54 pages • 1 hour read
Stephanie E. Jones-RogersA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
In the days following the Civil War, many formerly enslaved people began the search for their separated family members in various southern newspapers. They took out ads that “were filled with yearning and despair” over their lost children, parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles. (200). Jones-Rogers specifies that the formerly enslaved people who placed these ads often listed the white women responsible for their family’s separation by name. The author then describes the contrasting views of slavery provided in the firsthand accounts of former slave owners who invented narratives about slavery which left out all the trauma and violence involved. These revisionist accounts painted the picture of slave-owning women as emblems of sacrifice and benevolence who cared for the people they enslaved. This version of slavery was deeply rooted in religious beliefs that purported “God had ordained that their European ancestors buy, rule over, Christianize, and civilize people of African descent” (201). These former slave owners offered three explanations for their support of the institution of slavery: They believed in the power of slavery to civilize African people; they were following a divine plan and calling appointed by God; they were products of their environments and knew no better.
Jones-Rogers offers a fourth reason that she believes white women purposefully avoided confronting in their accounts. This reason was “their direct economic investment in slavery and their pecuniary interest in perpetuating it” (202). The author addresses the ways formerly enslaved people exposed the lies that composed these narratives, revealing the extent to which former slave-owning women were chiefly concerned with maximizing profits. To Jones-Rogers, the role of white women in slavery is clearly seen in the evidence that these women “were not passive bystanders. They were co-conspirators” (206).
Jones-Rogers chooses to focus this Epilogue on the humanity of the formerly enslaved. She documents their attempts to reconstruct their families after their separation at the hands of their former mistresses. By centering the emotions and experiences of these freed people, Jones-Rogers alerts the reader to her belief in their accounts of slavery. This is especially clear when Jones-Rogers begins discussing the revisionist retellings of slavery written by former slave-owning women. In contrast, Jones-Rogers casts doubts and aspersions on these women’s accounts of why they engaged in slavery.
These former slave owners attempted to justify their active preservation of slavery by stating enslaved people only benefitted from the institution of slavery while they suffered. Former slave owners believed that they had carried “a heavy burden” of improving the lives of those they one enslaved (201). Once again, these former slave owners victimized themselves and avoided taking accountability for their contributions to the death, torture, and trauma of African Americans.
Jones-Rogers counters the attempts of these women to explain their benevolent intentions. She points to the:
[…]scores of formerly enslaved people [who] provided a different understanding of the institution of slavery, their female owners’ knowledge of its workings, the part these women had played in their continued subjugation, and the reasons many white southern women were so adamantly opposed to its abolition. And the white women’s economic investments in slavery lay at the heart of such accounts (204).
Jones-Rogers exposes the true intentions of these women who “saw slavery as an economic system from which they could profit” (206). She implores readers to use this knowledge to examine the ways in which white supremacy continues to be upheld by white women who hold a vested, economic interest in its survival.