This post is for my American Heritage class. The assignment is to write a blogpost about an theme or ideal we have discussed in class this semester. For mine, I decided to write about a discussion we had in class back in March, at which time we were at the point in America's history where slavery was becoming an issue. One of the questions which arose was whether or not enslaved African-Americans had slavery.
I would like to apologize in advance if this blopost offends anyone. I've tried to keep to facts and express my opinions as unoffensively as possible, but the fact remains that this is a sensitive topic.
One of the principles we discussed in class was agency, specifically in correlation with American slavery and the question of whether or not slaves had agency. Although our generation is far removed from actual slavery in this country, it is still a relevant and thought-provoking question. One of the main issues with the topic was the fact that the majority of the class – if not the entirety – were debating the problem from an LDS perspective. According to church doctrine, every human soul has agency regardless of their situation. There are choices the individual could make that would take away their agency – drug use leads to addiction, the committing of serious crimes leads to jail – but the fact remains that they are born with agency and used that agency to get themselves into the aforementioned situations. However, in the case of slaves, they did nothing to put themselves in their situation. Many were kidnapped by or sold to white slave traders, having no say in the matter. So, do they still have their agency?
When my group discussed it, we were unable to come to a solid conclusion. We did, however, find several arguments for either side: I will share these here.
Technically, we debated, slaves did have agency. Agency is a matter of acting versus being acted upon, and it was possible for slaves to act…but the consequences would not be pleasant. Death, mutilation, separation: if a slave had acted by running away, or refusing to work, or choosing who they would marry, they would face these consequences. That does not seem very much like true agency.
Then, following that line of thinking, it would seem that slaves did not have agency. Choosing between following orders or death is not much of a choice at all; however, our group became stuck at this point. It may not be much of a choice, but it is a choice. We could not decide out position on the argument, since neither side seemed quite right.
A point was made, though, which led to an amelioration. In order to choose – in order to have agency – one must have knowledge. Adam and Eve were given two conflicting commandments – multiple and replenish the Earth, but do not eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – but they were unable to choose which one to follow until they at the fruit and gained knowledge. From an LDS perspective, their Fall gave us – their descendants – the ability to know Good from Evil and to choose for ourselves. The Fall led to agency: indirectly, knowledge led to agency. Knowledge is needed to have agency: if one does not fully know and understand both sides of an argument, one cannot properly choose between the two. If one has no concept of hot, there is no concept of cold: it is the same principle.
Slaves, however, were purposely kept ignorant by their ‘masters.’ These ‘masters’ knew that knowledge would give their slaves the means to think and reason and, eventually, rebel; as a solution they – the whites – tried to keep the slaves in ignorance. Slaves were almost never taught to read or write, and thus knowledge and learning was kept away from them. From the perspective of the slaveholders, it was a rather ingenious move on their part. Ignorant slaves meant, for the most part, docile slaves, and that was what they wanted.
This raises another question: if slaves were kept ignorant, does that mean they never truly had agency in the first place? Or was their agency simply limited?
I am inclined to believe the latter. As was discussed earlier, by a technical definition there was still agency involved. Slaves knew they did not like being slaves; they also knew the consequences of rebelling, and they made their decisions based on that basic knowledge. Thus, their agency was limited by their knowledge.
For example, Frederick Douglass was taught to read and write while still a slave. He was taught at first by his ‘master’s’ wife, and later learned by watching the white children of the neighborhood. When his ‘master’ learned that his wife had been teaching Douglass, he made his disapproval known, saying that a slave who learned to read and write would become dissatisfied with his condition and begin to desire freedom. Douglass himself later said that “knowledge is the pathway from slavery to freedom.” His knowledge allowed him to teach other fellow-slaves, and gave him the courage and strength to escape and, later, join the abolitionist movement. He became one of the strongest anti-slavery orators in America.
Nat Turner, famous for his rebellion in Virginia in 1831, was also educated. He learned to read and write at a young age; eventually he gathered a group of nearly 70 fellow slaves and rebelled against the white slaveholders. Though Turner is perhaps a less admirably example than Douglass, the two have at least one fact in common: both were educated, to an extent. Both could read and write. This knowledge increased their options and expanded their horizons, in a manner of speaking.
In my opinion, education and knowledge expands agency, while a lack thereof limits it. Thus, while slaves did have a degree of agency, it was severely limited.
