joe's and Jane's of Main Street.
Related, one should consider that abolitionists like John Brown literally scared the hell out of most Americans, and especially those in the Southern and border states. Years before Harper's Ferry, WV, Brown was a business man who lived in a border state. He business could not compete against those plantation owners who lived just south of the state line. Accordingly, Brown and other white business interests organized attacks on southern plantation owners. The take away in all of this is Brown's first fights were more about business than they were about ending slavery in and of itself. The freeing of the slaves was necessary in order to neutralize the Southern plantation owners' inherent business advantage. (Later, Brown would become increasingly against slavery in and of itself.)
The early raids by Brown and other white men were felt among white business and political interests in both the north and the south. Neither interest wanted to see instances where militia of free white men would, for business and philosophical reasons, rise up against white southern slave owners.
While the earliest of the Brown attacks were significant, they did not seem to be a big factor on the issue of slavery. His later efforts in the abolitionist movement, however, would be a significant factor in dividing, and thus weakening Northern political strength.
There are other things to consider that did not come on the radar of most American historians. That factor was England's textile workers. These persons were just a tick about the status of slaves in the US. They not only held great sympathies for the plight of the American slave, but also initiated workers in strikes in factors where American cotton was produced.
Finally, the slave himself was the biggest factor in the question of ending slavery. Once past the southern racists' rhetoric, every white man knew that if the Black man ever fought for his freedom, not only would the institution of slavery come tumbling down, but also every vestige of white power contained therein. The white man well understood that but for his enslaved black man, there was no white wealth, no white trade relations, and no white power. The slaver well knew that if the black man fought for his freedom in the morning, the whole of the white American institution of slavery would have ended by that evening. This is an undisputed fact.
Don't believe such? Ask virtually every white person in the Americas about Nat Turner. For them, the specter of Turner's legacy manifesting was more real to them than the 911 attacks. Ask what they feared most. Ask was it Union invasions, a decline in trade with England, natural disaster, or another Nat Turner. Virtually all them would reply that a realized dream of another Nat Turner cause them to not only flee the whole of their plantations, but also the territory of America.
The American white had real reason to hold their fears of the immediacy of the end of slavery by means of a slave revolt. One need only look at anthropological digs in places where Africans were held captive. The fought artifacts should something quite remarkable. In virtually all slave quarters of plantations, the slaves kept the rifles and guns. The white plantation owners entrusted these tools to the slaves for purposes of safekeeping and hunting. They did so because the slaves were most adept at hunting. Had these men turned their guns on the white man, the game would have ended without much resistance.
All of the above factors affected the issue of slavery and how it would have ended in America. Still, it would be difficult to say when the institution of slavery would have ended.
Now, Daria, let go back to the central question of the morality of slavery.
Anne wrote: "Daria wrote: "the northern states were in general NOT interested in ending slavery in the south. The abolition movement was not nearly as powerful as we would like to remember - and it is controver..."Daria, agree in part with you, but please consider my response to Anne as well.
At the end of the day, we can all agree that the white northerner was less interested in the slave issue as he was interested in preserving his own power and possessions. Unfortunately, the morality of his own soul was not something he valued over his possessions.
Penny wrote: "I think Solomon only said Ford was a good man because he did not beat him frequently and listened to him when Tibbeats wanted to kill him. They were all cruel, hard men as far as I can see. Bass be..."Agreed!!!
First, I would believe your professor would not have made any predictions about the slavery issue had he examined the whole of factors affecting both the civil war and the role of other things that impacted the issue of slavery. Ibrahim, as I think I mentioned, he was a scholar of the period. What that means is that he had spent his entire adult life concentrating on exactly that topic (several decades of study.) Out of curiosity, what is your background on the subject?
Daria wrote: "First, I would believe your professor would not have made any predictions about the slavery issue had he examined the whole of factors affecting both the civil war and the role of other things that..."Daria, I understand the popular narrative about slavery's end is one that written from the perspective of those who seek to perpetuate myths. A better way to look at the history is to go beyond the narratives and look at the facts.
