Topic for discussion - manumission

[epeeblade]

(I haven't done one of these in a while, so here goes...)

I was reading the latest bit of A Kept Boy last night when something occurred to me.

In it Jensen vehemently denies being part of any family, and denies any identity other than that of slave. He's not the only one raised from childhood to be the perfect slave.

So what would happen then if the abolitionist movement does pass a manumission clause? Now granted, it's probably not going to cause hundreds of people freeing their slaves en masse, but I can imagine wealthy owners "freeing their slaves" in their will after they pass. What happens to the slaves who can't imagine a life outside of slavery?

(And yes this would probably be AU like whoah, but it's something I'm interested in seeing explored in fic...)

Comments

[i0am0crazy.livejournal.com]

uhmm i think there would just have to be some people helping the newly freed...
like how to get housing,work ect...

in a more radical movement also how to get social security or even be compensated for the free work one did for so many years.

[epeeblade]

We would hope that they'd think of this. That slavery is just sort of intense on the job training, that when they are freed they'll have some sort of skill to market.

The idea of social security doesn't fit in with this version of society. The most altruistic thing one can do, in this messed up world, is to enslave someone, thereby providing them with food, shelter and medical care all in exchange for a little something called freedom...

[i0am0crazy.livejournal.com]

which is exactly why i wrote in a more radical movement because if the people stand up and demand it, all the mighty lords and ladies would piss their pants.=)

[epeeblade]

Heh. Part of me does want to see a more radical movement. The slower way is probably more logical and makes sense for a society that's developed so heavily around slavery. But man, sometimes its frustrating to see such a harsh world with no way out.

[khemlab.livejournal.com]

You know, I think it would be very similar to what happens with longtime prisoners who have been let out of prison with no real way to integrate into society as a whole. It would be irresponsible for the abolitionists to provide for all-out manumission without providing some mechanism for taking care of these slaves. Maybe a system similar to halfway houses? Or a way to reconnect with family, should the ex-slave wish? Or a requirement for temporary financial support from the ex-owner? I think the Stockholm Syndrome/disconnection with society would run so deep with some that they might not even want to leave their master's/mistress's household.

[epeeblade]

See, that's what I was thinking with some not even wanting to leave their masters' household. But what if they had no choice? Would it be possible to be re-enslaved?

And that goes along with your wonderful analogy about longtime prisoners who often do have a hard time integrating with society. Some end up back in prison because they can't function as free people.

But it's something the abolition movement should address, at the very least it's something they can be called on in fic:)

[khemlab.livejournal.com]

But what if they had no choice? Would it be possible to be re-enslaved?

I don't know if "not leaving" would necessarily have to be equated with formal re-enslavement. I do suspect some Masters would turn them out rather than not have a formal master/slave relationship. On the other hand, I don't see why one couldn't enter into a sort of "voluntary slavery" even though it would be outside the legal system. If I were a Master, of course, I would require such a slave to sign some sort of documentation releasing me from any future liability as to their labor costs.

Some end up back in prison because they can't function as free people.

Which is exactly the problem with our prison system - it teaches prisoners to be better criminals, rather than rehabilitating them to be better human beings. In the slave parallel, of course, slaves are taught (involuntarily) to be better slaves, not better people.

[daughterofelros.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, with the institution of slavery as far as the American historical sense, many if not most states had a policy that if a slave was manumitted, they were Required to relocate across state, or at least county lines (possibly so that their presence would not encourage other slaves to dwell on the possibility of freedom and revolt.)

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

It would be irresponsible for the abolitionists to provide for all-out manumission without providing some mechanism for taking care of these slaves.

Absolutely, and they're well aware of that--at least, the sensible ones are. The tack that Dylan in particular is pushing is the idea that if Congress doesn't do something to allow for gradual manumission, it's going to happen all at once at a time not of their choosing--and they're going to be first up against the wall.

The Reformist strategy is twofold: to make it harder for people to be enslaved in the first place, and then to allow those who're already slaves a chance to obtain freedom. Eventually, when the class of former slaves becomes large enough, you stop allowing people to buy slaves at all. And then you emancipate everyone. But we're talking at least a century or so for the process to be complete.

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

I think the Stockholm Syndrome/disconnection with society would run so deep with some that they might not even want to leave their master's/mistress's household.

For slaves like Andy and Sherri in Dylan's household, that household is their family, and they have a long-term emotional investment in everyone there. They also like their jobs, and their work environment as far as working for Dylan. What they want is the ability to go on vacations without having to pretend they're on an errand for Dylan, and to get legally married, and to not have to automatically defer to someone on the street because they don't have a collar.

