Historian Says '12 Years' Is A Story The Nation Must Remember

October 24, 2013

Guests: Steve McQueen & Chiwetel Ejiofor - David Blight

TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. The new movie "12 Years A Slave" was described by David Denby in the New Yorker as easily the greatest feature film ever made about American slavery. My guests are the star of the film, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and its director, Steve McQueen. The movie is adapted from the 1853 memoir by Solomon Northup.

CHIWETEL EJIOFOR: Northup had been a free black man in Upstate New York, a husband and father. He was literate; he was a working man who also made money as a fiddler. But in 1841, after being lured to Washington, D.C., with the promise of several days' work fiddling with the circus, he was kidnapped into slavery. Over the next 12 years, before finally winning his freedom, he became the property of a series of different plantation owners, one who was especially cruel and brutal.

GROSS: Chiwetel Ejiofor's other films include "Dirty, Pretty Things," "Kinky Boots" and "Children of Men." He's now starring in "Dancing on the Edge," the new Starz Network series about a black bandleader in London in the 1930s. Director Steve McQueen's other films are "Shame," about a sex addict; and "Hunger," based on the story of Bobby Sands, who died leading a hunger strike of imprisoned IRA members protesting their treatment.

Let's start with a clip from "12 Years a Slave," just after Solomon Northup has been kidnapped and sold to slave traders and is on a ship heading toward Louisiana. He's talking to other slaves on the ship.

(SOUNDBITE OF MOVIE, "12 YEARS A SLAVE")

EJIOFOR: (As Solomon Northup) Days ago I was with my family in my home. Now you tell me all is lost, tell no one who I am, that's the way to survive. Well, I don't want to survive. I want to live.

GROSS: Steve McQueen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, welcome to FRESH AIR. Steve McQueen, let me start with you. Why did you want to make a film adaptation of a memoir by a free man from the North who was kidnapped into slavery? Why did you choose that book?

STEVE MCQUEEN: Well, what happened originally is I had an idea of having a free man from the north, because I was thinking about ideas and how I can have an in into the narrative, a free man from the North who gets kidnapped and pulled into the maze of slavery. And I liked the idea that the audience follows this person in every step that he takes within the context of slavery, just to illuminate what that world was.

And I was having a bit of difficulty. I was working with John Ridley on the script, and we were having a little bit of difficulty. And my wife said to me, well, why don't you look into firsthand accounts of slavery. I though oh yeah, of course. And she did some research, and I did some research, but she found this book called "12 Years a Slave." And I read this book, and I was totally stunned.

It was like something sort of - a bolt coming out of the sky. And at the same time I was pretty upset with myself that I didn't know this book. How come I did not know this book? And slowly but surely I realized that most people, in fact all the people I knew, did not know this book.

And, you know, I live in Amsterdam, where Anne Frank is a national hero. She's not just a national hero, she's a world hero. And for me this book read like Anne Frank's diary but written 97 years before, a firsthand account of slavery. And I basically made it my passion to make this book into a film.

GROSS: Steve McQueen, I know one of your parents is from Grenada and one from Trinidad. So they're both from islands in the Caribbean. Were their ancestors slaves, do you know?

MCQUEEN: Yes, of course, yes they were slaves. My trajectory, as such, of being introduced to slavery was fairly immediate because my parents were from the West Indies. And, you know, at school there was reference to slavery but not much. So it's one of those things which I found out through my parents and obviously traveling back to the West Indies.

And, you know, I have a family tree going back to the first African on my mother's side who came from Ghana. So it's one of those things which I definitely had the connection with. And, I mean, the only difference I would say between myself and African-American is their boat went right, and my boat went left.

GROSS: Chiwetel Ejiofor, your parents are from Nigeria. I know your father is no longer alive, but did they tell you anything about what they learned about the slave trade from an African perspective?

EJIOFOR: Well, my father was a great believer in the ideas of African kind of diaspora, of a sense of unity amongst African people and people of African heritage. And that's what I - that was the attitude, I suppose, that I grew up with, that we are all united in this - almost by this thing, even though we were then spread across the world because of it, you know.

