“高地和显眼地”:立即解放的逻辑和1834年决定的政治

N. Sesepkekiu
{"title":"“高地和显眼地”:立即解放的逻辑和1834年决定的政治","authors":"N. Sesepkekiu","doi":"10.1353/JCH.2018.0000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:On 1 August 1834, slavery came to its permanent and quite uneventful end in the colony of Antigua. Antigua's planter-dominated Assembly was compelled by a series of self-miscalculations to grant immediate freedom to the colony's enslaved population rather than adopt the proposed the Apprenticeship scheme. The uniqueness of Antigua's decision lay in the fact of Antigua being the only \"sugar colony\" to take the action. The Antigua Assembly's decision was a landmark decision, a fact not lost on many contemporary observers including other regional assemblies and politicians, pro-slavery and abolitionists within the empire. Despite the importance of the decision to understanding regional history, academic historical examination and discussion on the decision has relegated it to a mere footnote in most histories, including histories of the territory. This article seeks to re-establish the importance of the Assembly's decision to understanding planter and slave-owner attitudes about slavery and freedom, as well as what self-interests affected each slave-owning group's attitude toward British mandated slave emancipation. The article begins with an examination of the historiography of the decision, offering an insight into the two main perspectives—economic determinism and humanitarianism. The main theme of the paper is the role and nature of economic determinism in compelling the final decision. The article also establishes, in line with Douglas Hall in his Five of the Leewards, that the decision was not a unanimous one, having passed by the single vote of the Assembly's speaker. The objective is to establish that the decision of the Assembly was not based on choice and consensus, and that the economic considerations were inextricably tied to political and legislative considerations, which the planters voting for the decision appeared to view as equally important. Finally, the author seeks to place the history of the decision in its proper posture, not as a footnote or peripheral event but one which establishes that the history of the region is complex and nuanced and based in large part in colliding personal self-interests, notwithstanding the groups into which historians and some contemporaries placed these actors. The decision of the Antigua Assembly to grant freedom to its then enslaved population requires greater interrogation, debate and understanding on par with the historical discussion that have surrounded the British Parliament's 1833 decision.","PeriodicalId":83090,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Caribbean history","volume":"13 1","pages":"1 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"The High and Conspicuous Ground\\\": The Logic of Immediate Emancipation and the Politics of the Decision of 1834\",\"authors\":\"N. Sesepkekiu\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/JCH.2018.0000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:On 1 August 1834, slavery came to its permanent and quite uneventful end in the colony of Antigua. Antigua's planter-dominated Assembly was compelled by a series of self-miscalculations to grant immediate freedom to the colony's enslaved population rather than adopt the proposed the Apprenticeship scheme. The uniqueness of Antigua's decision lay in the fact of Antigua being the only \\\"sugar colony\\\" to take the action. The Antigua Assembly's decision was a landmark decision, a fact not lost on many contemporary observers including other regional assemblies and politicians, pro-slavery and abolitionists within the empire. Despite the importance of the decision to understanding regional history, academic historical examination and discussion on the decision has relegated it to a mere footnote in most histories, including histories of the territory. This article seeks to re-establish the importance of the Assembly's decision to understanding planter and slave-owner attitudes about slavery and freedom, as well as what self-interests affected each slave-owning group's attitude toward British mandated slave emancipation. The article begins with an examination of the historiography of the decision, offering an insight into the two main perspectives—economic determinism and humanitarianism. The main theme of the paper is the role and nature of economic determinism in compelling the final decision. The article also establishes, in line with Douglas Hall in his Five of the Leewards, that the decision was not a unanimous one, having passed by the single vote of the Assembly's speaker. The objective is to establish that the decision of the Assembly was not based on choice and consensus, and that the economic considerations were inextricably tied to political and legislative considerations, which the planters voting for the decision appeared