In American Slavery Kolchin Summary

Peter Kolchin argues that although there has been extensive study of slavery, “we still lack a volume that pulls together what we have learned to present a coherent history of slavery in America” In American Slavery Kolchin wants to “synthesize and make sense of recent historical research on slavery.” He accomplishes this, first, by presenting a historiographical evolution of slavery while adding historical controversies that arise due to differing interpretation. Second, presenting a balance approach by ensuring all actors are discussed equally, the slaves, the salve owners, and the system that bound them together. Third, to demonstrate how slavery has changed over time, slavery is viewed differently from the early colonial period and …show more content…
Phillips present a “white supremacy” view. “Noting that “the planters had a saying … that a negro was what a white man made him.” Kolchin then describes in the 1950s authors Kenneth M. Stampp and Stanley M. Elkins differing interpretations. Stampp describing the mistreatment of slaves whereas Elkins describes the lack rebellions in the American South compared to actions of slavery in Brazil and the Caribbean islands. Elkins adds the Southern “closed” environment stripped them of their native African culture, and “turned them into childlike “Sambos” who almost completely internalized the values of their masters.” Kolchin contents in an effort to dispute Elkins and Stampp’s claims scholars in the 1970s and the 1980s decided to bring slave to the “center stage,” they “abandoned the victimization model in favor of an emphasis on the slaves’ resiliency and autonomy.” The result is that authors, instead of a presenting one sided views, they now present and analyze both sides, providing a complete history of slavery. This example presents Kolchin’s assertion of the historiographical …show more content…
The North Carolina v. Mann (1829) case affirms the slaveowner had authority over their slaves which are considered property and could not be found guilty of committing violence against them, since owners could not be punished under common law unless the legislature authorized such punishment. The Souther v. the Commonwealth presets a case where a slave was tortured by his master (Souther) for twelve hours which resulted in the slave’s death. Souther was tried and convicted of second degree murder with a five year prison sentence. He contends that at most he should receive a conviction of manslaughter, subsequently requesting a repeal of his case. Souther had reason to believe that his case would be overturned, based on other cases and due to the slave code laws. Judge Ruffin had previously rule in favor of the master, while other’s comment “that if the victim of this twelve hours ' torture had only possessed a little stronger constitution, and had not actually died under it, there is no law in Virginia by which Souther could even have been indicted for misdemeanor.” The result was that although the Superior Court recommends Souther should be hung for his crime, he could not be retried over again, but had to complete his sentence. The North Carolina v. Mann and Souther v. The Commonwealth demonstrate that master possessed legal rights, slaves were considered property not humans, and due to slave code laws