So, you know, that was their attitude. They were also aware of the, you know, the number of people from Nigeria who were taken out of Nigeria and the bite of Benin and taken over to America and to the West Indies. You know, this all was kind of very - came to me very specifically when I was in Calabar, when I was in Nigeria, when I was at the slave museum in Calabar, finishing a film there.

And on my last day, because I was heading over down towards Louisiana to start shooting on this, I went to the slave museum, and there were just lists, these roll calls of people, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people taken out of that area.

And so, you know, being of Nigerian heritage, going over to Louisiana, you just start to feel connected to the whole sense of it, to the international nature of it, to the complete sort of absence of humanity that surrounded it.

GROSS: I think of "12 Years a Slave" as a very experiential film, and it's much more about Solomon Northup's experience as a slave than it is about, like, the larger historical context of slavery. And Chiwetel Ejiofor, what that meant for you is that you're going to be doing a lot of suffering on camera.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: I mean, you know, like it's - your body is put through so much. And, you know, just like one example is early in the film, when you're - after you're kidnapped, you are beaten with a plank of wood and beaten so hard that the wood breaks. There's whippings, and you're hanging. And were you uncomfortable about the idea of taking on a role in which you knew you'd have to endure so much suffering because I'm sure even though, obviously, you weren't really physically injured in the way that your character is, you emotionally had to experience that to the extent that you're capable of as an actor?

EJIOFOR: The - you know, those aspects of the film are, you know, I suppose in a way - I mean, they're very necessary for - to kind of understand Solomon's psychological journey, you know, to understand who he is, what he's endured and actually in a wider sense what people endured, what people endured in that time.

And I think it gave audiences and gives audiences a chance to really understand the inner workings of what's happening. And so, you know, those sequences ended up having a sense of privilege about them, actually. And, you know, it sort of - I think if you were playing somebody - if you're playing a real person, you're always seeking to, in a way, legitimize your relationship with that person, you know, to have the right to tell their story.

And I felt that sometimes when we were doing things that Solomon describes in the book that he went through, and we were recreating these moments as accurately as we could, and that would mean me being uncomfortable, what it meant was it was - it sort of legitimized our relationship, and it made it easier for me to walk with him and to tell his story.

GROSS: There's a scene I want to ask you about that's a real kind of emotional turning point for Solomon Northup in the film. He is forced to whip a young woman who he's very fond of, and he knows that if he doesn't whip her that the slave master will do it. So, like, he figures, you know, he'll whip her lightly, but he can't get away with that. The slave owner demands a harsher whipping.

And I think that would be a very telling point in the emotional life of Solomon Northup, and I was wondering if you could each talk about what that scene meant to you, that he was put in the position of knowing that things would be even worse if he didn't whip her himself.

MCQUEEN: Well, I think, you know, it's - this is what we're talking about. I mean, this is why people were kept in captivity for 400 years because of those kind of events. And this is a true event. So what happened at that scene is that, you know, Epps, the slave master you're talking about, says to him if he doesn't do it, he will kill everyone here. What choice does he have?

I mean, there are the kind of choices that have been made, unfortunately, throughout history, throughout the most horrendous moments in history, that people do in order to survive.

It's almost - you know, the thing is that it's not necessarily what Epps, the plantation owner, is going for. He's not necessarily doing this in order to hurt Solomon psychologically. He is going through his own crisis in the sense that he is in love with this girl, with Patsy, this slave girl, and he is in such kind of conflict and anger and self-hatred about that that in the moment, even though he wants to whip her, he can't, and he's unable to do it, which is why he sort of almost casually turns to Solomon and orders him to.

And then what that does, of course, to Solomon is it's the physical and the psychological, and that is I think what is always in balance and always in play in these places and these scenes and in the book and in the way that Solomon describes what is happening is that there's the physical aspect of it, but there's also the psychological.

And in a way I think that Solomon was able to - at that point had found ways of protecting himself from Master Epps, for protecting himself physically, for protecting himself emotionally, for protecting himself psychologically. But this was something else. This was something he did not envisage, that he would have to be forced to participate in injuring somebody that he cared so deeply about.

