Friday, June 19, 2015

Enlightened Southern Labor Management

 http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/images/112.jpg

While the older brother of Jefferson Davis, Joseph E. Davis, was conducting enlightened labor management techniques in Mississippi, New England factory and mill owners worked young women, and children under ten, hard sixteen-hour workdays in dimly lit sweat-shops. Their meager pay was usually insufficient to cover living expenses and left nothing for health care—Africans in the South enjoyed cradle to grave medical care and security.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com

Enlightened Southern Labor Management

“ . . . Joseph Davis demonstrated the enlightened methods of slave management that he had developed from modifications of the ideas of Robert Owen, Frances Wright, and other reformers of an earlier era. In the words of a family member, “[The cabinets] were well built, with plastered walls and large fireplaces, two large rooms and two shed rooms behind them.” Each had its own henhouse from which the slaves could sell surplus chickens and eggs and a small garden patch for their own use.

Davis was determined to make his [plantation] enterprise a model of labor management as well. As one of nine Mississippians who owned more than 300 slaves in 1860, Davis was faced with a major administrative task [and had learned] that people worked best when treated well and given incentives rather than when driven by fear of punishment.

He established a court, eventually held every Sunday in a small building called the Hall of Justice, where a slave jury heard complaints of slave misconduct and the testimony the accused in his own defense. No slave was punished except upon conviction by this jury of peers. Sitting as a judge, Davis seldom intervened except to ameliorate the severity of some of the sentences.

Davis insisted that the overseers, too, must bring their complaints before the court, and they could not punish a slave without [their] permission. In addition to self-government, Davis provided more direct incentives for his laborers. Convinced that every human being should be allowed to develop to his full potential, the master encouraged his slaves to acquire skills in areas that interested them.

He provided opportunities for training in current trades and crafts. Moreover, skilled workers were allowed to enjoy the benefits of their more valuable labor; Davis ruled that all slaves might keep anything they earned beyond the value of their labor as field hands.

Davis was sensitive to the needs of his workers and regularly rewarded them for unusual achievements, in addition to providing gifts for a birth or wedding, or in consolation for a death. He expected them to work hard for their own benefit as well as his, and he was quick to commend and encourage those who performed well.

Davis’s benevolent management methods seemed amply vindicated by the example of his most able slave, Benjamin Montgomery, who seized the opportunities Davis provided and became an invaluable assistant as well as confidant and companion to his master. Born in Virginia in 1819, the brilliant Montgomery learned to read and write along with his young master.

With access to the large (plantation] library, Ben improved his literary skills and was soon copying letters and legal briefs as the office clerk. He learned to survey land to plan the construction of levees essential for flood protection on Davis Bend. He drew architectural plans and participated in the construction of several buildings, including the elaborate garden cottage.

(Joseph E. Davis, Pioneer Patriarch, Janet Sharp Hermann, University Press of Mississippi, 1990, pp. 53-58)

5 comments:

  1. "New England factory and mill owners worked young women, and children under ten, hard sixteen-hour workdays in dimly lit sweat-shops. Their meager pay was usually insufficient to cover living expenses and left nothing for health care"

    I read somewhere that many of the mine and factory owners were abolitionists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ummm---yea....sorry not going to buy the argument that by being nice and doing all of the above for the negro slaves that it in any way helps the slave owner class in the eyes of history.

    The South was destroyed for 2 reasons....1st, They Joined the Union, when they had the opportunity to be a SEPARATE set of STATES or Nations. 2nd, Slavery was a Pox on the South---It sapped the hard work ethic and inventiveness of their Leadership and held down wages and economic opportunity of their white poor and middle class.

    The North/Abolitionists had huge amounts of crazy marxists and scorched earth freaks like Sherman/Grant and others....and they should be called out for it as a separate issue.

    The South and those who Love it....which I do (even though I'm not from there) need to have that attitude that SLAVERY is an ABOMINATION for a free State to have and the South should have quickly and voluntarily gotten rid of it within 2 years after the end of the Revolutionary War. And the South should have made it a capital crime for anyone to own, trade in, transport or invest in Slavery in their Free States. AND the South should have assisted all negros to move to the Northern States and/or back to Africa with all of the agricultural knowledge that White Southerners could have imparted to them.

    The South needs to be Proud of their Culture, Independence, Love of FREEDOM, Honorable Men and Women and Families. Fly the Southern Nation/States Flags Proudly in this fashion.....AFTER all the Southern States CONDEM SLAVERY in a LOUD 2016 Proclamation and welcome SOUTHERN BLACKS into their ARMS.....telling the Northern Marxists of all colors....to get out and stay out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ummm---yea....sorry not going to buy the argument that by being nice and doing all of the above for the negro slaves that it in any way helps the slave owner class in the eyes of history.

      It's called history, no argument at all.

      ============

      SLAVERY is an ABOMINATION for a free State to have and the South should have quickly and voluntarily gotten rid of it within 2 years after the end of the Revolutionary War.

      So, the northern states could have kept theirs, correct?

      ===========

      And the South should have made it a capital crime for anyone to own, trade in, transport or invest in Slavery in their Free States.

      They were brought to the South on New England ships and what about the slaves in the north?

      ==============

      AND the South should have assisted all negros to move to the Northern States and/or back to Africa with all of the agricultural knowledge that White Southerners could have imparted to them.

      So, the north shouldn't? Ridiculous to judge people with today's standards. Would you give something away that cost you about $2K in 1861 dollars?
      Why didn't the government offer to pay for them and set them free? Lincoln was an advocate of sending them back, but didn't follow through. At any rate, the War was not started over slavery, it was simply an afterthought to change the war from one of saving the union to one of freeing the slaves when Lincoln became worried that France and Britain might recognize the Confederacy.

      Delete
  3. to follow on what Brock just said, when Lincoln declared the slaves free he only
    "freed" the southern slaves who, since the south had seceded, he had no authority over. He did NOT free the northern slaves until the end of the war. The subject of the Lincoln-Douglas debate was slavery (as I understand it). Douglas was black and argued for abolition. Lincoln argued FOR slavery. In his own words Lincoln proclaimed that he didn't care one war or the other if there were slaves or not. He was just interested in forcing the south back into the union. I believe that was because he knew that the north could not survive as a sovereign state without the south.

    Slavery was not something that existed just in the south of the US. It existed all over the planet at that time as a normal human condition. It was not seen as wrong by most folks of the time. The tide was turning in the US and eventually the slaves would have been freed anyway. The war was over economic power not slavery.
    I bet you think the south only wanted to count a black man as 3/5 of a man. Look it up. The argument was about representation in congress and the southern states wanted to count every man slave or free because it increased the number of seats in congress. The north wanted to count none of the slaves because they couldn't vote. Well neither could women. The 3/5 was a compromise to suit the northern states.

    Now if you care to really understand slavery, go to Wikipedia or any source to your liking and look up John Casor or look up the law suit of Johnson V Parker in court of Northampton County VA. in the year 1654. When you finish reading that come back here and spout of some more would'a should'a could'as. Mean time keep your anonymous Yankee ass out of North Carolina. CH

    ReplyDelete