Group 3: Marlena Roberson-Bullard, Hudson Waters, Reem Rassoul, Jack Patton
The articles raise awareness of the burden those enslaved, especially women, had during the time of slavery. Black women specifically were vulnerable to the physical and emotional abuse and crimes committed by slave masters. Due to society's inability to recognize African Americans as human, both men and women were subject to brutal treatment by their masters. Enslaved women at this time were exposed to vulgar and foul treatment of their masters at a very early age, diminishing their innocence at an adolescent, and developmentally important stage of their lives, ridding them of their childhood. Harriet Jacobs even writes to describe the constant fear that the master's instilled in their property, "My master met me at ever turn to remind me that I belonged to him". The young and helpless enslaved girl had then been forced to face the rage of the master's jealous mistress. Even though the attempt of rape was committed from the master, the young slave would fall victim to the wrath of the mistress, who blamed her for the wrongdoings of her own husband. The normality of the treatment of those enslaved not only stripped them of their basic human rights, but rejected them the opportunity to resist the sexual brutality inflicted upon them. The article states that "the actual or attempted rape of an enslaved woman was an offense neither recognized not punished by law."
The article mentions cases that took place in favor of common law that disregarded the recognition of crimes committed against slavemasters, which in turn, placed blame on the enslaved women for the murder of her master which was supported by self defense. One way in which the reading showed how common law was justified was through the case Alfred vs. State. The author writes, "the management of slave sexuality indifferently translated the rape of the women into adultery or sexual intercourse; on the other, it refuses to recognize or grant any legitimacy to relations forged among the enslaved (p.85)". The fact that those enslaved were not subjects of common law resulted in enslaved women being denied protection by the state. Therefore, slaves were placed under the regulation of statutory law, or slave codes, which was not covered by common law, which once again gave the slaves no rights. Yet, the rape of slave women was not considered a statutory offense. The enslaved were legally unable to give consent or offer resistance, which presumed enslaved women to always be 'willing.'
Within terms of common law, the enslaved were will-less objects or chastened agents. The definition of rape had therefore been shaped by the limits of the law based on the complexity of defining one's will and consent. The "criminal acts" of slaves were considered to be their only willful actions. As Sadiya Hartman explains it: "The slaves will had only been acknowledged only when it was prohibited or punished." These "crimes" committed by slaves were then used to justify white violence "as a necessary response to the threatening agency of blackness (p. 82)" Rape had been an illegitimate term for those enslaved while being legitimate for whites as its defining purpose convicted black men and dismissed white men from the act. This results in black submission and the continuous power over them to fall into the white masters hands.
The fact that the judicial system usually supported common law makes it harder for true justice to be served. Enslaved women who murdered their masters in terms of self defense were not only rejected from speaking their voice but were also held liable for the crimes committed by the slave owner. The law tried to strike a balance between giving masters nearly complete control and protecting slaves from abuses of this power. Laws made "murder, torture, and maiming" of slaves illegal (p. 90). However, slaves could not act as witnesses against whites, which made these laws ineffective. In the end, the courts prioritized control over slaves over their protection. This is shown in State v. Mann where the "court held that the power of the master was absolute and not a subject for discussion (p. 91)" The relationship between the slave and master was supposed to fill the gaps in the law and ensure slaves protection, but it failed at this. The support of the jury further legitimized the harsh treatment and the disregard of the rape of enslaved women.
No comments:
Post a Comment