So it's - in a sense it just speaks to all the levels of captivity and the three-dimensional nature of what was going on.

GROSS: My guests are Chiwetel Ejiofor, the star of the new film "12 Years A Slave," and Steve McQueen, the film's director. We'll talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Steve McQueen, the director of the new film "12 Years A Slave," and Chiwetel Ejiofor, who is the star of the film. He plays Solomon Northup, a free man from the North who is kidnapped into slavery in the South and is forced to be a slave for 12 years until he manages to get out.

You might - Steve McQueen, you might really disagree with me on this, but having seen all three of your movies - "Hunger," about Bobby Sands, who's played by Michael Fassbender...

MCQUEEN: Michael Fassbender.

GROSS: I mean, Michael Fassbender is absolutely skeletal by the time the movie ends. And then Michael Fassbender stars again in "Shame," in which he's - I guess you'd call him a sex addict, but it's hard to say if he gets any pleasure out of sex. I mean, it's a compulsion that he has to follow.

MCQUEEN: Well, after a while, most addicts don't get pleasure out of what they do. It becomes a necessity.

GROSS: Exactly, exactly, and now "12 Years A Slave," in which there's, you know, again very physical suffering. And so I can't help but think there's something that interests you about psychic and physical suffering and that your movies are all about the body in some way, you know, the hunger strike, the sexual compulsion, the physical endurance of somebody who is a slave, but their body and spirit manages to survive.

MCQUEEN: No, listen, I'm interested in the hunger strike, it was the biggest thing politically to happen in Britain in the past 27 years, 10 men dying of hunger in a British prison cell. It was deafening, but no one was speaking about it. That's why I made the picture.

As far as "Shame" was concerned, you know, this phenomenon, sex addiction, and I wanted to investigate that because it's something that everyone has a relationship with sex, and it was - again it was just this elephant in the room, and that's why I wanted to make the picture about it because it was about this addiction, which has been sort of, how can I say, has been thriving also due to the Internet.

And slavery, well, I mean, I don't know how obvious you could be. I mean, all you've got to do is walk down the street, and you see the evidence of slavery in everyday life. But there's a huge silence about it. It's a deafening silence about it. You know, why are the prison population of black males so huge? Why is poverty in that community so huge? Why is mental health, why is education so poor, why? When you ask yourself that question, it all leads down to what happened in slavery because no one has - you know, once it was - you know, once it has stopped, you know, everyone was left to get on with their own devices but without a platform, without a leg up.

And there you have the evidence of slavery. So these are huge events, deafening events, which I feel needed a platform. And the only platform for me as an artist was cinema because for me it's the greatest art form there is. The question is, you know, why hasn't there been a film like this on slavery.

GROSS: One of the things that you do in some of your movies and certainly in "12 Years a Slave" is have scenes last a little longer than we'd expect because things are edited so quickly now. I mean, like, there's a lot of movies that are - scenes last for such a short period of time, and the same goes for a lot of TV shows, particularly comedy series now.

And there are a few scenes, without mentioning them by name, in which something terrible is being endured, and just as we think, like, oh, this scene's going to end, it doesn't, and you keep our eye on that scene longer than we expected and longer than is comfortable, which I think is very intentional on your part because you want it to be more uncomfortable than oh, it's another movie scene.

MCQUEEN: But also to be present, I think it's not - yes, those are the sort of fundamentals of it, but what it's to do, it's to do with being present as a viewer, to being there, to shoot things in real time rather than movie time. So for example the sequence where Patsy's getting whipped that we spoke about before, to be present within that and to be sort of - that shot of it is 10 minutes - to be present in that is to sort of lose the frame and to be - to hold the tension and to not - you know, to be there in a kind of reality.

That's what I want. That was the chosen effect, what I wanted. And it works -for me it works, in a way, because it doesn't allow the viewer off the hook.

GROSS: In shooting the movie, Steve McQueen, you have an incredible eye in making films, and I'm wondering if you referred to daguerreotype photographs or old paintings or any other historical artifacts to...

