The Origins of No Strings Attached?

Annette Gordon-Reed highlights the complexity of interracial relationships during the early years of American slavery in Virginia - while socially unacceptable and legally impossible to have a formal union between a white person and black person, there is still a prevalence of interracial sexual activity. Elizabeth Hemings and John Wayles clearly demonstrate this phenomenon as she bears a fair number of children because of him. However, calling their relationship an actual relationship is tricky. Not only was it legally impossible for them to marry, there are widely held beliefs in white supremacy so even the thought of a white man wanting to marry a black woman would seem ridiculous. Yet there is a huge prevalence of sexual activity between enslaved women and white slave owners. Annette Gordon Reed states that such men "often took slave women as a substitute for a wife, the classic definition of the term concubine" (107). One could argue that white men would use enslaved women in the absence of a white wife, whether they are a bachelor by choice or by the death of a former wife. It could be argued that this is the case with John Wayles and Elizabeth Hemings because Elizabeth did start bearing his children after the death of Wayles' second wife.

However I do not believe the death of wives to be the whole story. This idea of the concubine and the literal fact that enslaved women are property of white men seem to contribute more to the prevalence of sexual activity. As Gordon-Reed explains, "[Wayles] could have sex with Hemings because she was his property. He could produce children with her who would never be recognized unless he chose to do so. She had no power to challenge this situation formally" (82). It is an extreme version of modern day friends with benefits or sex buddies - except subtract the "friends" or "buddies" component. Physical gratification with absolutely no strings attached - no one would believe the word of an enslaved woman over a white man if she protested and he could not try to marry the woman even if he wanted to. There is an incredible power imbalance from the start and I would hesitate to call any such arrangement a relationship. The woman has no agency or choice in the matter; to be completely subject to someone else does not signify a relationship which should (ideally) be an equal exchange. Even if the white man were to genuinely care about the woman and want to marry her, I would not call it an actual relationship because the institutions have established the supremacy of the white man over the enslaved woman. The psychological consequences of being subjugated from birth, if anything, render the enslaved woman almost incapable of making an unbiased decision in terms of her feelings towards the white man. As Gordon-Reed states, "Hemings's oppression and Wayles's privilege can hardly be overstated...slavery, white supremacy, and male dominance combined to keep her down" (82). 

Gordon-Reed is correct in asserting the need for more scrutiny of this underground world of interracial sex in American slavery. The dynamics of race, gender, and legal statutes stacked the odds heavily in favor of white men to do whatever they want without consequence. Unfortunately racial attitudes, gender norms, and laws against interracial marriage all went hand in hand with the institution of slavery. To give black women the ability to marry or hold white men responsible for their children would completely topple the notions of power and white supremacy. I would speculate that Elizabeth's mixed race background might have played a role in her preferential treatment from Wayles. From a white supremacist perspective, Elizabeth had Anglo blood so it would not be completely immoral and leave Wayles with less guilt or scrutiny from others. The story of oppression, colonization, and rape that results is common whenever there is an aggressor. However in the case of American slavery, it is further complicated because enslaved women would have an array of identities. They are not just the "other". They are caretakers of white slave owner's children. They can at times be friends of the family. They are also legally property of the white man. To complicate these identities with a sexual relationship no doubt left enslaved women either psychologically scarred or emotionally cold. Because of the mixture of power imbalance, roles within the institution of slavery, and roles within the actual family, I do not think any enslaved women could have a genuine relationship with their white slave owners.