Review of Slavery in Medieval and Early Modern Iberia by William D. Phillips, Jr. - Tajae Pryce

        

William D. Phillips, Jr.  Slavery in Medieval and Early Modern Iberia.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014

        Systems of slavery have been present since the beginning of recorded history. In the Iberian Peninsula, slavery was prominent and maintained under Muslim rule as well as under the governance of medieval Christian kingdoms and continued to be a structural component of Mediterranean society up until its eventual decline in the 19^th century. Slavery, as a practice, traces its roots back to Greco-Roman societies where captives of war were turned into slaves and would eventually evolve into complex systems of social stratification, which would encompass not only social, but also economic and political implications as well. In this book, Phillips explores the history of slavery in Iberia by creating a synthesis of available surveys on the topic and referencing both archival records as well as contemporary scholarly literature. Historians attribute the noted “boom period” of a flourishing production of material on the study of Iberian slavery, spanning from the 1980s to the beginning of the 21^st century, to the rise of the number of students pursuing advance degrees as well as the increased availability of production avenues. Phillips himself has written on the topic before in the 1980s and has now chosen to approach the subject with more focus on Spain and the Iberian Peninsula utilizing the vast amount of available research.

            In early Spain, three major avenues were commonplace in terms of one becoming a slave. Slaves were either captives of war, enemies of the ruling faith, or born into servitude by enslaved mothers. Cultural and societal variations existed; however, these methods would be the guidelines for the institution throughout its history. In some cases, slavery could be a punitive sentence for guilty offenders as was the case in the Visogothic kingdom where violent and public offenses carried mandatory enslavement sentences with the possibility of enslavement to the royal treasury or kingship. In the early modern period, convicts were subjected to enslavement fulfilling the roles of society too difficult to attract cheap or free labor such as the roles of galley slaves, miners, and menial public works.  Evidence of the social and legal attitudes towards slavery can be shown through records of legal codes such as the Siete Partidas. The Siete Partidas, or “Seven Part Code” describes a Castilian legal code first established during the reign of Alfonso the Great that lays out a list of laws for the state. From this list of codes, historians have learned more about the life of a slave; “Every slave is…obliged to obey…Not only is a slave under obligations…to his master, but also to the wife and children of the latter (79).” This is also where the practice of slavery by birth, captivity and treason is derived. It has also been observed that slavery in Spain and the surrounding states has always been a female dominant system.

In all accounts from records stemming from Visogothic, Muslim or Christian society, women have always been the preferred gender for slaves. Women would also hold higher monetary value than their male counterparts primarily serving in domestic roles as well as being used as assistants in artisan shops and markets. With slave owners being in total control of their servants, it was often commonplace for female slaves to be coerced into concubinage or forced sexual relations. Although male slaves would also have been subjected to the sex trade, female slaves endured the most perilous of consequences such as unwanted pregnancies and unsupervised child bearing. Records of Spain under Muslim rule show the prevalence of concubinage on a mass, commonplace scale. Islamic tradition allowed free Muslim men to have up to four wives legally along with as many slave mistresses as he pleased. There were cases of Muslim men marrying slaves, whom they would have to have set free ceremoniously or by paying or being granted the permission of that slave’s master, and would keep them confined to an isolated section of their homes, away from society. As for familial relations among slaves, permission to marry would have to be granted by one’s owner. These instances of marriage among slaves were not very prominent as slaves lost their market value after marriage.

In regards to attaining freedom, many slaves would resort to flight; either to their homelands or to carry out their lives in the underworld of their captive land. In Medieval Christian Spain, flight from enslavement or even the attempt to flee, was a punishable crime and labeled as “theft of one’s own person (123).” Slaves who were caught attempted to flee would oftentimes be publically dragged through streets and hanged. Laws also existed in regards to those who aided a fleeing slave to have his ears cut off. These laws were barbaric, even for the time, especially in Christian Spain and are retroactively looked at by historians as a means to use fear to deter captives from attempting escape as well as freemen to assist them. The prevalence of escapees was so great, owners would often purchase a form of insurance on his slaves in the event of “losing” them and, as was the case in Barcelona in 1400 by a prominent slave owner Fransec Muntornes, agents would be hired to reclaim slaves who had fled captivity (124). Slaves from sub-Saharan Africa were obviously at a geographical loss when it came to the option of escaping to their homelands. There are also records of slaves who fled from ships and lived in hiding in the vast wilderness of the Americas.