Since the first step will probably be slaves buying their freedom, and that can't happen without help and support from the master, chances are that the slaves who obtain freedom initially will be more likely to stay, because they're the ones who will be closest to their owners.

manumission

[vambrace.livejournal.com]

Actually, this very thing happened in the American South when the Emancipation Proclamation issued. Many slaves were either deeply attached to their families or too frightened and ill-equipped to make it on their own. Many just stayed where they were and shifted from having everything supplied for them to being tenant farmers or being paid wages.

[lapillus]

I could also see something like the Roman system where freemen were clients of their former masters (just as their masters would be clients of more powerful citizens). This also brings up the interesting question of if they'd be denied citizenship (as were freed slaves in Rome) but with their free-born children being citizens or what. I could see either or both happening as a way to keep things still under control while permitting the incentive to be a good, well-behaved slave that manumission offers.

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

*nods* Dylan and most of the other Reformists are definitely looking at Rome as a model. They often point out that while the UCNA has lots of stick in terms of dealing with slave revolts, Rome survived as long as it did by including the carrot of eventual freedom. And yes, I suspect that there would be some kind of formal or informal client system.

[kaylez4ever.livejournal.com]

I had the same thought when reading controlled violence.

What would happen to people who embraced slavery or were brainwashed into excepting their place in the system?

And when they were freed would they have the same rights or would they be forever separate? Denied the same freedoms and rights as everyone else?

[khemlab.livejournal.com]

What would happen to people who embraced slavery or were brainwashed into excepting their place in the system?

In my mind (and my little corner of the AU), there are definitely those, such as Liev, who view their enslaved position more as a job than as a total loss of freedom. Of course, they can't do just anything they want, but who can, really? I suspect this would be more the case with slaves at the level of Agent or a similar position of (relative) power, and of course only the case with those who have at least a reasonably pleasant relationship with their Master.

I don't think it's a very far-fetched concept - most of us wage-earners these days are essentially wage slaves, especially in an economic downturn like this one. While we could leave a job voluntarily, it's not what you would call a true option because there are so few jobs available. So essentially, even if we are treated badly, we will stay until involuntarily forced to leave.

EDIT: This was a bit of an incomplete thought, lol. What I mean to say is, I'm pretty sure that certain slaves would happily continue to do what they've always done, whether free or enslaved. Liev, I suspect (assuming freed slaves became citizens), would open his own gym if Bale wouldn't support him anymore.

AU Keptverse

[hippychc.livejournal.com]

I wondered what else this could do to the fabric of society. Would their "me generation" choose not to marry or have relationships or ever have children because it easier and safer to just take care of themselves? Would "not rich" people choose to have sterilizations or abortions more often than taking the risk of starting a family. Or maybe the pressure of society would dictate that certain family members could be chosen to inherit a family's wealth and the right to propagate, the rest of the family would only work to be sure the lucky ones were cared for and stayed free. Would some women go into the business of making babies as a source of income..... fear of Commerce would make for some weird social situations.

[khemlab.livejournal.com]

(And yes this would probably be AU like whoah, but it's something I'm interested in seeing explored in fic...)

Another thought that I didn't address in my comment above is that, theoretically, it could be done on a state-by-state basis, similar to historical slavery in the U.S. So Montana, for instance, might decide to abolish slavery, even though it might not happen in California. If someone chose to write it this way, it would make be a little less "AU to the AU," I think.

[shalom]

And that state-by-state basis of abolishment would bring its own set of complications, as states that still had slavery and/or manumission did not recognize freed slaves.

[khemlab.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, and it would be even further complicated by federal government ownership of the slaves. How would that work? Under our current Constitution, the supremacy clause provides that federal law preempts state law. Does that mean that a slave is a slave even if the state government does not recognize such an institution? It could easily devolve into another civil war, though in this case it would be the federal government on the pro-slavery side.

[shalom]

Isn't this much what is happening with the recognition of same-sex marriage (and associated rights) in some states, and the constitutional banning of it in others.

Example....One of two Rhode Island men married in Connecticut died recently, and his spouse has no funeral arrangement rights in Rhode Island, although they were legally married in CT. A law allowing funeral rights for same sex partner was vetoed by the conservative RI governor.

