FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2477924385> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2477924385 endingPage "548" @default.
• W2477924385 startingPage "503" @default.
• W2477924385 abstract "“Deaf & Dumb, Blind, Insane, or Idiotic”:The Census, Slaves, and Disability in the Late Antebellum South Jeff Forret (bio) In a diary she kept during a stay on her husband’s coastal Georgia slaveholdings in the winter of 1838–1839, British actress Frances Anne “Fanny” Kemble famously expressed contempt for the institution of slavery. Her condemnation of slaves’ appalling living conditions and the treatment they endured are well known. But she also commented on several disabled slaves she encountered, including an enslaved “woman lying on the floor in a fit of epilepsy”; a second “poor half-witted creature, a female idiot”; and a third bondwoman, named Patty, young but “apparently too idiotic …to move,” whose tortured facial expressions elicited a combination of sympathy and revulsion. “[A] more hideous and loathsome object I never beheld,” Kemble remarked. These passages from Kemble’s diary afford glimpses of slaves in the Old South stricken by various physical or mental impairments.1 In contrast to Kemble’s antislavery proclivities, proslavery writers harnessed the emotive power of disabled bondpeople to much different ends in antebellum discourse. Before the Civil War, masters’ care of disabled slaves served as a strategic counterpoint to northerners’ claims of free labor’s superiority. “To protect the weak,” explained southern intellectual and Caroline County, Virginia, slaveholder George Fitzhugh, “we must first enslave them.” The irony Fitzhugh pinpointed was grounded in the moral and ethical differences he identified as [End Page 503] intrinsic to the economies of the North and the South. Whereas wage laborers in the North toiled under a ruthless economic system that callously discarded workers at the first sign of weakness, southern bondpeople benefited from a social safety net that emerged organically from the institution of slavery. To be sure, Fitzhugh conceded, masters “shall be entitled to [slaves’] labor,” but in exchange, owners were “bound to provide for them,” including the “idiots” and “lunatics” among them. More than any other scholar, Eugene D. Genovese popularized Fitzhugh’s description of a web of mutual responsibilities and reciprocal obligations between master and slave. But physical or mental disabilities rendered some bondpeople unable to fulfill their end of the paternalistic bargain. Those whose conditions substantially reduced their profitability to their owners subjected slaveholder paternalism to some of its greatest strains. Disabled slaves tested the strength of the “invisible chords of sympathy”—so lauded by Fitzhugh—that bound master and slave. Despite slaveholders’ self-congratulatory rhetoric about maintaining disabled slaves, market forces many times exposed the limits of masters’ benevolence.2 Remarkably little work has been done on bondpeople with disabilities. One reason is that disability studies is a relatively new, emerging field with ample opportunities for additional research. The existing scholarship rarely ventures further back in time than the twentieth century, and intersections between race and disability are only beginning to be explored.3 Second, slavery as an institution was predicated upon slaves’ “soundness.” Masters expected their chattel to be physically and mentally equipped to endure the rigors of plantation or other [End Page 504] labor. With the exception of a small number of cultural studies of the domestic slave trade, the enslaved body, and slave health, practically all the historical scholarship on slavery presumes that bondpeople were sound.4 Only two recent dissertations by Dea H. Boster and Jenifer L. Barclay, of which the former’s has been published, have been devoted exclusively to the study of slaves with disabilities. Using disability as a distinct category of analysis, these works have shed light on the lives of slaves with a range of physical and mental impairments and explored the ways that race and disability entered antebellum discourses of law, medicine, abolitionism, and proslavery thought.5 By the late 1830s, proslavery intellectuals had begun to embrace paternalism as an ideological antidote to radical abolitionists’ condemnations of slavery’s horrors. Paternalism claimed to “domesticate” slavery as an institution. In acknowledging slaves’ humanity, it placed the onus upon masters to treat their chattel fairly and firmly, as extensions of the family. Owners’ kind and generous conduct toward their bondpeople not only rationalized enslavement by demonstrating the institution’s humanity but also purportedly assured the smooth running of the system. As proslavery writers explained..." @default.
• W2477924385 created "2016-08-23" @default.
• W2477924385 creator A5051616408 @default.
• W2477924385 date "2016-01-01" @default.
• W2477924385 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2477924385 title "“Deaf & Dumb, Blind, Insane, or Idiotic”: The Census, Slaves, and Disability in the Late Antebellum South" @default.
• W2477924385 cites W1484393671 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W1543226302 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W1550532887 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W1574737070 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W1575176714 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W167466718 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W1867293472 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W1973314189 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2003866928 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2049986532 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2051790386 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2053186862 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2059328155 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2065409835 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2067886807 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2088047522 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2090022517 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2090803490 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2152215576 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W230540954 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2617913852 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2625957905 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2744065207 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2910011252 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2916254104 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W2947794286 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W3140655531 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W3150176234 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W356539818 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W380837428 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W427538328 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W571476911 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W593911430 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W595896815 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W605162492 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W612505518 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W620105901 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W623395064 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W653547053 @default.
• W2477924385 cites W784365639 @default.
• W2477924385 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/soh.2016.0219" @default.
• W2477924385 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2477924385 type Work @default.
• W2477924385 sameAs 2477924385 @default.
• W2477924385 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W2477924385 countsByYear W24779243852018 @default.
• W2477924385 countsByYear W24779243852019 @default.
• W2477924385 countsByYear W24779243852020 @default.
• W2477924385 countsByYear W24779243852021 @default.
• W2477924385 countsByYear W24779243852022 @default.
• W2477924385 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2477924385 hasAuthorship W2477924385A5051616408 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C2776661070 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C2777316895 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C2779066697 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C2779115301 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C2779975665 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C52130261 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C107993555 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C118552586 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C121332964 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C124952713 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C142362112 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C144024400 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C149923435 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C15744967 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C163258240 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C17744445 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C199539241 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C2776661070 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C2777316895 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C2779066697 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C2779115301 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C2779975665 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C2908647359 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C52130261 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C62520636 @default.
• W2477924385 hasConceptScore W2477924385C95457728 @default.

• next