MCQUEEN: No, it was the state of Louisiana, it was New Orleans. It was those plantations. It was that that sort of - myself and Sean Bobbit and a cameraman I've been working with for 13 years, it was just the environment, the landscape that sort of was so rich and that it just leant to so many ideas an images.

You know, it was - we went in there naked and came out there fully clothed. It was just amazing how, you know, you just look at things, and you find things in that environment, it was so rich. And, of course, like I said, you know, before, the most beautiful, horrible things happen in the most beautiful places. It was just so rich. And the sound of the cicadas, they almost act like a choir at certain points. I mean, it was kind of amazing, amazing.

GROSS: Did you see, besides being on the, like, former plantations in Louisiana where you shot, did you see any other artifacts of slavery that survived?

MCQUEEN: Yes, we saw the actual slave shacks. There were a lot of slave shacks, which are still there, which I think in the - they were vacated. I mean, what happened was that after the slave shacks were built, they were there. So what happened was I think people actually lived in them for a while, and I think they were vacated during sort of the late '70s. I think the last people living living there, lived there in the late '70s.

But they were there, and you had these shotgun houses that are still there, too. It was pretty incredible. It's a shame that they're not being looked after very well, of course, they've been left to sort of the elements. But there you have it.

GROSS: So in getting back to the idea that you want us to experience what slavery was like, and I think that happens. And it's difficult to endure. It's a very painful film to watch because you are putting yourself, as a viewer, in the shoes of Solomon Northup. And what makes it, you know, especially easy I think for everybody to do that is he starts as a free man.

And you know, like, well, you're a free person, he was a free person, and imagine what it would be like to suddenly be a slave. I mean, it's just so easy to identify whether you are descendent from a slave or not. But there's so much suffering that you endure secondhand in watching the movie. And I guess I'm wondering where is the line for you between, like, how much you want to put your audience through and how much is just going to be like a little too much for a film.

Did you - is that the kind of thing you think about when setting out to make a film like this?

MCQUEEN: Well yeah, I think when - if you read the book, it's a lot, it's too much, and actually there are five acts of violence in the whole film, five in two hours and 11 minutes. But it's to do with the context. And that's the issue because I think people don't want to think of the past, don't - they would rather be blind than sort of look at what the evidence of things which are around them. People don't want that responsibility. They would rather look at a horror movie or a thriller, and people get shot in the head every 15 minutes.

But, you know, I feel that, you know, it's like looking at "Schindler's List" or looking at "The Pianist," looking at whatever Holocaust film there is. That's our responsibility as humans to sort of reflect on our recent past in order to find out where we are and where we're going, particularly with this particular subject because it seems that there's a huge sort of - I won't say ambivalence. I would just say a huge sort of not wanting to look at oneself. But it's important.

GROSS: Well, I want to thank you both so much for talking with us.

MCQUEEN: Thank you so much.

EJIOFOR: Pleasure, thank you.

GROSS: Chiwetel Ejiofor stars in the new film "12 Years a Slave." Steve McQueen directed the film. We'll talk with a historian about slavery in the second half of the show. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.

TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. After seeing the new movie "12 Years a Slave," based on the memoir by Solomon Northup, a free black man in upstate New York who was kidnapped into slavery in 1841 and won his freedom 12 years later, I wanted to learn more about where this memoir fit in the genre of slave narratives. And I wanted to hear more about that period of slavery.

Here to talk about that and more is David Blight, the director of the Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition at Yale University. His 2007 book, "A Slave No More," includes the recently discovered narratives of two former slaves. Blight is currently writing a biography of Frederick Douglass, who after escaping slavery wrote perhaps the most famous and important of all slave memoirs and became an influential abolitionist.

David Blight, welcome back to FRESH AIR. Let's start with what you think the importance is of Solomon Northup's memoir.

DAVID BLIGHT: Well, Solomon Northup's memoir tells this quite unusual story of the kidnapping of a free northern African-American and his enslavement in the Deep South - indeed, Louisiana - on two, three different kinds of plantations. And in his narrative, another thing that makes it so distinctive is he's not only exhibiting an extraordinary memory of names, details, and places, but it's also a narrative that gives us a window into the kinds of labor, the kinds of economies that existed on these huge brutal cotton and sugar plantations.