By the 15^th century, the ethnic diversity of slaves in Spain over the ancient and Medieval periods would decline as sub-Saharan Africans became the dominant group of people involved in not only the slave trade in Iberia, but the rest of Europe as well. Estimated numbers of around 156,000 sub-Saharan Africans were imported into Europe and the Peninsula by the early 16^th century, but the mass demand for slaves existed in the New World, The Americas. It was in the colonial Americas where more than 10 million Africans were transported to via the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Both the Spaniards and the Portuguese would shift to a forced labor population of Black Africans in the Americas and Brazil respectively. Labor in the newly acquired colonies was far too great and intensive to be done by the Europeans themselves and native populations of the indigenous people were withering away either to disease or by the initial attacks by the Europeans. Sub-Saharan slaves often came from civilizations that flourished in intensive agricultural practices and hard labor. The slave system would evolve, taking customs from Old World codes and adapt to commercialization of free labor that existed throughout the Western World. Demands for slaves would rise as demands for certain commodities such as sugar or textiles would rise. This economic system led to what historians overall agree an even harsher system of slavery where the servants were firs and foremost objects and commodities. This institution of slavery would continue in Spain and its vast colonies for centuries until gradual abolishment of the practice was attained in the 19^th century.

Phillips’ approach to this topic is done in the most effective way possible. He chose to delve into as much available literature on the subject as he could, while taking into account historical perspective and hindsight. He also recognizes that there is no black and white narrative in regards to slavery or the meaning of enslavement or freedom, nor can the multiple variations of slave systems be looked at as monolithic practices. The author gives examples of various societies and their practices in order to establish a background for their legal doctrines as well as their socio-economic traditions. “The study of slavery is complicated and involves much more than a simple dichotomy between slave and free or slavery and freedom (5)”. The author is conscious of different cultures and various elements of society, but still manages to create a chronological account for Spanish slavery as a legal system and as a cultural element in a way that this book is fit for scholarly readers to utilize.     

Derek Walcott - Ruins of A Great House - A Close Reading by Tajae Pryce

This poem, as its title suggests, most likely was sparked by the observance of a specific house that Wilcott knew of but what is represents is much more comprehensive of the colonial period and its effects. the poem opens up with images of a disjecta membra, which describes scattered parts or  disjointed quotations. To me these fragmentations speak for the disintegration and dissolution of native peoples regarded not only where and how they lived but also their culture itself. Walcott tells of an open mouth lizard with “dragonish claws” taking over the now unrecognizable area. He goes on to describe familiar elements of a Caribbean island, eucalyptus boughs, the smell of dead limes, but they are now juxtaposed with an eerie silence and solitude that was foreign to the scents and sights. His criticism of colonial conquest and destruction is even more present later on in the reading as he writes about “ancestral murderers and poets, more perplexed in memory by every ulcerous crime.” and the world’s “green age”. My understanding of these inclusions is the description of injustices going on by imperialists eventually becoming the norm for both sides; perpetrators and victims.

Race, Slavery, and Reasons why the South Believed Succession was a Necessity - Tajae Pryce

“Southern white men did not fight for slavery; they fought for a new nation built on slavery.” This statement by historian Edward Ayers, represents the complexity of contemporary analysis of the causes of the Civil War. On one hand, there are those who express that the cause of the war was simply for the preservation of the slave institution; however, history calls for meticulous responses to questions of such importance that expand further than single causes and universal and all-encompassing agendas. Factors such as heightened tensions over the North and South’s perhaps clashing outlook of the future of economic prosperity, the debate of what defined ‘modernity’ at this time, as well as the rhetoric-heavy and dynamic conversation over state’s rights and popular sovereignty are necessary to evaluate and study in order to paint the picture of a young nation, fresh off the heels of a grand independence movement, that was about to enthrall in actions that would lead to disbandment and successions from the United States over conflicts that affected the lives of the population involved as well as constitutional interpretations that now needed to be revised or imposed altogether. Analysts must understand and take note of all of the factors that the ‘conflict over slavery’ entailed and how socioeconomic, cultural and religious experiences lead to eventual succession and militant combat. Studying the events leading up to the Civil War as well as during the conflict reveals the nation’s struggle over change and new ideas and the reluctance and imposition of such.

