Afreedman orfreedwoman is a person who has been released fromslavery, usually by legal means. Historically, slaves were freed bymanumission (granted freedom by their owners),emancipation (granted freedom as part of a larger group), or self-purchase. Afugitive slave is a person who escaped enslavement by fleeing.
Rome differed fromGreek city-states in allowing freed slaves to becomeplebeian citizens.[1] The act of freeing a slave was calledmanumissio, frommanus, "hand" (in the sense of holding or possessing something), andmissio, the act of releasing. Aftermanumission, a slave who had belonged to aRoman citizen enjoyed not only passive freedom from ownership, but active political freedom(libertas), including the right to vote.[2] A slave who had acquiredlibertas was known as alibertus ("freed person",feminineliberta) in relation to his former master, who was called his or her patron(patronus).
As a social class, freed slaves wereliberti, though later Latin texts used the termslibertus andlibertini interchangeably.[3]Libertini were not entitled to holdpublic office orstate priesthoods, nor could they achieve legitimatesenatorial rank. During the early Empire, however, freedmen held key positions in the government bureaucracy, so much so thatHadrian limited their participation by law.[4] Any future children of a freedman would be born free, with full rights of citizenship.
TheClaudianCivil Service set a precedent whereby freedmen could be used ascivil servants in the Romanbureaucracy. In addition, Claudius passed legislation concerning slaves, including a law stating that sick slaves abandoned by their owners became freedmen if they recovered. The emperor was criticized for using freedmen in the Imperial Courts.
Some freedmen enjoyed enormous success and became quite wealthy. The brothers who ownedHouse of the Vettii, one of the biggest and most magnificent houses inPompeii, are thought to have been freedmen. A freedman who became rich and influential might still be looked down on by the traditional aristocracy as a vulgarnouveau riche.Trimalchio, a character in theSatyricon ofPetronius, is a caricature of such a freedman.
The term "Eastern slave trade" refers to theArab slave trade that supplied theearly Muslim conquests throughout theArab-Muslim world from the 7th to the 20th centuries,[5][6][7] peaking in the 18th and 19th centuries. This term, which covers the Arab-Muslim slave trade, is symmetrical with the term "Western slave trade", which refers to thetriangular trade on theWestern coasts of Africa that supplied theEuropean colonization of the Americas, and which includes theAtlantic slave trade.[8]
The slaves of the Eastern slave trade came mainly fromSub-Saharan Africa,Northwestern Africa,Southern Europe,Slavic countries, theCaucasus, and theIndian subcontinent, and were imported by the Arab-Muslim slave traders into theMiddle East and North Africa, theHorn of Africa, and the islands of theIndian Ocean.[5] For centuries, Arab-Muslim slave traders took and transported an estimated 10 to 15 million nativeAfricans to slavery throughout theArab-Muslim world. They alsoenslaved Europeans (known asSaqaliba), as well asCaucasian andTurkic peoples, from coastal areas of theMediterranean Region, theBalkans,Central Asia, and theEurasian steppes.[7][9][10]
The offspring ofMamluks were regarded as Muslim freedmen, and hence excluded from the Arab-Muslim slave trade; they were known as theawlād al-nās ("sons of respectable people"), who either fulfilled scribal and administrative functions or served as commanders of the non-Mamlukḥalqa troops, serving the ruling Arab andOttoman dynasties in theMuslim world.[7]
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(December 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
In thehistory of the United States, the terms "freedmen" and "freedwomen" refer chiefly toformer African slaves emancipated during and after theAmerican Civil War by theEmancipation Proclamation and the13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. African slaves freed before the war (usually by individualmanumissions, often inwills) were generally referred to as "free Negroes" or "free Blacks". In addition, there was a population ofAfrican Americans born free, known asfree people of color.
