Given that owning slaves was legally allowed in the Pre-Civil war antebellum south, would an Arab traveler with a traveling party of white male and female slaves have been able to travel freely around in the old south without being legally harassed?
thmk he’d do better to worry about beng llegally harassed. How well receved do you thnk a free Northen Negro would
An Arab was a black, as was an Indian (in India), and Egyptians. Read some English novels from the period for examples. No race was banned from owning slaves back then. Many American Indians enslaved others way before any other races were in the country.
Interesting. So an Arab traveler could bring his harem of attractive white women into a southern antebellum town and live unmolested while he visited? It’s an interesting gedanken experiment to imagine what the effect would have been on the locals if your harem consisted of extremely beautiful white women in chains or other bindings. Or maybe if the gorgeous ladies had to carry you around in a sedan chair. I wonder if the local white slave owners would pop a cork or swallow hard and live and let live with a fellow slave owner.
Owning “negro” slaves was, in the Southern states legal. Owning white slaves was not.
I’ll have what he’s having, please. Smaller glass.
So in specifying “legal” ownable slaves as chattel they legally codified that only those of “African” origin could be owned?
I need a cite on this. Seriously.
The main problem with this is that so many slaves were the product of a slaveowner and a slave. A light-skinned child could be raised as a slave and subject to further breeding with whites, leading to progeny who were as white as anyone in the master class.
This fascinating page provides considerable detail about white slaves in the south.
It’s hard to imagine any Sultan’s harem being seen as white women, as Harmonious Discord indicates. Arab women would have appeared darker than many of these white slaves.
And we shouldn’t limit this discussion to the south, The Fugitive Slave Act decreed that slaves remained slaves if they accompanied their masters into non-slave states or even if they escaped into the free north. It’s probably that northern states would legally have to acknowledge the slave status of foreign slaves as well. The entire society was pressured by Southern strength in Congress not to interfere with the current norms of slave status.
Yes, but even if you were only 1/16th (that’s 1 black great-great-grandparent) you were considered black.
Re the “white” slaves I thinking these would not be Arab women but be Swiss or German (or whatever) no foolin’ around white women that were captured & sold into slavery or came into his ownership by other means. He would be parading around with the palest of pretty palefaces.
According tothis site a person with even one African ancestor was considered to be black. That is in line with all that I had previously read on the subject.
Well, here’s a law from the colony of Virginia (bolding mine)-
No. I can’t see that holding those women as slaves would be legal in any of the United States, and the state wouldn’t recognize their status as slaves…they would be considered free woman. Further, after 1808, even if he brought black slaves into the country, their status would be suspect, because an Act of Congress said:
Most of the elite level of pretty white concubines owned by Arab slaveowners in the old days were Circassians from the Caucasus. Circassian women were prized as the ultimate white women. This is probably the reason why Johann Friedrich Blumenbach chose people of the Caucasus as the type of the white “race.”
Dex’s report on the origin of “Caucasian” to mean a race notes that Blumenbach based his ideal measurements of a white person’s skull on a skull from Georgia. But it doesn’t say why Blumenbach associated the Caucasus with the origin of the white race. It may have been because of the reputation of Circassian white slaves.
The reason the Repubican Party exists is that all the small political parties joined into one entity to get people elected to chance the federal laws on run away slaves. The federal laws forced any person in any state to not do anything for an escaping slave. They were jailed for giving a slave some water, or a bit of food. The republian party was scrapped together to end southerners from having people put in jail for not helping the slave owners.
The Africian slaves where being sent around the world ,because other European countries, made deals with each other to get their kin out of slavery. We have a new source for slaves , if you exchange our kin for these. Livingston was explorering Africa at the time that the slave trade was going on there, and the african tribes were devistating each other. A large number of the slaves were taken by other tribes, and they didn’t stop warring when the populations became devistated by each other. Looking at what is going on today, they still seem bent on the mass murder of the population.
For the answer to the exact way the question occurs, no it’s a time travel puzzle. An arab can’t come to America today and travel through the south of old. That would involve time travel. Also if you meant todays south the answer is no because you can’t own slaves, and the people of the USA would kick your ass for attempting to bring any slaves here. ANY!
First, the cites in your previous posts were not laws of the United States, so they are irrelevant.
Second, the OP is specifically not about black slaves so your last sentence above is irrelevant.
Third, your first sentence is wrong. In a country where the Fugitive Slave Act, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, said that slaves did not lose their status when brought into a free state, why would these women be considered free?
The OP* raises an interesting point, but it doesn’t seem to have been specifically addressed by any law or court decision.
- Nobody has mentioned the redundancy of “pre-Civil War” and “antebellum” in the OP, but it just struck me. Given this redundancy and the emphasis on pre-1865 conditions, what was Harmonious Discord thinking when the phrase “time travel” was used?
No, they would be lagally bound to honor their status as masters of those slaves, just as Northern states were obliged to do so with southern slaveholders traveling in free states. If the governement of a slave state had taken property from our hypothetical sultan without compensation, which would either be struck down by the courts or set a precedent that would allow slaves reaching Ohio to be free. So they would have no legal recourse, even if King Mansong was strolling sround the streets of Richmond with Princess Charlotte on a leash.
On the other hand, miscegenation was still illegal, so if there was reason to believe there was anything other than cooking and ironing going on, an old-fashioned selective prosecution would be in order.
Was it illegal for masters to have sex with their female slaves? Wasn’t it considered their right?
Legally, no. “Miscegenation” was illegal.