APUSH Blog #2: Slaves' Right to Kill

Did slaves have the right to kill to secure their freedom? Normally I would argue no one has the right to kill, but I think in some cases it would actually be justified. I believe every slave had the right to rebel with disobedience or running away, but not every slave had the right to murder.

We learned cruel slave owners were actually the exception, and the stories of incredibly harsh punishments were fairly rare. The slaves who experienced this though had every right to kill for their freedom because not only were their rights as humans being ignored when forced into slavery, but they were also being brutally mistreated. If the owner was cruel enough to kill a slave, I believe the slaves had the right to kill the owner. In our brief class discussion many people argued “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” or “they shouldn’t stoop to their level”, but when it comes to slavery, you can’t expect blacks to just passively suffer through it and not stand up for themselves. Has anyone witnessed someone else being whipped to death or gotten their foot chopped off for running away recently?? I don’t think we’re even capable of putting ourselves in their shoes- otherwise I think almost unanimously people would say they do have that right. In my eyes, it was necessary.

Some slaves were treated well by their masters- but they were still treated as another person’s property. Some may say that just from that fact alone, they should be able to kill for their freedom, but should they really have the right to kill someone who doesn’t know any better? Slavery was socially accepted in the South before the Civil War, it was an economic system they depended on- and even people without slaves still believed blacks were inferior to whites because that was just what they were taught. I always wonder if I had grown up in that time period if I would have been against slavery and racism, or if I would have been a part of it because it was just the norm. That is why if the slave owners were not cruel or especially inhumane, then I believe they shouldn’t be killed. If they were benevolent masters, their murder would not be justified.

Although rebellions should have avoided violence as much as possible no matter the lack of compassion of their owners, sometimes it was needed. Slave codes and efforts against slave rebellions made it extremely difficult to escape any other way than but to use aggression. Slaves were not allowed to travel without a white person present or permission, so if someone found them they would immediately be returned and face appalling consequences, so sometimes they didn’t have a choice. Any slave conspiring to rebel also received the death penalty, so to evade that, I actually think the use of violence is excusable. On the other hand though, slaughtering every white person in their path was not the answer either. Killing their masters is one thing, but killing whites who have nothing to do with it is another, especially considering most families even in the South did not own slaves or owned very few. I do believe though, that if someone was trying to recapture them and return them to their owner, they had the right to kill them because that is really the only way they would be able to remain free and escape extremely severe punishment.

It is very hard to know where to draw the line; although we try hard to study the subject, we don’t know what exactly went on and how it felt to be a slave. We will never fully understand how degrading and intimidating and restricting it must have been to be enslaved, so how can we say they should just wait for the North to free them? We have also learned about both loyal slaves protecting their masters and defiant slaves trying to poison their masters, so obviously some were good and some were bad. Because of this, it’s impossible to say all masters deserved to be killed or that none should have been. So, did slaves have the right to kill to secure their freedom? My answer: It’s complicated.