The reason so many miss the point of Lincoln's decision to free the slaves is because so few really looked at what Lincoln considered, and so many others fail to even consider what he said. Lincoln would have preserved the system of slavery if he could have saved the Union -- or this America. The question should be asked, why could he not save the Union and still preserve slavery? It seems a logical question, right?
The American narrative does not address this question. It simply provides an unexamined proclamation that Lincoln freed the slaves for humane reasons.
Go beyond the revisionists' propaganda. Take a look at the plethora of things that bring light to the questions Lincoln faced during his day. Research the facts in stead of reading the, "historians". Sure, their works are compelling, but oftentimes misleading. The best way to the truth is through unbiased research and inspiration.
Lots of typos. Sorry. :-(
With respect to the OP, it's interesting that several discussion groups on the book carry the same question:... Northup observed, "It is not the fault of the slaveholder that he is cruel, so much as it is the fault of the system under which he lives" (p. 135). Do you think this observation is accurate?
In other words, that was Northup's opinion. Do we agree with him?
For reference - here is Northup's moral appreciation of Ford, given when he introduces him.Throughout the whole parish of Avoyelles, and especially along both shores of Bayou Boeuf, where he is more intimately known, he is accounted by his fellow-citizens as a worthy minister of God. In many northern minds, perhaps, the idea of a man holding his brother man in servitude, and the traffic in human flesh, may seem altogether incompatible with their conceptions of a moral or religious life. From descriptions of such men as Burch and Freeman, and others hereinafter mentioned, they are led to despise and execrate the whole class of slaveholders, indiscriminately. But I was sometime his slave, and had an opportunity of learning well his character and disposition, and it is but simple justice to him when I say, in my opinion, there never was a more kind, noble, candid, Christian man than William Ford. The influences and associations that had always surrounded him, blinded him to the inherent wrong at the bottom of the system of Slavery. He never doubted the moral right of one man holding another in subjection. Looking through the same medium with his fathers before him, he saw things in the same light. Brought up under other circumstances and other influences, his notions would undoubtedly have been different. Nevertheless, he was a model master, walking uprightly, according to the light of his understanding, and fortunate was the slave who came to his possession. Were all men such as he, Slavery would be deprived of more than half its bitterness.
I bolded the part in which Northup addresses the point made by Ibrahim - that slave-owning is so inherently bad that no slave-owner can be considered good.
Northup chooses to excuse Ford from this charge on the grounds that his environment and education have blinded him to the wrongness of slave-owning: "He never doubted the moral right of one man holding another in subjection." and acknowledges Ford as good within the limits of his own understanding: "he was a model master, walking uprightly, according to the light of his understanding".
Northup has another opinion regarding Ford's character which is particularly interesting in the light of the film.
The book says:
Sometimes, not only then, but afterwards, I was almost on the point of disclosing fully to Ford the facts of my history. I am inclined now to the opinion it would have resulted in my benefit. This course was often considered, but through fear of its miscarriage, never put into execution, ...
In other words, Northup believed Ford would probably not have held him if he knew he was a kidnapped free man.
I believe the film presents Ford in a different moral light, in an incident which was obviously made up by the scriptwriter, since it does not appear in the book. From the film's Wikipedia article:
Northup attempts to reason with Ford, explaining that he is actually a free man. Ford states that he "cannot hear this" and responds "I have a debt to be mindful of" on Northup's purchase price.
Anne wrote: "With respect to the OP, it's interesting that several discussion groups on the book carry the same question:... Northup observed, "It is not the fault of the slaveholder that he is cruel, so much..."
Anne, Thomas Jefferson was regarded as the architect of American democracy, but assured this democracy never reached his African-American servants. Was he inherently cruel? I can't answer that. But, I am also aware that he fathered a number of children by his slave. This woman would bear Jefferson's only son. What did Jefferson do with these semi-brown offsprings? He enslaved them. He even enslaved his own children while writing a constitution that recognized the inherent right of men to be free.
