40 Acres and a Mule

While reading David Lloyd’s “Black Irish, Irish Whiteness, and Atlantic State Formation”, I noticed that he described a policy that was put into place in Ireland that sounded quite familiar. Lloyd recounts that the problem that British abolitionists had with their Caribbean colonies was how to retain the work force that they were accustomed to having under control while at the same time freeing the black slaves that they kept. In short, they were all for freedom – so long as the work that they were dependent on still got done by the “inferior” race. The Irish problem was similar, though not as drastic: How were the British to turn the Irish from subsistence farmers to laborers without causing a revolt or mass migration? How could they profit off the Irish? One idea, proposed by John Stuart Mill, was that in order to have a self-motivated working labor class, the government should provide “tenure” to the farmers. In other words, promise the settlers that they would have ownership of the land, as long as they worked it. This idea is remarkably similar to what was proposed for free slaves in the U.S. : 40 acres and a mule. This was the proposal to give every freedman and his family 40 acres of land, and a mule to work the land with. The idea was to keep a working class, even though slavery was no longer legal. Unfortunately, though 40 acres and a mule was a government initiative that passed into law, it was never honored. People promised 40 acres and a mule never received anything, which often forced them into being cheap labor for the very people who enslaved them. Again, we see a parallel, as “tenured” land in Ireland was never given to farmers, either. In both times, it was only a beautiful-looking promise that turned out to be a lie in order to keep the social hierarchy in place.

2 Replies to “40 Acres and a Mule”

  1. I believe each of these practices, both in the US and in Ireland, tie in well to the idea of “not yet ready” and all of the hypocrisy within this oppressive view of the racial “other” in each society. By neglecting the needs of black and Irish people, the white elites of each society created a prolonged version of their own versions of slavery, with each racial minority trapped in a place of poverty without any chance for uplift. The whites’ promise of “40 acres and a mule” also creates a dependence upon whites, despite their apparent freedom, because they are not allowed the necessary tools to break free from this oppression. Without any substantial means for education or economic opportunities, the 40 acres and a mule remains out of reach for the newly freed slaves, despite the small burden of providing such an opportunity. The same can be said for tenure farmers, who used their skills in agriculture to try to forge their own economic freedom, but remained stagnant in an altered sort of slavery. By not being able to reap the rewards of their labor, the Irish also faced the oppression of false freedom after the plantation period and criticism that they were only capable of completing physical labor. The English, as well as the whites in America, also used this as a tactic to prove superiority, because a group of rural farmers without education or instruction could not possibly grow to be adopted into society, despite the Irish’s later acceptance in the Americas because of their possibility of “whiteness,” and thus modernity.

Comments are closed.