Celia, A Slave

In Chapter Eight, “Conclusions,” McLaurin focuses primarily on how Celia’s case speaks to recent scholarship on “the manner and degree to which the sexual exploitation of female slaves influenced the routine operations of the institution of slavery” (116).  In particular, McLaurin addresses the work of Stanley Elkins and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, the first of who contends that “slaves were powerless to protect their most basic humanity from the predations of the master” (116), and the second who argues that slave women resisted in any way available to them.  McLaurin contends that Celia’s case illustrates that Elkins’ characterization is more accurate, especially given the lack of support networks available to most slaves, women included.

McLaurin also reiterates how Celia’s case highlights the “issue of the relationship of slave women to white women in the antebellum South” (117), primarily noting that white women were not in a position to advocate on behalf of slave women, even if they were so inclined.  From there, McLaurin notes how the example of George also illustrates a bleak view of slave men’s agency and how their inability to protect the people they loved inevitably created jealousy and tension.

Celia’s case also highlights the role of the legal system in maintaining slavery, as it was used to resolve the “paradox” that results when slaves are viewed as “both chattels and persons” (118).   As McLaurin notes, “Southern society insisted that the law uphold the master’s property rights, [even] while recognizing that as human beings slaves possessed certain rights, including an inviolable right to life” (118).  As such, the law inevitably worked to the advantage of the master.  McLaurin cites Mark Tushnet’s study of slave law, which contends that laws were primarily in place to regulate “market transactions” while relationships were regulated by “sentiment”—which is to say, the safety and bodily integrity of Celia depended on the idea that Robert Newsom would feel compelled by the custom and expectations of his society to not force himself on his young slave, as he was not compelled by law to restrain himself.  The lack of laws addressing the relationships between slaves and masters becomes a moot point, however, given that slaves were not legally allowed to testify against white people and therefore were unlikely to be able to prove abuse or wrongdoing.

McLaurin’s final conclusion addresses how southerners could not help but address the inherent moral evil of slavery, as they were “at some point in their lives […] very likely to be confronted with a personal moral dilemma that resulted because slavery granted one group of people such power over another group” (120-121), as Celia’s case demonstrates.  McLaurin ends the book by reflecting that although the psychic cost of doing so was high, most were able to reconcile slavery with their own morality, causing “incalculable and enduring” cost to those who were enslaved.