The discussion of modernity during the era leading up to the Civil War is one that not only serves as a factorial cause of conflict, but sets cultural attitudes people had with respect to how they saw themselves and their fellow citizens in other regions of the country. The rapid development of industries brought forth during the push for industrialization led to the hyper development, in some areas in the North, of urban environments new markets and wealth-attaining opportunities. The changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution in the North led many of its citizens and analysts to describe the area of the nation that may not have been as plantation-heavy as others as an area of modernity and progression. During this time, new ideas and the entertainment and expression of new liberalistic ideas in regards to self-determination and basic human rights challenged the Southern environment of slave labor feeding into the ever standing focus on agricultural and textile production as archaic and regressive. The social atmosphere at this period was already showing how cultural ideas and norms could cause divisive tension amongst people of the same nation with conflicting views on not only how the world worked but also how the world was supposed to work. There is little a historian can do in regards to determining what region was the more modern as the study of world history proves that industrialization cannot be used to measure the political and economic development of a society. In the case of the United States, both the northern and southern regions had been in states of economic prosperity with the South making huge profits and surplus from the agricultural niche it had always thrived on; reaping the benefits of low cost of labor to supply not only northern United States markets, but European and other world markets with cotton and its byproducts. In America’s case, these oftentimes conflicting systems both came with economic gain and the heavy infrastructural development of a growing population. The problem, however, would lie with how the American culture and society would adapt to these new ideas, and new ways of doing things. The matter of if the institutions of the past could survive and prove still effective and relevant as the United States aimed to establish itself as a global market of high influence was what needed to be asked in regards to the perseverance and perhaps expansion of slavery.

As the nation developed, new forms of industry and infrastructure also developed in a much larger scale than historical seen before. The railroad industry was rapidly materializing into a federal network established by private interests and investments. With such a laborious industry, slave labor was once again called upon to build up another branch on the nation’s backbone. This form of slave labor, however, was unprecedented as the industry that needed to be developed was not a regionally static one, but of expanding locations outside development. Slavery expanded beyond the master-slave plantation model and became a market where slave owners could manage their slaves on contracts, sending laborers to locations as needed with many times little to no face-time management. Here we also see the institution taking a new more faceless methodology in how it was carried out as it was painted in the light of other modern industries with some of its previous ‘savagery’ becoming harder and harder to identify. This system also sparked debate over what to do with newly acquired lands and territories untouched by slavery in the past as laborers entered into these lands while still under contract with their slave owner in a southern slave state. Legitimate precedence was necessary to be established in order to satisfy the constitution adapting to the social and cultural atmosphere of the time period. The acquisition of new territory, especially in regards to Nebraska, created much political conflict. Northern republicans at the time did not find the region conductive to slavery which was answered by heavy opposition by Whigs and southern democrats. The conflict created over how the Missouri Compromise was regarded shows the razor thin blanket of tension covering the nation at the time. Leaders who were more lax in regards to the enforcing of the conditions of the Missouri Compromise faced criticism from those who saw such behavior as the condoning of slavery whereas on the other hand many southerners would view the same notions as not holding and protecting the South’s interests as significant.

The volatile elements on what was done in the Kansas-Nebraska situation as well as a social culture being exposed to some of the untold of stories of how the master-slave relationship worked further divided the people. The southern institution was looked at by the world as an outrage against basic humanity. New literature such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin and other accounts reached northern and European markets and led them to question the ideals of southern identity; an identity southerners were quick to defend and protect. By the mid-19^th century, the United States was enthralled with an influx of European immigration. Immigrants came from different regions at times with different religious and economic backgrounds and changes in political representation as well as economic policy were necessary.

