Week 3 Readings Entry

            Rebecca Scott’s Freedom Papers: An Atlantic Odyssey in the Age of Emancipation follows the tribulations of a single family lineage through the years of the Atlantic slave trade, the Haitian Revolution, and the Civil War, and gives us a new lens through which to view such historical events. By examining the methods by which descendants of this family established and fought for their individual freedoms, we can apply a new perspective on what it truly meant to be classified as “free” in such an era. In her introductory chapter, Scott clarifies, “[This book] rests on the conviction that the study of a carefully chosen place or event, viewed from very close to the ground, may reveal dynamics that are not visible through the more familiar lens of region or nation” (Scott, Freedom Papers, prologue). This notion is familiar because it was also espoused by our previous week’s readings, in which the importance of historical context was emphasized.

            One significant idea stressed throughout the book is the importance of official paperwork in establishing individual freedom. Scott informs us that “Rosalie and Elisabeth had long known that a piece of paper could turn a human being into a person with a price, and that other pieces of paper could restore freedom and standing” (Scott, Freedom Papers, chapter 9). To me, it seems as though the notary officials of the era had designed a system that would impose as much difficulty as possible on proving said freedom. Because Scott informs us of the frequency by which the Vincent and Tinchant lineage committed forgery of these documents, it makes me wonder just how many of these documents in total were forged, and how aware of it the officials were. While it is possible that they may have occasionally chosen to overlook it, perhaps they simply dismissed the capability that such persons would have in forging documents.

            Something else that stood out to me was the malleability of citizenship and claims to nationality. While this ties in on some level to the idea of official documentation, it seemed that personal identity in terms of nationality was an arbitrary concept to many members of the Tinchant family, depending on whatever suited the individual at the time. I think this idea is still relevant today, given that someone’s officially recognized status, be it race, nationality, ethnicity, or the like, can vary from one’s personal identity and definition. This variance can be attributed to the control each of us exerts over the ways in which we seek to be viewed by others, and how we view ourselves.