White appearing slaves of the old south

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,536
The picture is of slaves from 1864 under Union occupation of New Orleans to raise money for a school for black children.

Presumably freed slaves who looked white either passed for whites and married whites or married blacks or likely darker mulattos. Therefore, there are not black people like that today.

a1.jpg


20191117_145347 (1).jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: HackneyedScribe
Nov 2019
116
Maykop
I think they're not slaves, they're serfs. I am also sure that at least some of the black workers were not legally slaves, but serfs. I have seen the legal formulas in the U.S. purchase documents, and in both cases there are questions. In the first case, they sold the estate where the slaves lived, not the slaves. In the second case, the "slave" was "released from power". - is a typical medieval formulation in which a "slave" is not a thing, but a vassal.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,536
No, they were slaves. Those pictured were part black and legally considered black. Slave masters would use light skinned slaves as concubines, so some slaves got lighter and lighter. Legally, the child of a slave mother was a slave.

There were white indentured servants, mainly in the colonial period, usually working on plantations for 7-14 years as a sentence for crime or 3 years in exchange for passage to America.

Most free whites before the Civil War owned the land the farmed on, usually marginal land. There was so much land available, so most were yeoman farmers. After the Civil War, most blacks and some whites were share croppers, giving a share of their crop to the landowner in exchange for use of the land. Legally, they were not serfs, but often it was difficult to leave.
 
Nov 2019
116
Maykop
Legally, the child of a slave mother was a slave.
There is a paradox in U.S. history: the U.S. does not mention the serfs who came from Europe with their landlords. In Europe, every landlord had a serf, but noble people came to the United States without peasants for some reason. The peasants came by themselves - completely free or as slaves sold by someone. This cannot be the case.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,536
There is a paradox in U.S. history: the U.S. does not mention the serfs who came from Europe with their landlords. In Europe, every landlord had a serf, but noble people came to the United States without peasants for some reason. The peasants came by themselves - completely free or as slaves sold by someone. This cannot be the case.
You speak Russian and not English and don't understand that it wasn't like Russia. In Britain there were no serfs, but mostly hired farm workers. In the US south, land was mostly purchased and slaves were purchased. The landlords were whoever had money or connections to obtain land. Often originally they were younger sons of titled noblemen. However, land and slaves were property that could be bought and sold. Most people who had been peasants in Britain were eventually able to obtain small tracts of land to own and farm. There were no peasants, which is one reason they bought slaves.
 

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,872
Cornwall
Just when I think there can't possibly be any more variations on the themes of 'black' and 'slave' up pops another.

Talk about obsession.
 
May 2019
229
Salt Lake City, Utah
Thank you johnincornwall and betgo for your statements.

US law would not countenance a 'serf' argument in either federal or state courts
 
May 2019
229
Salt Lake City, Utah
I lived thirty years in the South and can personally testify to men and women who were of color and passed as 'white.'

My father's mother passed as did her sister. They both married white men.
 

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,673
San Diego
You speak Russian and not English and don't understand that it wasn't like Russia. In Britain there were no serfs, but mostly hired farm workers. In the US south, land was mostly purchased and slaves were purchased. The landlords were whoever had money or connections to obtain land. Often originally they were younger sons of titled noblemen. However, land and slaves were property that could be bought and sold. Most people who had been peasants in Britain were eventually able to obtain small tracts of land to own and farm. There were no peasants, which is one reason they bought slaves.
Sorry- In Feudal England there were serfs.
Later- Freemen working the land were NOT "paid" laborers- they were most often tenant farmers working the land owned by the gentry- That is how barons and earls and other nobility made their incomes. Their tenant farmers paid rents to the gentry either by selling the crops they raised on the aristocrat's land- or thru direct transfer of the crops and livestock they raised. ( which is, essentially, a form of serfdom- no matter what English common law may have called it. )

Commoners who made good in the trades might be able to scrape together the money to buy small parcels of land, and only when the industrial revolution began did the landed aristocracy have to deign to offer wages for labor on their lands, because they had to compete with paid jobs working at industrial centers- and only when those higher paying jobs began to sprout up did free commoners begin to have the potential of buying their own land.
As the gentry had to start paying for labor- and as labor began to have the money to buy their own land in greater numbers, the income of the aristocracy fell and that is when they were forced to start selling off their estates bit by bit- often to the descendants of former
tenant farmers.

As to slaves who could pass for white- they were the product of rampant miscegenation. Slave owners were not shy about raping their female slaves. The result was all the various skin hues among the African American population.
 
May 2019
229
Salt Lake City, Utah
betgo said:
You speak Russian and not English and don't understand that it wasn't like Russia. In Britain there were no serfs, but mostly hired farm workers. In the US south, land was mostly purchased and slaves were purchased. The landlords were whoever had money or connections to obtain land. Often originally they were younger sons of titled noblemen. However, land and slaves were property that could be bought and sold. Most people who had been peasants in Britain were eventually able to obtain small tracts of land to own and farm. There were no peasants, which is one reason they bought slaves.

Sorry- In Feudal England there were serfs.
Later- Freemen working the land were NOT "paid" laborers- they were most often tenant farmers working the land owned by the gentry- That is how barons and earls and other nobility made their incomes. Their tenant farmers paid rents to the gentry either by selling the crops they raised on the aristocrat's land- or thru direct transfer of the crops and livestock they raised. ( which is, essentially, a form of serfdom- no matter what English common law may have called it. )

Commoners who made good in the trades might be able to scrape together the money to buy small parcels of land, and only when the industrial revolution began did the landed aristocracy have to deign to offer wages for labor on their lands, because they had to compete with paid jobs working at industrial centers- and only when those higher paying jobs began to sprout up did free commoners begin to have the potential of buying their own land.
As the gentry had to start paying for labor- and as labor began to have the money to buy their own land in greater numbers, the income of the aristocracy fell and that is when they were forced to start selling off their estates bit by bit- often to the descendants of former
tenant farmers.

As to slaves who could pass for white- they were the product of rampant miscegenation. Slave owners were not shy about raping their female slaves. The result was all the various skin hues among the African American population.
No, serfs did not exist in law after the 1500s in Great Britain. Economic servitude on the manors should never be confused with serfdom in either Great Britain or the British colonies in the law.