 Political leaders with new ideas and agendas captured the tension and attempted to grab control of a nation on the edge of division. Politicians such as Abraham Lincoln aimed to resolve the issues of slave expansion while adhering to the progression of not only economic markets and systems, but the mentality and ideas shared by the people. Lincoln created a sense of progression and fairness although from an evaluative standpoint, heavy ambiguity could be detected in his platforms. For instance, Lincoln expressed the idea that slavery was immoral and had always been, going as far as to cite the ideologies of the Founding Fathers, and that the institution should not be spread into any new territory acquired by the nation. However, Lincoln also served to uphold the constitution where slavery was permitted, stating that the institution should be protected in states where it already existed. The political environment of the time period showed its heavy volatility as parties disbanded and reformed in order to represent and account for new ideologies and candidates for leadership were critically chosen and stern on their stances. The state of the nation’s moral equity was a heavy player in the political arena as traveling religious agents and organizations rose exponentially in the early 19^th century attempting to reach and account for the many different faces of America. Religious literature became more readily available to isolated areas in the form of tracts and reprinted editions of the Holy Bible. The religious push would go on to both reinforce conservative behavior and practice as well as urge progression and ratification of such expressing the notion that “man did not have to be as before”. In the South, specifically, religious division was highly prevalent. The struggle between the ‘old, right ways’ challenged by new interpretations of the same teachings or new ones all together divided the people enough that political parties were starting to not necessarily be entirely regional affiliations.

The societal structure of the South at this time was challenged and conservation efforts were at a fever pitch. With new ideas and leaders such as Lincoln, many southerners and eventual secessionists felt it would be only a matter of time before turmoil ensued with free blacks, voting on actual issues taking place. The most extreme side of this spectrum envisioned a society where black people would dominate and retaliate heavily against white society creating a state of crime and violence with white interest being disregarded as socioeconomic regression would take place.  Succession was presented as the only option to conserve rightful society and to reject the ‘socialist’ insertions that would come from Lincoln and the shortsighted liberal collective. Secessionists felt that they were doing the right thing and did not necessarily view themselves as the renegades or rebels as history tends to describe them, but as conservatives with the option to fight for the preservation of the nation in which their ancestors fought for and their descendants would live in. Fighting to resist a deconstructed social system led to the creation of such, however. As the perhaps unforeseen, to such extent, repercussions of succession were quickly felt. The South was reminiscent to a war torn, poverty stricken nation state as most of the Civil War’s battles were fought in the region and their middle class male population were all used in the war effort. Women and children had to work to put food on the table like never before as their husbands, fathers and brothers left their communities to go on and battle the far superior in terms of technological and strategic Union military often leading to acts of dissertation and resistance to conscription. The vision was lost amongst the apparent classist leadership during the war period with upper class, able-bodied men granted low combat jobs and faced little relocation in order to protect financial institutions while men who as a whole more than likely were not grand slave owners or industrious tycoons fought to protect such assets. This alone would lead to the weakening of the Confederate movement. The motivation to fight to the end to protect morality was quickly dissipating and surrender to the Union was favorable as a whole.

Suggesting that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War structurally identifies both the fundamental spark of succession and the preceding combative events and the ‘final straw’ analogy of the entire conflict but that suggestion fails to explain the fundamental reasons of why slavery was such a divisive matter. The connection race and slavery had on the United States’ history is recognizable but may not be shown as relevant as it actually is. The bringing of an enormous population of Africans to what would be a new European colony had implementations yet to be understood dealing with the structure of society. The intentions of the initial slave traders and how black people were viewed and understood to be were not positive associations. These ideas were deeply planted into the psyche of the Americans and reinforced for centuries and centuries through the master-slave plantation model and barbaric and savage connotations. The economic success brought on by slave labor created a sense of moral rightness in the slave system; quite frankly, keeping blacks captured and working was seen as the right and godly mission and in many cases, racism was not presented with hate but as a representation of the patriarchal mindset of Western society and Abrahamic religious teachings. The reasons for succession were heartfelt and clear, but the reality of its repercussions and hard lesson learned about the need for change in systems proved to be one that the south was not prepared to handle that rapidly no matter how fervently race relations and practices were enforced in their cultural consciousness.