So we don't have that many narratives - in fact, there are very few - that actually tell the story of what it was actually like on a huge cotton operation or a huge sugar operation in the Deep South.

GROSS: What's an example of something that you learned from the memoir that you didn't know about slaves' lives on plantations?

BLIGHT: Well, the daily grind of a cotton operation. The daily brutal physical labor of going into a cotton field, whether that's the sowing of the cotton, the caring of the cotton and especially the picking of the cotton. Picking cotton is almost a metaphor for most Americans. But in this book you actually learn a great deal about how brutal that kind of labor was. You also learn the same thing about sugar production in the swamps.

Solomon Northup spent most of his time of those 12 years on two plantations in the Red River Valley, the Red River district, of Louisiana, and it is a particularly profound and unusual window into that district of the Old South, of Louisiana, and of slave labor. The Northup narrative is particularly important as well because it has remarkable scenes that take place in the New Orleans slave market, which was the largest slave market in North America.

The infamous New Orleans slave market, and indeed the head slave trader in that market in the movie is played by Paul Giamatti and he plays that role rather frighteningly well. One gets a sense from those scenes of just how much slaves were utterly commodities, physical commodities, in the slave trade.

And that's of course what happens to Solomon Northup in this tale.

GROSS: There's a scene in the movie adaptation "12 Years a Slave" right after the character has been kidnapped...

BLIGHT: Yes.

GROSS: ...when he's in some kind of, I don't know, holding cell or prison that's really in the shadow of the Capitol. He's in Washington.

BLIGHT: Right.

GROSS: And you can see the Capitol Building from his cell. And it's easy to forget that Washington, D.C. had slaves.

BLIGHT: Oh, indeed. Washington, D.C. had slaves. Washington, D.C. had a slave pen and a slave market about three to four blocks from the U.S. Capitol. In fact, the primary slave market in D.C. at that time was located roughly where Union Station is today, the great train station. Which is not a three block walk from the Capitol.

That was a very effective scene, I thought, in the film when they managed to depict the Capitol in the distance. Yeah, he was jailed there in Washington, D.C. for I forget how long - a period of at least a few days - and it's there where he was first brutally whipped and reminded that he was then a slave and no longer a free man.

GROSS: How common was the kidnapping of free African-Americans from the North?

BLIGHT: Well, not terribly common in terms of numbers, but it did happen. And one of the reasons that it happened is the domestic slave trade in the United States, the selling of slaves within the borders of the United States, just booms in huge numbers in the 18-teens, in the 1820's, in the 1830's and the 1840's.

So when Solomon Northup is seized - kidnapped - in 1841, and sold down through Washington, D.C. to a trader who then sells him again onto a ship and off they go to New Orleans to the great slave market, it's part of a huge business all over the American South with dozens and dozens and dozens of fulltime slave traders making tremendous livings in places like Washington, D.C. but especially in places like Richmond, Virginia; Norfolk, Virginia; Charleston, South Carolina; and other places along the northern rim of the South.

The domestic slave trade moved approximately one million African-Americans from the East Coast, the upper South, into the Deep South from about 1820 to the Civil War in 1860. And part of that reason is, I mean it becomes obvious, I suppose, that part of the reason is the great cotton boom of the lower Mississippi Valley, that this is the place from Georgia across to Alabama to Mississippi and to Louisiana and east Texas, that's where the cotton kingdom boomed between 1820 and 1860.

And through those four decades, roughly, there was an insatiable demand for slave labor. So most of the slaves transported in the domestic slave trade were already slaves. They were not kidnapped. But because the need was so great, this work of bounty hunters, this work of people trying to find black folk they could seize, especially males, increased over the course of the 1820's, '30's and '40's.

So it is not that unusual that somebody would find a Solomon Northup and try to get him into some scam and enslave him. Although the numbers of actual free blacks kidnapped - we don't have any precise numbers on them, but they would probably be in the hundreds, possibly in the small thousands.

GROSS: One of the problems Solomon Northup has after he's kidnapped into slavery is that he has no proof that he's a free man. And you know, there are papers that free African-Americans in the North are supposed to have to prove that they are really free.