[khemlab.livejournal.com]

In a way, it's the same thing in that marital rights vary state to state. But the major difference is that regulation of marriage has traditionally been a right reserved to the states, so there is (theoretically) no federal law on point with which the states who refuse to recognize same-sex marriage are clashing.

At least, that's the case as long as we continue to ignore the fact that the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to guarantee marriage as a fundamental right, but that's a whole other topic. ;)

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

The thing to remember is that technically, all slaves are owned by the federal government through Commerce. When you buy a slave, you're really buying the right to contract their labor. Over time, this distinction has been seriously blurred, but a strict reading of the laws makes it clear that Commerce reserves the right to revoke an existing contract and reclaim the slave at any time.

(Note: everything after this is referring to slaves owned by individuals. Corporate slaves are a whole different case in practice, though not in law.)

I don't actually think that individuals can make dispositions for their slaves, if they technically don't own them. I suspect that most of the time, Commerce just transfers the contracts of the existing slaves to the heirs, but if the heir can't provide proof of ability to support the slaves, or there's a political point to be made, Commerce will just take them back.

What I've always envisioned for eventual manumission legislation is something along the Roman model, where slaves are allowed to buy their freedom for an amount to be determined by Commerce. This would mean that only a small number of slaves would be freed, because they would need to have both the desire to be free, and be owned by someone who was willing to either give them the money up front, or to accept "tips" or payment for work in some way. The slave will also have to provide evidence that they have some means of support.

So for instance: Dylan will find out the buyback price for all of his slaves, and then have the ones that want freedom create accounts (probably managed by Commerce). He'll deposit the buyback price into the account, plus an amount equal to at least one years' wages for a similar non-slave position. The slave writes a check to Commerce, and they're free. In Dylan's case, though, none of his slaves are going to leave, so he'll hire them all back at salary. Fortunately, his grandmother left him a lot of money; he's going to need it.

All of which is to say that manumission would have to be a joint effort between masters and slaves, and the masters who are willing to do that are almost always going to be the ones who'll hire their former slaves as paid staff, so the difference--and it's a big difference--will be that as staff, people can choose to leave. Slaves who don't want to be free, won't be.
'
Don't forget that Jensen is an extreme; even with people who were in the system since childhood, most don't internalize their training as strongly. Chris in "More Than One Answer" was born a slave and was taught from the time he could understand language that his role was to serve. But because he had to be trained to respond to a variety of situations, he grew up thinking of being a slave as his job or career, and it's not tied into his sense of self in the way that Cruise indoctrinated Jensen. Chris is going to do the work he was trained to do, whether he's a slave or free, and as long as he can keep doing what he's good at, he'll be happy.

[epeeblade]

(I really wish I didn't have a head cold so I could be more coherent in my reply. Bleh!)

Your comment brings up what I only remembered when I went to check the faq before I posted. But that also got me all thinky because if Dylan and the abolitionists wanted a manumission clause there would have to be a whole lot of upheaval. (I guess that's what I'm interested in exploring, the upheaval.)

Although now I'm thinking about it in the context of the global economy. Wouldn't it be a good way to get back in with countries they've lost diplomatic ties with? Like, "look we free our slaves, maybe you'll contribute towards their freedom..."

And yes, Jensen is an extreme, of course, though I think probably not the only one who's been brainwashed at such a young age. As for Chris (Pine) I wonder how it can not be tied to his sense of self in some way. It's not like he can be anything else. He can't change careers if he gets a bad master. I mean, look at how it's affected Joe - he does have a sense of self but it's been molded by his slavery. I don't think he'd turn down freedom in the way Jensen would, but I don't think he'd necessarily know how to be free.

(once again I apologize if this doesn't make sense. Stupid sinuses. Although maybe it IS the cold meds that's making me get all introspective like this...)

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

And yes, Jensen is an extreme, of course, though I think probably not the only one who's been brainwashed at such a young age.

Definitely not. But it's still not all that common. It takes time and money and patience to break someone like that and then reshape them the way that you want to. Cruise was involved in every aspect of Jensen's upbringing--and he also kept him isolated. He could afford to have tutors come in instead of sending Jensen to training with other kids his age, and he was able to make sure that all of Jensen's emotional focus was on him.

As for Chris (Pine) I wonder how it can not be tied to his sense of self in some way. It's not like he can be anything else. He can't change careers if he gets a bad master.

