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

[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.