BLIGHT: Mm-hmm.

GROSS: He had those papers. Those papers were destroyed when he was kidnapped into slavery.

BLIGHT: Right.

GROSS: And I'm not sure I knew that these papers existed. So tell us a little bit about what these papers...

BLIGHT: Mm-hmm.

GROSS: ...declaring your freedom were.

BLIGHT: Well, they're not unlike what we might today call a birth certificate. They were a paper issued either by a court or a city or a town that declared that you were born free, that your mother was free. And for free blacks in the North, especially in certain regions, these were terribly important documents because they could protect them from kidnapping or enslavement.

Solomon Northup did apparently have such papers, but of course they were taken or destroyed. So when he is sold in D.C. into a jail and is sold onto a ship and sent down to Louisiana and out onto those godforsaken plantations, he not only has no documentation but what good it would've done him there is another matter.

He's in extremely remote areas. And from his narrative - and the film plays this up - he was very, very careful never to say what his real identity was, apparently for fear that he might - if his masters believed him, they might sell him away again, sell him further away. Who knows? But then we've also got a tale here, of course, about literacy, because he was literate enough to be able to write these letters and to communicate or continue to attempt to communicate with the outside world and especially with people in New York who could give him legal assistance.

GROSS: My guest is David Blight, the director of the Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance and Abolition at Yale University. We'll talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is David Blight. He's the director of the Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance and Abolition at Yale and he edited two slave narratives. He's working on a biography of Frederick Douglass. We're talking about some of the historical context for the movie "12 Years a Slave," which is based on the memoir of the same name by Solomon Northup.

Solomon Northup is told after he's kidnapped not to let anybody know that he's literate, that he can read, that he can write.

BLIGHT: Yeah.

GROSS: Because that's just going to get him into trouble. Why would that get him into trouble?

BLIGHT: A literate slave was a dangerous slave. A literate slave could read newspapers. A literate slave was always more intelligent or deemed more intelligent by the master class and by overseers. It's the - at the heart it's one of the great threads of Frederick Douglass's autobiography as well, the place that literacy plays in the life of a slave as a source of some kind of power.

The ability to read about the outside world, the ability to communicate with the outside world, is a way to put cracks in the police state of slavery. And that's why - and the literate slave, you know, is potentially the organizer of the non-literate slaves. So yes, Solomon does protect the story of his literacy, and the film depicts that quite vividly, how he tries to make his own ink to be able to write and then gets discovered.

And that has terrible consequences for him.

GROSS: Solomon Northup's father was a slave who was freed when his owner died because the owner had directed that in his will. And Solomon Northup received an education.

BLIGHT: Mm-hmm.

GROSS: What do we know about the education he got and how typical was education for the children of slaves at that time in New York?

BLIGHT: I don't think we know a great deal about Solomon Northup's education. There are claims that he was, you know, fully literate and perhaps wrote his narrative. And then he proclaims that he had an amanuensis and it was an as-told-to. That he would get an education as a free black northerner in the state of New York, at least some modest education, is not that unusual.

But most free blacks in a northern state like New York or even in New England, to the extent they did get formal schooling and education, it either would've come through tutoring or it would've come in schools created by black communities themselves. Because there was almost nothing in the way of what modern times we would call integrated education. There was almost no access whatsoever for free blacks in the northern states to formal schools.

However, in northern black communities, especially in the cities and towns, they tended to create their own schools. These might be very modest. That might mean two years of education, three years, five years, six years. But black communities in the North, almost utterly segregated out of the mainstream life of northern communities, developed their own schools, their own churches especially, their own orphanages, and even their own associations, their own insurance companies, their own burial societies. They had to create a kind of even alternative economy to the extent they could.

GROSS: There were laws from state to state about whether it was legal or illegal or mandatory to educate slaves. And I think there were - correct me if I'm wrong here - I think there were places in the North where you were legally required to teach slaves to read so that they could read the Bible.

BLIGHT: Mm-hmm.

