“Ideal Models of Slave Management in the Roman World and in the Ante-

bellum American South”

Enrico Dal Lago and Constantina Katsari

THE IDEAL TREATMENT OF SLAVES: PUNISHMENTS AND REWARDS

Despite the Roman and the southern masters’ show of concern for their slaves’ health
and well-being, it was hardly the case that the actual work routine on plantations and
estates focused only on the benevolent aspects of the master–slave relationship, as both
the Roman and the southern ideal of slave management included as an essential feature
the image of a well ordered and disciplined workforce.

Within this ideal model of control, respect for hierarchy played a major role, since it
was up to the principal slave managers and to other lesser figures of authority, all of
whom were usually directly responsible to the masters, to ensure that the slaves did not
violate the rules and regulations that clearly delimited their possibility of action in
regard to both work and housing. In this context, discipline assumed a paramount
importance especially during the daily work routine and it is clear that both Roman and
southern masters thought it could be enforced effectively only by dividing the enslaved
workforce into relatively small groups that were easier to supervise.

In both the Roman world and the ante-bellum American South, the masters’ instructions
were very specific on the importance of enforcing orderly conduct upon the slaves, not
only during daytime, but also at night.

Instructions to slaveholders on this particular topic abound in the Roman agricultural

treatises. In his work, Columella advised the slave manager to walk at the rear of the
slaves when they left the fields to go back to their quarters, so that none of them was left
behind. Cato also had similar advice in mind, when he wrote that an ideal manager had
to ‘be the first up and the last to bed, having first seen that the buildings are shut up, that
everyone is in bed in his proper place’. Clearly, both writers thought best to stress that
the precautions taken to control the movement of the slaves and ensure that they did not
break any of the rules laid out by their masters, especially at night when it was easier,
were never enough.

A similar concern shows clearly also in works on agriculture and slave management
written in the ante-bellum American South. Here, the overseers were specifically
charged with the task of ensuring that slaves were confined in their quarters once work
was finished in the fields. To this end, overseers were to inspect and periodically check
the slave quarters at night.

For example, in 1857, Plowden C. Weston recommended that ‘the overseer is every
now and then to go round at night and call at the houses, so as to ascertain whether their
inmates are at home’. What these examples suggest is that, in both the Roman world
and the ante-bellum American South, strict discipline at work during daytime and extra
security measures at night were used by masters as deterrents, so that the slaves would
be prevented from perpetrating any mischief.
When prevention failed to achieve its aim, masters found themselves compelled to
resort to punishment in order to keep slaves in their place; significantly, when
describing their ideal model of slave management, both Roman and southern
agricultural writers always made clear that this was a result of ill attitude on the part of
the slaves, who simply had failed to listen to their master’s advice. We know that, in the
Roman world, the use of the whip was a widespread practice. Yet, among the Roman
sources, only Varro mentioned it in his treatise. Specifically, Varro asserted that the
vilicus should, by all means, use his whip, but only if words failed to achieve the desired
result of disciplining the workforce. In contrast to the evidence from the Roman
sources, whipping comes across in the articles and pamphlets written in the ante-bellum
American South as the most common form of punishment. For example, a planter from
South Carolina made a comparable point to the one made by Varro, when he stated that
‘negroes who will not do their work, like boys who will not get their lessons, must
sometime be flogged’. As for the object of punishment, planter Joseph Acklen from
Louisiana described it particularly clearly when he said that it should be ‘first for
correction, to deter the offender from a repetition of an offence; and second for example
to all others, showing them if they offend they will likewise receive certain
punishment’. The idea that punishment was just and should be applied only when
necessary is particularly evident in the rules set out in 1847 by a Virginian planter,
according to whom ‘the hands must be made to obey and work, which may be done by
strict attention to business, with very little coercive means’.

In both the Roman world and the ante-bellum American South, punishment – however
certain and severe – was customarily accompanied by different types of incentives for
the slaves. In fact, in the ideal models of management of both slave societies, the
existence of a complex system of punishments and rewards was a crucial aspect of the
master–slave relationship. Through such a system, masters aimed at showing the slaves
that correction was only the other side of the master’s care for their well-being.
In the Roman estates, rewards for the enthusiastic work of a slave included additional
food and clothing, exemption from work, permission to graze a beast of his own, and
other similar privileges.

Similar attitudes toward slave rewards can be observed in the master class of the ante-
bellum American South. Typically, rewards to particularly diligent slaves would include
time off from work, extra food and clothing, and even cash payments, or the permission
to cultivate a plot of land. A planter from Mississippi clearly stated that rewards should
be allocated ‘to each one upon his good behaviour, his activity, obedience and
efficiency during the year’.45 Curiously, inviting loyal slaves and their family to dinner
was a customary practice among many planters, but usually only on particularly
meaningful occasions, such as Christmas or the Fourth of July, during which large
celebrations were held on plantations across the South.

Also, like Roman masters, southern masters gave rewards to female slaves who were
particularly prolific. This comes hardly as a surprise, though. The presence of slave
children was an indication of the general good health and stability of slave families –
both factors that loomed large in the planters’ ideal model of slave management. Short
of promising freedom, the best reward to a prolific female slave was also in the
antebellum South time off from work. Thus, a Georgia planter who wished to reward a
particularly prolific mother significantly stated that ‘when the family increases to ten
children, I will require no other labour from the mother than to attend for her children’.