Parker 1

Angelica Parker
Professor Diane White
History 17

6 October 2008

The Development of Chattel Slavery in Colonial America

Personal possessions are unique in the sense that ownership of them automatically

justifies any use of that possession. This is how the colonists in America regarded African

slaves, as personal moveable property or chattel slavery. Perhaps as a way of justifying or

removing any guilt and concern for African slaves the colonists developed chattel slavery.

However, this transition from being to slaves with rights to being treated as personal moveable

property did not simply occur over night. Chattel slavery developed as a direct result of the

economic, social, and political conditions in Colonial America.

Economically, the cost of African slaves compared to the cost of the previous indentured

servants was a lot cheaper for the colonists. The colonists were able to pay less for the cheap

labor of often “a ship [that] carries four to six hundred souls” (Document 5). It was ultimately

the carrying these African souls to Colonial Americathat caused the plantations to grow and

prosper. European capitalism took off full speed as the various plantations such as sugar,

tobacco, and cottonflourished at the cost of Africans. Because of the prosperity that chattel

slaves provided for the colonies, owners were able to “[take] a long walk about the plantation

and [look] over all my business” as slave owner William Byrd describes (Document 2). In

addition, the use of the middle passage that ran across the Atlantic Ocean established a quite

lucrative triangular trade. The trade carried “the sale of human beings” from Africa to “often sail

8, 9, 10 to 12 weeks before they reach Philadelphia” or any of the other colonies in America

(Document 5). In turn, African slave labor in Colonial America produced goods used to export

and trade for money. This continual lucrative triangular trade system ultimately causes the
 Parker 2

colonies to thrive. The colonists soon realized from this system that slavery of Africans was far

more valuable to them economically than the higher cost of indentures.

While the use African slaves continued to cause the colonies to flourish economically, the

colonists had nocompelling reason to end the use of indentured servants. Yet, the indentures

proved themselves rebellious as they partook in many outbreaks against the colonists. For

example, one of the more famous ones is Bacon’s Rebellionthat in due course led to chattel

slavery. Several years later, another rebellion called the Stono Rebellion slaves “[killed] all they

met and [burned] several Houses as they passed along the Road” (Document 4). This rebellion is

similar to Bacon’s as the slaves rebelled against the set European capitalism. In Bacon’s

Rebellion, because the indentures consisted of different skin colors of people, the frustration

added, as colonists could not distinctly recognize who were the indentured servants. However,

by making onlyAfrican slaves personal moveable property, colonists were able to prosper more

economically and avoid future outbreaks.

Moreover, socially, the colonists considered the African slaves different from them solely

because of their skin color. For example, a previous indentured servant named Anthony Johnson

was ruled “a negro and by consequence and alien” in one of the colonial juries (Document 1).

By identifying this particular skin color as alien, the colonists were able to begin to consider the

Africans as personal moveable property. The colonists were beginning to view the slaves as

different from them this way they could become property, therefore freeing the colonists of any

guilt. In addition, because the colonists had began to see the slaves as aliens for use as property

to flourish the colonies, there was acceptance of brutality on the slaves. Colonist William Byrd

describes how he beat his slaves and treated them in his secret diary. “Eugene was whipped

again for pissing in bed and Jenny for concealing it” (Document 2). This is just one example of
 Parker 3

how colonists were physically brutal towards their slaves. Socially, this was acceptable because

the colonists did not want to view the Africans as humans but rather aliens that they owned.

Politically, the same self-governing colonists that ruled Anthony Johnson ended up ruling

against slaves having virtually any rights. Colonists came to recognize their decreasing

population and need for a labor force that caused the colonies to flourish economically. As a

result, colonists ceased seeing slaves as people in the eyes of law and thus eliminated legal rights

from them. Rights such as being able to carry arms and ammunitions the colonists ruled in their

colonial laws, “all persons except Negros are to be provided with arms and ammunitions”

(Document 3). Slaves became chattel, personal moveable property that colonists continued to

flourish off without the guilt of treating humans badly because they were ruled aliens.

At the expense of a successful colony that flourished economically and stopped declining

in population, African slaves were in most cases brutality used. The labor of African slaves was

simply cheaper than indentured slaves and it fueled a rather lucrative triangular trade. A truly

successful economic move for the Europeans who justified Africans who underwent “terrible

misery, stench, fumes, horror, vomiting, many kinds of sea-sickness…so that many [died]

miserably” by calling Africans aliens (Document 5). Colonists then ultimately named slaves

their own personal moveable property by eliminating their rights through colonial laws. It was

the direct result of these economic, social, and political conditions and more that Africans were

ruled not as humans but personal moveable property.