to view as equally important. Finally, the author seeks to place the history of the decision in its proper posture, not as a footnote or peripheral event but one which establishes that the history of the region is complex and nuanced and based in large part in colliding personal self-interests, notwithstanding the groups into which historians and some contemporaries placed these actors. The decision of the Antigua Assembly to grant freedom to its then enslaved population requires greater interrogation, debate and understanding on par with the historical discussion that have surrounded the British Parliament's 1833 decision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83090,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Caribbean history\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Caribbean history\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/JCH.2018.0000\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Caribbean history","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JCH.2018.0000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:1834年8月1日,奴隶制在安提瓜殖民地平静地永久结束了。安提瓜以种植园主为主的议会由于一系列的自我误判而被迫立即给予殖民地被奴役人口自由,而不是采纳拟议中的学徒计划。安提瓜这一决定的独特之处在于,安提瓜是唯一采取这一行动的“糖殖民地”。安提瓜议会的决定是一项具有里程碑意义的决定,许多同时代的观察员,包括帝国内的其他地区议会和政治家、支持奴隶制和废奴主义者,都注意到了这一事实。尽管这一决定对了解地区历史具有重要意义,但学术界对这一决定的历史考察和讨论,在包括领土史在内的大多数历史中,都把它贬为仅仅是一个脚注。本文试图重新确立议会决定的重要性,以理解种植园主和奴隶主对奴隶制和自由的态度,以及自我利益对每个奴隶主集团对英国强制奴隶解放的态度的影响。本文首先考察了这一决定的史学,提供了对两个主要观点的洞察——经济决定论和人道主义。本文的主要主题是经济决定论在强制最终决策中的作用和性质。该条还根据道格拉斯·霍尔在他的《背风五人》中所说的,规定该决定不是一致通过的,而是由大会发言人一票通过的。其目的是要确定,大会的决定不是基于选择和协商一致,经济方面的考虑与政治和立法方面的考虑是不可分割地联系在一起的,投票赞成这项决定的种植园主似乎认为政治和立法方面的考虑同样重要。最后,作者试图将这一决定的历史置于适当的位置,而不是作为一个脚注或外围事件,而是建立该地区的历史是复杂而微妙的,并且在很大程度上基于个人利益的冲突,尽管历史学家和一些同时代的人将这些行动者置于不同的群体中。安提瓜议会给予当时被奴役的人民自由的决定需要更多的讯问、辩论和理解,就像围绕英国议会1833年决定进行的历史讨论一样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"The High and Conspicuous Ground": The Logic of Immediate Emancipation and the Politics of the Decision of 1834
Abstract:On 1 August 1834, slavery came to its permanent and quite uneventful end in the colony of Antigua. Antigua's planter-dominated Assembly was compelled by a series of self-miscalculations to grant immediate freedom to the colony's enslaved population rather than adopt the proposed the Apprenticeship scheme. The uniqueness of Antigua's decision lay in the fact of Antigua being the only "sugar colony" to take the action. The Antigua Assembly's decision was a landmark decision, a fact not lost on many contemporary observers including other regional assemblies and politicians, pro-slavery and abolitionists within the empire. Despite the importance of the decision to understanding regional history, academic historical examination and discussion on the decision has relegated it to a mere footnote in most histories, including histories of the territory. This article seeks to re-establish the importance of the Assembly's decision to understanding planter and slave-owner attitudes about slavery and freedom, as well as what self-interests affected each slave-owning group's attitude toward British mandated slave emancipation. The article begins with an examination of the historiography of the decision, offering an insight into the two main perspectives—economic determinism and humanitarianism. The main theme of the paper is the role and nature of economic determinism in compelling the final decision. The article also establishes, in line with Douglas Hall in his Five of the Leewards, that the decision was not a unanimous one, having passed by the single vote of the Assembly's speaker. The objective is to establish that the decision of the Assembly was not based on choice and consensus, and that the economic considerations were inextricably tied to political and legislative considerations, which the planters voting for the decision appeared to view as equally important. Finally, the author seeks to place the history of the decision in its proper posture, not as a footnote or peripheral event but one which establishes that the history of the region is complex and nuanced and based in large part in colliding personal self-interests, notwithstanding the groups into which historians and some contemporaries placed these actors. The decision of the Antigua Assembly to grant freedom to its then enslaved population requires greater interrogation, debate and understanding on par with the historical discussion that have surrounded the British Parliament's 1833 decision.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
George Padmore's: Black Internationalism by Rodney Worrell (review) "Dishonourable Blacks"? The 1983 "Rebel Tour" and Perspectives on Jamaican Identity and Nationhood “Dishonourable Blacks”? The 1983 “Rebel Tour” and Jamaican Nationhood and Identity Book Review of George Padmore’s: Black Internationalism by Rodney Worrell "To Work Her Grounds": Provision Grounds, Gardens, and Subsistence in Late-Slavery Trinidad, 1824–1833
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1