GROSS: And there were states in the South where it was illegal to teach slaves to read or write because that could prove to be dangerous because the more the slave knew, the more they'd comprehend what was going on and the more of a threat they would be to...

BLIGHT: Right.

GROSS: ...the whole institution of slavery.

BLIGHT: Yeah. But Terry, there's a bit of mythology about that. There were such laws in the Colonial period and up to the Revolution in some northern colonies and states about requiring young blacks to read so they could read the Bible. But most of that is all banished and gone by the turn of the 19th century. Blacks were even allowed to vote in most northern states until about 1800. The vote was taken away.

The vote actually existed for black males, just to give you an example of a right they actually had that was then rescinded, New Jersey took the vote away in 1807. Connecticut took the vote away in 1818. New York took the vote away 1821. The reason for that was that the freed black population was growing and expanding and so political rights were first restricted; later other kinds of liberties and rights were restricted.

And eventually some of the western states, what we call the Midwestern states - Indiana, Illinois, and so on, even Ohio - passed Negro exclusion laws. They tried to exclude even the right of blacks to settle within those states to an extent. Those were not very enforceable.

GROSS: You edited and published two slave narratives that were never published before, that were basically found by families.

BLIGHT: Mm-hmm.

GROSS: So these are just like - these were raw documents, incredibly valuable, that you found. And you were on the show a few years ago...

BLIGHT: Right.

GROSS: ...when your volume was published and in our interview we were talking about the story of Wallace Turnage, one of the two slaves whose memoirs you published. He was bought by a professional slave trader.

BLIGHT: Yes.

GROSS: And during the six months that Turnage was this man's property...

BLIGHT: Right.

GROSS: ...his assignment was to basically organize slave auctions.

BLIGHT: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

GROSS: And then after six months he was told, well, you're in the next auction.

BLIGHT: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

GROSS: Next time you're going to be sold.

BLIGHT: Mm-hmm.

GROSS: Now, although that's not a moment of actual physical brutality - you're not describing his whipping - that is such a disturbing story, just thinking psychologically of what it must've been like for this man to have to organize slave auctions for other men in his position and then have to basically organize his own sale. It's...

BLIGHT: Yeah.

GROSS: It's just mindboggling.

BLIGHT: Well, and, you know, Frederick Douglass is probably the one who said it best. In his narrative he describes how - over and over he says - the worst part of slavery was not physical. It was not the beating. It was not having a bloody back. It was psychological. It was mental. It was what it did to your mind. It was the constant struggle to fight back with your mind, to find some way that you could still fashion a future.

That you could still hope for a future. That you could still hope for some form of control over your body and your life and your mind.

GROSS: My guest is David Blight, the director of the Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition at Yale University. We'll talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is David Blight and he is the director of Yale's Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition. He's edited a couple of slave memoirs and he's in the process of writing a biography of Frederick Douglass. And we're talking about some of the things that helped set the context for the memoir "12 Years a Slave," which is the basis of the new film of the same name.

There are a lot of monuments in the South to Civil War generals. Do you ever think that there should be, like, a national holiday to just remember the people who were brought here to be slaves or who were born into slavery or sold into slavery?

BLIGHT: Yes.

GROSS: Because - yeah. Because the nice thing about holidays like that, even if it's not like a day or something...

BLIGHT: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

GROSS: ...the media, you know, schools, use that as, like, an opportunity for discussion and reflection.

BLIGHT: Yeah.

GROSS: And it seems to me it wouldn't be a bad idea to set aside a day a year...

BLIGHT: Yeah.

GROSS: ..where people just, like, engage in, you know, remembrance and conversation...

BLIGHT: Yeah.

GROSS: ...about how that horrible institution has affected our country.

BLIGHT: Yeah.

GROSS: And to remember the people who suffered in it.

BLIGHT: Well, I love the question, Terry, and we can think about it through the lens of Martin Luther King Day, but here's the problem. Martin Luther King Day, for good reasons, was established but it commemorates not only, you know, the heroism and leadership of Dr. King but it is essentially a remembrance of the Civil Rights Movement.