The question that arises is whether one can overlook Jefferson in light of the clime of the states during the turn of the 18th Century. What was this clime? It was one that looked at the issue of slavery, debated it, and concluded that it was wrong. Jefferson's enlightened colleagues from France and the colonies debated the evils of slavery. Even Jefferson wrote about these matters. But, he never took a moral high ground. Not even at the end of his life and when many of his contemporaries did things like free their slaves or left them with the land in which they worked. Jefferson not only refused, but also failed to extend freedom to his only begotten son.
One can judge Jefferson by the norms of his day. The issue of Jefferson's black mistress and black offsprings was a scandal of his day. The rumors of his black children were known here and debased in France. They would be the things the things that reduced Jefferson to the status of a hypocrite and fully compromised human being. (This is what his white colleagues observed in him.)
Irrespective of the imagined good intentions of the slaver, the wrongness of slavery, whether expressed in Jefferson or the Ford's of the south, still destroyed the morality of a nation and the men who engaged in that practice. It is nothing that can be defended, nor those who engaged in the practice. The best one can say is that some of those who engaged in exploiting human beings may have had a conscious that tormented them.
Back to 12 Years a Slave. Solomon's ideas would change over time. He would become less optimistic about the whole of the institution of slavery. That whole included people like Ford. If you recall, during the earlier years of his captivity, Solomon had a bad dose of near incurable optimism. This was noted by many of his black, "colleagues". His white overseers, even though who were a bit sympathetic, probably would use the term, "naiveté" in place of "optimism".
More to the point, however, Solomon would change. By the end of his life, after being a person who was involved in the abolitionist movement, after being held a captive, and after returning to freedom, Solomon up'ed his game. On the best of the information we have, he spent the rest of his life working as an abolitionist.
Anne, I think one of the issues here is that you don't have any kind of appreciation of how it feels to be marginalized and reduced to something other than being a human being. I say this because you seem to believe slavery is a moral issue in the matter that driving a car is a moral issue. You give the same moral litmus test to slavery as you do to one's choice of diet. You miss humanity. You really do.
Here are my thoughts on how you are missing the point of the immorality of slavery and those who participate. I don't find persons who drive cars to be immoral even though more than 90% of my transportation needs are met by walking, bicycling, and a local rapid train system. Moreover, I do not find people who eat meat to be immoral even though I severely restrict my meat intake to about once a month. On top of that, with few exceptions, I restrict that meat which I consume to that which comports to what is called, Halal compliant. Still, no aspect of my transportation or food intake rises to the status of the exploitation of other human beings.
Most people who choose not to drive nor eat meat may have a moral compass, but I do not believe they would view their decision in the same way as those persons who took on the issue of slavery.
We have to come to a place where we can be OK with not defending immorality of, "whiteness" or some construct about the privileges inherent therein. The mere act of justifying race based hubris is immoral in and of itself.
Ibrahim wrote: "Back to 12 Years a Slave. Solomon's ideas would change over time. He would become less optimistic about the whole of the institution of slavery... If you recall, during the earlier years of his captivity, Solomon had a bad dose of near incurable optimism.I honestly don't recall that. Could you give some references from the book to support this?
You also said: Anne, I think one of the issues here is that you don't have any kind of appreciation of how it feels to be marginalized and reduced to something other than being a human being...
You are mistaken because I haven't expressed my own moral views on slavery. If you read more closely, you will see that I've engaged with and analyzed the views Northup gave in his book. Sorry to state the obvious, but you are one person, I am another and Northup is a third. We're perfectly entitled to disagree with him, and I'm afraid he is the one whose views you disapprove of so strongly.
Incidentally, I get the part where you suspect me of having insufficient empathy across racial boundaries, but what are you doing taking the opinions of a dead black man who isn't here to assert himself and attributing them to a white woman from another era and continent? You're forcing me into the role of unwilling plagiarist. At least grant the guy the respect and dignity of owning his own ideas.
OK, Ibrahim, I get the feeling nothing will satisfy you but to hear what my own moral views on slavery actually are. You know nobody else has asked for them right? Besides it's an enormous task, which would practically require a book to accomplish. I'll try to send you something in a bit.
