Skip to main content

Why did not the slaves rebel?



Scholars of slavery usually make the distinction between actively rebelling and "passively" rebelling. Slaves rarely actively rebelled, because frankly the antebellum South was practically a military garrison due to its slave patrols and militias.  While white southerners insisted that their "darkies" were contented and docile creatures, they were not going to take any chances. Especially after St. Domingue (the Caribbean slave revolt that resulted in the creation of Haiti), whose specter would haunt the minds of many antebellum whites for decades. 

The largest slave rebellion to take place in the United States is illustrative of this point. When Nat Turner rebelled in the summer of 1831 in southeastern Virginia, his original band had but 7 men. At its height, his band had maybe 40 men. Within a few days of the outbreak of the insurrection, some 3,000 men had converged on Southampton County in order to put down the rebellion. The odds were greatly stacked against the slaves, both in terms of manpower and armaments. And the slaveholders made sure to keep it this way. In reprisal many completely innocent blacks, slave and free alike, were killed by vengeful whites. The body count for this rebellion was some 60 whites and 250 blacks, so that goes to show the depth of southern white commitment to the preservation of the slave system. Armed rebellion, as you can see, was a very risky and costly proposition. 

But just because there were relatively few actual armed rebellions does not mean slaves just accepted their lot. Slaves would resist in other ways, such as faking sickness, breaking farm tools, killing livestock, working at a slower pace when the overseer was not around, stealing produce or materials from the master, running away, etc. This type of resistance, while carrying its own risks, was at least not guaranteed to get you killed.
https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-slaves-rebel-in-the-USA


Image result for slave revolt in usa

Comments

  1. Unknown27 July 2017 at 03:50

    There were more whites so it was difficult for the slaves to rebel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown29 July 2017 at 09:51

    Onek Kichu jana gelo...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Portuguese slave trade:15th - 17th century

The Portuguese slave trade: 15th - 17th century The  Portuguese expeditions of the 15th century bring European ships for the first time into regular contact with sub-Saharan Africa. This region has long been the source of slaves for the route through the Sahara to the Mediterranean. The arrival of the Portuguese opens up another channel. Nature even provides a new collection point for this human cargo. The volcanic Cape Verde Islands, with their rocky and forbidding coastlines, are uninhabited. But they contain lush tropical valleys. And they are well placed on the sea routes between West Africa, Europe and America. Portuguese settlers move into the Cape Verde islands in about 1460. In 1466 they are given an economic advantage which guarantees their prosperity. They are granted a monopoly of a new slave trade. On the coast of Guinea the Portuguese are now setting up trading stations to buy captive Africans. Some of these slaves are used to work the settlers' estates in the Cape Ve...
Post a Comment
Read more

Profit made from slavery

The pursuit of profit The link between sugar and slavery established in Brazil spread to the British and French colonies in the Caribbean. In colonies such as Barbados, Jamaica and Saint-Domingue (modern day Haiti) outstanding profits were made on the backs of the enslaved African labour force. From 1500 to 1860 it is estimated that around 12 million enslaved Africans were traded to the Americas (3.25 million in British ships). Profits made on these voyages were often very large. For instance, in the seventeenth century, the Royal Africa Company could buy an enslaved African with trade goods worth £3 and have that person sold for £20 in the Americas. The Royal Africa Company was able to make an average profit of 38% per voyage in the 1680s. Although average profits on successful slave voyages from Britain in the late eighteenth century were less  –  at around 10%  –  this was still a big profit. The love of sugar that developed in Britain and other Eu...
2 comments
Read more

Slavery in British India - Bengal

Slaves during the great Famine of Eastern India(above). Bengal trade, 1640-85. In Bengal the East India Company had established a factory at Hughly, hard by the dismantled Portuguese fortress; but were exposed to so much insolence and extortion from the Mogul authorities that they were prepared to leave Bengal rather than tamely submit to further oppression. The trade was enormously profitable, and had helped to defray the cost of the fortifications at Madras and Bombay. Saltpetre had been in large demand ever since the breaking out of the civil war between Charles the First and his parliament. Raw silk and opium were equally marketable, and all three products could be brought from Patna to Hughly by the river Ganges. At Dacca, the old capital of Bengal to the eastward of the Ganges, muslins were manufactured of so fine a texture that a piece sufficient for a dress might be passed through a wedding ring; and every young lady in the British Isles who aspired to be a bride w...
1 comment
Read more