In the first chapter of his book, Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy, Eric Foner compares the post-emancipation experiences of several former slave—and more importantly, plantation—societies. While each society was different, many similarities existed in the experiences that resulted from emancipation. Tantamount to Foner’s argument was the battle for the control of labor in each of these societies following the break up of previous labor experience.
In each case, plantation society rested on a “compulsive need for a disciplined, dependent labor force,” (Foner, 10). So with the collapse of slavery, each plantation society began a battle to return the balance and return disciplined, dependent labor to the plantation. In many of these cases, former plantation owners and their governments did not think these labor requirements could be met outside of slavery without the use of coercive labor. Employing measures such as Black Codes, vagrancy laws, and contract requirements, the post-emancipation planters sought to control their former slaves. Even in the more unique case of Haiti, in which the surviving, previous planters had all fled the island, forced labor (not unlike slavery) was imposed by Toussaint L’Ouverture and his successor Jean-Jacques Dessalines to return prosperity to the island. The American south was not exempt from these measures to return the plantation economy the region, as planters would desperately seek to control labor and force it into a dependent and obedient form throughout Reconstruction and Redemption.
However, the fight for control of labor was not limited to the side of those wishing to return the plantation economy in each region. Emancipated slaves also played a major part in the debate over labor. These slaves in every region sought control of their own labor and control of the labor of their families. Emancipation did not mean simply freedom from human servitude, but also the ability to control one’s labor and own land as access to some land, “gave event the poorest blacks some measure of choice as to whether, when and under what circumstances to present themselves in the labor market,” (Foner, 26). While the ability to own land was considerably limited in many cases, the ability to control one’s labor remained a goal and possibility in the post-emancipation period even in those places where former slaves were not granted political enfranchisement. As Foner states, “Lacking political power, freedmen employed the labor shortage as their principle weapon,” (Foner, 38). Through gaining control of their labor, freedmen sought to control their own conditions, rhythms, and compensation.
Many commonalities existed in the post-emancipation experiences of former slave-holding regions, however, amongst these similarities, the most telling was the struggle for control of labor. Following emancipation, each society studied by Foner, engaged in a struggle for control with former owners and planters seeking control of former slaves to provide a dependable labor force for economic recovery and freedmen sought to control their own condition through their rights to labor. While each society grappled with this debate in its own way, the issue remained the same: who should control the rights to the labor of the freedmen?