And to whatever extent it's still a serious commemoration for most Americans, it commemorates the Civil Rights Movement, which almost all Americans have managed in one way or another, for better or worse, to make into a redemptive triumphal story. Even the right wing in the America, let's be honest, when they have to say they're for civil rights.

But this other story, the slave trade, slavery, hundreds and hundreds of thousands, millions of people enslaved for generations, most of whom we will never know the names of, that's not as easy a story to commemorate. But it can be. It can be commemorated through all kinds of cultural expression. It can be commemorated through poetry and music and all forms of art. And it always has been.

I remember once watching Toni Morrison do a reading from her great novel "Beloved." It was right after it came out, somewhere around 1989 or '90. And she had a huge audience and the college students all lined up at the microphone. And they constantly kept asking Ms. Morrison why did you write this book that's all about the memory of slavery? What are you really trying to do with this character Beloved? And on and on and on.

And finally she just sort of threw up her hands and she said, look. We don't have a monument to the slaves. I want the book to be a monument to the slaves. And she said that's enough questions.

(LAUGHTER)

BLIGHT: But her point was we don't really have such a monument. Now we're beginning to. We are beginning to. There are memorials now to black soldiers in the Civil War. There are ways in which slavery has been commemorated now quite effectively at some plantation houses, at some slave sites in the South. There are museums and state historical societies beginning to find ways to tell this story and commemorate it.

In 2015 the big, new, great Museum of African-American History and Culture will open on the Mall in Washington D.C. But I would be all for a kind of national remembrance day of this story if for no other reason than the simple fact that the United States, the Republic itself, was founded out of the system of slavery. It was founded and made in some ways by this system of human bondage and then by the racial system that followed it.

American slaves, just to put it in economic terms, American slaves by the 1850's, by the time Solomon Northup gets out of Louisiana with his liberty, American slaves are the single largest financial asset in the entire American economy. Slaves by 1860 were worth approximately $3.5 billion. That was the largest single asset in the entire U.S. economy. That was worth more than all railroads, more than all manufacturing, all other assets combined.

We need to keep telling this story because it, in part, made us who we were. In fact, you know, the Constitution is written and founded with this great silence about slavery at its base. The Declaration of Independence, that great document, our creeds that we're founded on, has always been there as that paradox we're trying to live up to. We wouldn't have had a Civil War without this. We wouldn't have had a Jim Crow system without this.

And we wouldn't even be having some of the dilemmas we have today over federalism and over race and over the presence of a black president without the background of this story. But it's a problem in our culture because, to be quite blunt about it, most Americans want their history to be essentially progressive and triumphal. They want it to be a pleasing story. And if you go back to this story, it's not always going to please you.

But it's a story you have to work through to find your way to something more redemptive.

GROSS: Yeah. We want America to be the hero and Americans to be the heroes.

BLIGHT: We love being the country that freed the slaves.

GROSS: Mm-hmm.

BLIGHT: We're not so fond of being the country that...

GROSS: That owned them. Right.

BLIGHT: That had the...

GROSS: Yeah.

BLIGHT: ...the biggest slave system on the planet.

GROSS: Mm-hmm.

BLIGHT: The other only place that compared to us was Brazil.

GROSS: So finally, I should ask you for your capsule review of the movie adaptation of "12 Years a Slave."

BLIGHT: Oh. Mm-hmm. I liked the film very much. And I'll tell you very quickly why. Slavery has only rarely ever been depicted effectively in Hollywood pictures. This film stays quite loyal to the narrative itself. It's accurate in that sense. And I guess I just have to say that, especially after the recent Tarantino film, "Django Unchained," this is a very, very good corrective, if that's a safe term to use about an art form.

But it's a very good corrective for a major motion picture in trying to depict the character of slavery as you watch him, you watch Solomon fall into these stages of despair and then try, try to survive. I found the story quite compelling and the making of the film quite effective. And as a historian I'm usually prepared to be relatively disappointed by historical films.

GROSS: David Blight, thank you so much to talking with us.

BLIGHT: Thank you, Terry. It's great to be on your show.

GROSS: David Blight directs the Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance and Abolition at Yale. He spoke to us from Cambridge University in England where this year he's the William Pitt Professor of American History and Institutions.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.