Anne wrote: "Ibrahim wrote: "Back to 12 Years a Slave. Solomon's ideas would change over time. He would become less optimistic about the whole of the institution of slavery... If you recall, during the earlier ..."Anne, the matter of slavery is one that was never completed in America. References to The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness is a masterwork that demonstrates -- even after the election of America's first African-American president -- that the number of African-Americans in prison exceeds those in slavery.
I made the above statement because think you should know that the legacies or a most vile institution never ended. Many men are still realizing slavery. They realize it in a manner similar to those experienced by Northup. they are marginalized, criminalized, exploited, and impoverished. On top of all of such, the greater white American powers, still insist that the Black man is the problem in America. Of course, during times of slavery, the same kinds of men blamed those enslaved for everything ranging from the economic downfall of southern power, to the American Civil War, to the decline in morality of the white race and its women.
In many ways, the whole of the slave experience is one that most in the world cannot relate to. It is a peculiar American institution that is uniquely known by those who participated in or derived some harm or benefits from. I would come to know of this experience from the legacies passed to me by a father who grew up in the American South. He left that milieu in order to avoid the worst of the remnants of slavery. He may have escaped some, but they remained in his life. My experiences were different than him, but I have lived in a US state that was two generations away from the slave experience. This setting included lynchings and threats of lynchings during contemporary times. One encountered KKK'esque types who sought a return to slavery. They carried the guns and flags, and showed a certain contempt for non-whites.
I mention these matters because I want you to see that some people, especially those harmed, carry a right to know and express their own narrative. The best one can do is to insist that that narrative is respected -- even if such expressions cause harm to readers, the revisionists, or those who simply prefer to cover-up the immorality of white Americans who took part in the slavery system. Sorry, this is the truth.
I will try to provide you direct passages from 12 years that support my position that Northup lost his hope in whole of the institution of slavery and those who took part in perpetuating it.
In many ways, the whole of the slave experience is one that most in the world cannot relate to. It is a peculiar American institution that is uniquely known by those who participated in or derived some harm or benefits from.
We should remember the experiences of people in the Caribbean and South America who were ensnared in the same system of Transatlantic slavery. Not to mention other slave systems throughout history.
I mention these matters because I want you to see that some people carry a right to know and express their own narrative.
Yes. Northup, for example.
Yes, but lets examine these matters separately. the Caribbean, Central and South America's slavery experiences were very different than that of those experienced by Africans in America. In places like Haiti and Cuba, the slave population far exceeded that of the whites. This explains, in part, why revolts and revolutions successfully happened in those places. In the US, the slave was summarily oppressed. He was a, "minority" piece of chattel that lacked an ownership interest in his offsprings, could not take a walk down the road unless granted permission, and could not benefit from the labor he gave white men. He built the wealth of the USA, but would remain wholly impoverished. He also lacked a right to vote, go to court, or give himself a name. But for a handful, none ever breathed freely in their. "new" home. Their offspring still don't. This is the on-going legacy of American slavery.
I mention this matter because, at a minimum, one should -- if he or she seeks to be humane -- honestly examine this reality. For the American white, it is a subject that he or she views knowing that there is no escaping the reality that their forefathers engaged in the worst of practices. Not unnoticed, their, "white privilege" status still assures them benefits. If they seek to not associate with their ancestors' dark histories, than they can begin to respect the truth. This truth begins with them hearing and respecting the narratives of those souls of the oppressed.
This truth begins with them hearing and respecting the narratives of those souls of the oppressed.
I couldn't agree with you more. Again, that would be Northup. You're saying all this because I asked you to stop attributing his views to me and generally dismissing him. I was listening to him carefully and making a point of understanding what he'd said, which is the kind of behavior that strikes me as respectful. I'm not sure if my respect goes so far as to agree with everything he said, but at the same time, I recognize that he's the one who was there, not me.
Thank you dear Anne.Thank you for respecting the whole of Northup's narrative.
