Talk:Glenblythe Plantation

Treating slaves well

Thanks for getting this started. There's one quibble I have, unless you have sources. The article currently states that " In his essay entitled The Duties of an Overseer, published in his 1847 bestseller Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book, Affleck emphasized the need to treat slaves well in order to increase their productivity. For example, he was a proponent of letting them attend a Christian church service on Sundays." I can't find sources for this material. The essay itself gives certain suggestions for treating slaves to increase their productivity, but it's implausible that any of these can be described as "well," given that they were enslaved. Furthermore, Eugene Genovese, who describes Affleck's suggestion that slaves be allowed to attend services, explicitly describes the motive as social control and increase of productivity without saying anything about whether Affleck had any concern for the slaves' spiritual well-being. I would argue that without sourcing both of these sentences should be removed or made more neutral.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

They had regular access to a nurse and a physician, and went to church every Sunday... They were treated well insofar as their ailments were treated on the plantation (instead of being left to die of untreated diseases, if they had been treated badly for example!), and they even had the luxury of attending a church service to repent for their sins. Eugene Genovese is a very biased source--marxist and atheist (when he did most of his research). I don't think this article should be political. We should stick to the context of the nineteenth century. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase it as, "treated better than on some other plantations"?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If there's a source that says Affleck emphasized treating slaves well, we should say it. If there's no source, I don't think we should try to divine Affleck's motives for his recommendations on our own. It's obviously a touchy issue, and without sources I think it's better not to evaluate it. I don't think there's a problem with describing Affleck's specific recommendations, I just think that, without a source, there's a problem with saying that they constitute treating well or treating ill. The same with allowing attendance at church services. It's fine to state that Affleck recommended it, but without a source saying what his motives were I think it's better not to guess at them. Regarding Genovese, I'm not suggesting that we use his evaluations of Affleck's motives, although I don't think Roll Jordan Roll is especially biased. Even Genovese, atheist or not, says that planters who allowed attendance at services had wildly varying motives for doing so, including concern for the spiritual well-being of slaves. He doesn't, however, say that this was Affleck's motive; in fact he says the opposite. I'm not suggesting that we put a political agenda into the article, I'm suggesting that we leave out judgments about the motives or quality of the treatment without specific sources interpreting Affleck's essay. That's all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I have the same problem with "treated better than on some other plantations." Medical care and attendance at church services are neither well nor ill treatment in themselves. The motive for providing them, the context in which they're provided, and the opinions of those they're being provided to are also relevant in judging the goodness or badness of the treatment. Unless there are sources, as I said, I think it's better to leave out the moral evaluation. The 19th century context for this is as complicated as the present-day context. Many slave narratives state explicitly that their authors didn't consider this kind of thing being treated well, e.g. I just think it's best to let the sources speak on this, if there are any, and to leave it out if there aren't.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to rephrase the section about slavery and post it here on the talkpage first instead of editing the article, so that I can see what it looks like please? I am trying to see what you want exactly. (Btw, the slave narratives were highly polemical, not neutral texts at all.)Zigzig20s (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that many of the slave narratives were polemical. Many of the texts that uncritically refer to provision of medical treatment as "treating well" were also polemical. In the face of so many disputed descriptions I think we have to rely on historians to sort these things out for us. I wouldn't consider citing a slave narrative for facts any more than I'd consider citing a proslavery polemicist. In any case, I do have a concrete suggestion, which is change this: "Affleck emphasized the need to treat slaves well in order to increase their productivity. For example, he was a proponent of letting them attend a Christian church service on Sundays" to this: "Affleck emphasized the need to provide slaves with adequate food, clothing, medical care, and access to Christian church services, in order to increase their productivity." What do you think?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. It sounds very utilitarian though. But I suppose the institution of slavery as historians interpret it today was dehumanising...so your suggestion makes sense.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, would you like to make the edit or should I? Have you read any Walter Johnson, by the way? It's amazing how complex the motivations of slave owners were, and how this was understood even at the time. Also, if you're suggesting that the utilitarian slant to my proposed edit is in itself assuming a point of view, I completely agree with you. It's certainly possible to find many examples of slave owners recommending e.g. adequate medical care and explicitly giving humanitarian rather than utilitarian reasons. But they're often confused about their own motives, as Johnson shows in, e.g., Soul by Soul. I'm sure that the opposite is true as well, that e.g. some owners recommended adequate medical care and gave utilitarian reasons but had some humanitarian motives too, which they may not have wanted to admit openly, as whites who had humanitarian motives towards slaves were often shunned or worse. If you think there's a better way to state it that doesn't attribute any motives, utilitarian or humanitarian, I'm certainly open to it. But in Affleck's specific case, I think we're OK leaning toward the utilitarian side, since he's pretty explicit about that. Regarding worship, he says "As a matter of mere interest it has proved to be advisable, to say nothing of it as a point of duty." He doesn't give any explicit reasons for his recommendations regarding medical care, food, and clothing, but in context, since this section comes directly after his long quote from George Washington on the surest ways of getting "work well done, and quietly, by negroes," I think it's reasonable to assume utilitarian motives.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, do it. I wonder if Affleck was Presbyterian btw--and which ministers he hired. Maybe Hugh Wilson (I'll work on his article tomorrow), who started the second oldest Presbyterian church in Texas, there in Gay Hill, before the Civil War. The sermons are probably lost. Also knowing more about the overseers would be useful, but most of it is probably lost history as well...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do. So much is lost. I'd bet on Presbyterian, though. Sometimes things are found, though. Have you seen Judith Schafer's work on a huge trove of 19th Louisiana supreme court cases on slavery that was rediscovered? It's fascinating. Anyway, totally off topic. Will make the edit.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox with map

Could someone please add the correct infobox and a map inside it? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Picture request

It would be great if someone could take a picture of the historical marker, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and then add it here. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)