Disciplining Slave Ironworkers in the Antebellum South: Coercion, Conciliation, and Accommodation, by Charles B. Dew aims to present an analysis of the civility shared between slave owners and slaves in the iron industry. Dew focuses his analysis on the ironworks owned by William Weaver in the Valley of Virginia. By only using sources produced by slave owners and managers, Dew fails to thoroughly consider the perspectives of Weaver’s slaves and how his disciplinary and capitalist actions impacted them.
Dew’s article presents a level of bias in his selective use of evidence. Despite his aim to illustrate a “slave’s reaction to his or her bondage”, the evidence used is primarily sourced from the slave owners, hirers and their managers. Whilst …show more content…
As mentioned in the article, the value of slave labour was increasing (pg.), therefore an escaped slave was of greater consequence to their owner. The necessity of appeasing the slave workforce was illustrate in Weaver’s ironworks between the late 1820s and early 1830s, were 10 slaves escaped due to their treatment under a particular manager. The cost associated with establishing and running a furnace came at a significant financial cost, therefore the owners were dependent on slave labour to prevent their financial destruction. This significant risk drove ironmasters to treat their workers accordingly, as their success rode on the efforts and skill of their slaves. Dew’s article fails to illustrate the extent of Weaver’s dependence on his slave labour. In order to drive production and slave motivation, a system was introduced, in which slaves were paid when they exceeded their quota of work for the day. This allowed ironworkers to make small purchases such as coffee and tobacco, or pay for time off to visit their wives who were owned by other proprietors. The article argues that the “overwork” system gave slaves a sense of self and “being their own man”, despite the system being utilised to manipulate and punish slaves. Whilst arguing that in many cases the overwork system was …show more content…
Virginia legal administration was largely fuelled by fear of slave revolts. Such legislation includes granting absolute authority to slave owners to discipline their slaves. Slaves were also unable to defend themselves in court against their owners and overseers in the early 1800s. Therefore, the “civility” discussed in Dew’s article may have occurred as a result of uncivil discipline. Also, despite accounting for the increase of labour costs, Dew’s article fails to consider the declining iron prices which would have increased pressure on ironworkers to meet production standards. Therefore, maintaining the wellbeing and motivation of the ironworkers was of greater importance. The impact of external slave revolts should also be noted, although they did not take place within Weaver’s operations. Whilst Dew acknowledges the American Civil war and its impact, it fails to account for the effects of other slave revolts including the Nat Turner rebellion, which almost lead to slavery being abolished in Virginia in 1832. These external forces would not only have impacted operations, but also the attitudes of the slaves and their overseers, and therefore cannot be
Dew’s article presents a level of bias in his selective use of evidence. Despite his aim to illustrate a “slave’s reaction to his or her bondage”, the evidence used is primarily sourced from the slave owners, hirers and their managers. Whilst …show more content…
As mentioned in the article, the value of slave labour was increasing (pg.), therefore an escaped slave was of greater consequence to their owner. The necessity of appeasing the slave workforce was illustrate in Weaver’s ironworks between the late 1820s and early 1830s, were 10 slaves escaped due to their treatment under a particular manager. The cost associated with establishing and running a furnace came at a significant financial cost, therefore the owners were dependent on slave labour to prevent their financial destruction. This significant risk drove ironmasters to treat their workers accordingly, as their success rode on the efforts and skill of their slaves. Dew’s article fails to illustrate the extent of Weaver’s dependence on his slave labour. In order to drive production and slave motivation, a system was introduced, in which slaves were paid when they exceeded their quota of work for the day. This allowed ironworkers to make small purchases such as coffee and tobacco, or pay for time off to visit their wives who were owned by other proprietors. The article argues that the “overwork” system gave slaves a sense of self and “being their own man”, despite the system being utilised to manipulate and punish slaves. Whilst arguing that in many cases the overwork system was …show more content…
Virginia legal administration was largely fuelled by fear of slave revolts. Such legislation includes granting absolute authority to slave owners to discipline their slaves. Slaves were also unable to defend themselves in court against their owners and overseers in the early 1800s. Therefore, the “civility” discussed in Dew’s article may have occurred as a result of uncivil discipline. Also, despite accounting for the increase of labour costs, Dew’s article fails to consider the declining iron prices which would have increased pressure on ironworkers to meet production standards. Therefore, maintaining the wellbeing and motivation of the ironworkers was of greater importance. The impact of external slave revolts should also be noted, although they did not take place within Weaver’s operations. Whilst Dew acknowledges the American Civil war and its impact, it fails to account for the effects of other slave revolts including the Nat Turner rebellion, which almost lead to slavery being abolished in Virginia in 1832. These external forces would not only have impacted operations, but also the attitudes of the slaves and their overseers, and therefore cannot be