How was slavery in the low country different from slavery in the Chesapeake?

Answer 1

Slavery in the Lowcountry was more divergent than slavery in the Chesapeake.

Throughout the Chesapeake slaves were generally allowed to interact with whites pretty freely. Interracial marriage was very common and doesn't seem to have been stigmatized until around 1640. Overall the distinction between free and not-free seems to have been more important than the distinction between white and black. Whites and blacks were -both- used for servile labor, and both were generally given a respectable measure of independence. This meant that they were able to hire themselves out and eventually buy their own freedom. In fact, many slaves would go on to be extremely successful. Anthony Johnson, for example, achieved his freedom, acquired a large plantation, became a slave owner, and even successfully sued his white neighbors when they attempted to harbor one of his escaped slaves. Whether you were in Maryland or Virginia, if you took a look at rural slaves you would likely find them laboring dutifully away on tobacco plantations.

In Lowcountry, however, plantation culture was faster to take root in French territory like Carolina than in Spanish territory such as Florida.

In Florida the plantation culture didn't make many inroads until the late eighteenth century. Rural slave owners worked side-by-side with their servants ranching or producing food crops for export to the sugar colonies. There were even regular militias completely constituted of slaves and free-blacks. Slaves were often able to gain their freedom and even participate in the political process, playing major roles in important institutions such as the church. As in the Chesapeake blacks were able to baptize their children and marry freely. Though, it should be noted that here they did so in Catholic and not protestant institutions. In both Florida and the Chesapeake, the Creole culture prospered as slaves were able to employ their multicultural experiences for social advancement. Spain also invited slaves from English colonies in Carolina to go fugitive, promising them (and generally delivering) freedom and some degree of equality.

The development of a rice-based agricultural system meant that life was more labor intensive for rural slaves in Carolina than it was for rural slaves in Maryland or Virginia. At first slaves were able to play major roles and develop their own economy, buying their freedom and sustaining themselves, due to their sheer numbers. However, the fact that whites were so grossly outnumbered led to widespread fear and, consequently, extreme restrictions on the behavior of slaves and indeed the slave owners. Slaves were largely unable to baptize or marry and their culture wasn't allowed to develop as much as it was in Florida or the Chesapeake.

The general landscape of the Lowcountry being wooded, sub-tropical, and sparsely populated was also more conducive to escape attempts than was the landscape of the Chesapeake. This was exacerbated by Spain's insistence on harboring fugitive slaves. (It should be noted that they specifically harbored fugitive slaves who had escaped the English, not just slaves in general. Their motives here were obviously not altruistic.)

I recommend reading Ira Berlin's "Many Thousands gone By." That was my primary source for all of this information. Of course most of what I am here focusing on is the Charter Generation. But, Berlin goes a bit further tracing the development of slavery in the different districts much further forward in the chronological line.

The book can be a bit expensive, but there's a free-online synopsis here:

http://allenmendenhallblog.com/2011/02/09/outline-and-summary-of-ira-berlins-many-thousands-gone/

--WarThemedRevolution