I think I didn't word that right, because yes: being a slave is who Chris is. The difference between him and Jensen is that he's never thought of himself primarily as $MASTER's slave. His identity isn't tied into any particular master, and his training was in many ways the opposite of Jensen's, because the last thing the agency wants is to have a slave who can only function well in a very narrow set of circumstances. Chris was also was allowed to be a child, with other children He wasn't sold for the first time until he was 14, and he had the chance to make friends and form relationships with people who weren't his owner.

I mean, look at how it's affected Joe - he does have a sense of self but it's been molded by his slavery. I don't think he'd turn down freedom in the way Jensen would, but I don't think he'd necessarily know how to be free.

The problem they'd both face would be that what they know how to do is take care of someone else. As long as they can keep doing that, they'd be fine with being free--but in practice, nothing would change. But yes--if Dylan freed them and said, "Okay, guys, good luck!" neither of them would have any idea what to do with themselves all day.

[angiepen.livejournal.com]

Coming in late as usual, but anyway.... [duck]

One possible first step would be to change the law so that children born to slaves were free instead of slave. Right now the slave population is growing two ways -- both people who go bankrupt, or families who nearly go bankrupt and sacrifice a child, and also the slave population reproducing. Cutting off that second point of growth would let the reformers concentrate on the economic problem slavery was designed to cope with. Even without manumission, if you can solve the economic problem -- not assuming that no one will ever be poor or bankrupt again, but coming up with different ways of dealing with that than enslavement -- eventually slavery would dwindle.

Of course, there's the question of whether the slaves and reformers would be willing to wait that long. But the more time they could buy with mitigating legislation, the less of a problem there'd be when the crisis point came.

Assuming some point of mass manumission, I'd assume it'd work out much like it did the last time, with newly freed slaves going into debt so they can afford to live right then and there, and falling into a cycle of constantly paying off last year's debt with this year's work. Sharecropping wasn't all that much different from slavery when you get right down to it. If anything, it was more of a benefit to the landowners; if one of the tenants died or was disabled, the owner could just find someone else to work the land, rather than having to invest the money to buy someone else to do the work, as they would've if they depended on slaves.

I can see the biggest slave owners/contractors -- the factories, that sort of mass employer -- ending up with most of the same workers, or drawing from the same pool of workers, and the whole thing ending up as a massive debt-indenture system similar to sharecropping, just because if all the slaves were suddenly freed, the vast majority of them wouldn't have owners like Dylan who were able and willing to set them up. :/

Angie

[isaacsapphire.livejournal.com]

I think that besides Commerce themselves (of new Commerce slaves, not for general sale), nobody's doing very much breeding of slaves; it's supposed to be very illegal to do it in quantity.

Yeah, slavery means that owners/employers have some sort of financial motivation to institute baseline safety standards and make sure their slaves/employees aren't injured or killed too often.

In the US during the Industrial Revolution, in the North women and children (because men cost more) were paid extremely small wages to work in very dangerous conditions. If someone got their arm ripped off in a loom, oh well, go hire a new girl from outside the gates. Whereas at the same time down South they couldn't afford to be quite so careless.

[angiepen.livejournal.com]

It's illegal to breed slaves in quantity, yes, but without some sort of systematic sterilization, a heck of a lot of breeding is going to be happening anyway. When you're talking about millions of people (tens of millions? maybe) there's going to be a lot of breeding going on, even without owners trying to dodge the system and run their own little breeding farms for profit. :/

However much breeding is going on, though, there's definitely some. Cutting off that supply of new slaves, whether you go all Draconian on the breeding itself or whether you declare all those children free, that'd still solve a chunk of the problem, however large or small a chunk we want to argue it might be. At that point, tackling the economic problems which cause free people to become slaves would have some real impact in the longer term -- say, a generation or two.

If someone got their arm ripped off in a loom, oh well, go hire a new girl from outside the gates. Whereas at the same time down South they couldn't afford to be quite so careless.

And yeah, ironic how slavery benefits the slaves in that one matter. Greed and financial self-interest would maintain some minimal standards, at least. :P

Angie

[deadlychameleon.livejournal.com]

In this system, I'm guessing many of the freed slaves (who didn't want to be free/weren't planning on it) would immediately go broke and go back into the system.

Or, they'd find a master/employer and while technically maintaining their freedom, basically be a slave anyway. That's probably what I'd see happening with Jensen. If manumission were legal, Jeff wouldn't allow him to remain a slave, but he'd still choose to be Jeff's.

I think Jensen would be the perfect second in command for Jeff as a general/resistance fighter if civil war did break out over slavery (again). It would be a very interesting relationship to see.