TheEmancipation Proclamation of 1863 declared all enslaved peoples inthe Confederacy—states in rebellion and not under the control ofthe Union—to be permanently free. It did not end slavery in the fourborder states that had stayed in the Union. African slavery elsewhere was abolished bystate action or with the ratification of the13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in December 1865. TheCivil Rights Act of 1866, passed over the veto ofU.S. PresidentAndrew Johnson, gave the formerly enslaved peoples fullcitizenship in the United States, though this did not guarantee them voting rights. The14th Amendment made "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" citizens of the United States. The15th Amendment gave voting rights to all adult males; only adult males had the franchise amongWhite Americans. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are known as the "Civil War Amendments"[11] or the "Reconstruction Amendments".
To help freedmen transition from slavery to freedom, including a free labor market,U.S. PresidentAbraham Lincoln created theFreedmen's Bureau, which assigned agents throughout the former Confederate states. The Bureau also founded schools to educate freedmen, both adults and children; helped freedmen negotiate labor contracts; and tried to minimize violence against freedmen. The era ofReconstruction was an attempt to establish new governments in the former Confederacy and to bring freedmen into society as voting citizens. Northern church bodies, such as theAmerican Missionary Association and theFree Will Baptists, sent teachers to the South to assist in educating freedmen and their children, and eventually established several colleges for higher education.U.S. Army occupation soldiers were stationed throughout the South via military districts enacted by theReconstruction Acts; they protected freedmen in voting polls and public facilities from violence and intimidation by white Southerners, which were common throughout the region.
TheCherokee Nation,Choctaw Nation,Chickasaw Nation,Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, andCreek Nation were among thoseNative American tribes that held enslaved Africans before and during theAmerican Civil War.[12] They supported the Confederacy during the war, supplying some warriors in the West, as they were promised their own state if the Confederacy won. After the end of the war, the U.S. required these tribes to make new peace treaties, and to emancipate their African slaves. They were required to offer full citizenship in their tribes to those freedmen who wanted to stay with the tribes. Numerous families had intermarried by that time or had other personal ties. If freedmen left the tribes, they would become U.S. citizens.
In the late 20th century, the Cherokee Nation voted for restrictions on membership to only those descendants of people listed as "Cherokee by blood" on theDawes Rolls of the early 20th century, a decision that excluded mostCherokee Freedmen (by that time this term referred to descendants of the original group). In addition to arguing that the post-Civil War treaties gave them citizenship, the freedmen have argued that the Dawes Rolls were often inaccurate, recording as freedmen even those individuals who had partial Cherokee ancestry and were considered Cherokee by blood. TheChoctaw freedmen andCreek freedmen have similarly struggled with their respective tribes over the terms of citizenship in contemporary times. The tribes have wanted to limit those who can benefit from tribal citizenship, in an era in which gaming casinos are yielding considerable revenues for members. The majority of members of the tribes have voted to limit membership. Descendants of freedmen, however, maintain that their rights to citizenship granted under the post-Civil War treaties should be restored. In 2017, the Cherokee freedmen were granted citizenship again in the tribe.[13][14][15]
Manyconvicted people from the United Kingdom were sentenced to be transported to Australia between 1788 and 1868. Also, many came from the United Kingdom and Europe voluntarily, planning to settle in Australia, some as pastors and missionaries, others seeking to make a living by trade or farming. When convicts finished their sentence, they were freed and referred to as "freedmen" or "freed men". However, many of these who were freed wanted to claim the label "free men". But those who had come freely to Australia wanted to reserve the label "free men" exclusively for themselves, distinguishing themselves above those who had been "freed".[16]
Ibn Khaldun argued that in the midst of the decadence that became the hallmark of the laterAbbasid Caliphate, providence restored the "glory and the unity" of the Islamic faith by sending the Mamluks: "loyal helpers, who were brought from the House of War to the House of Islam under the rule of slavery, which hides in itself a divine blessing." His expression of the idea that slavery, considered to be a degrading social condition to be avoided at all costs, might contain "a divine blessing", was the most articulate expression ofMuslim thinking on slavery since theearly days of Islam. Ibn Khaldun's general observation about the paradoxical nature of slavery brings to mindHegel's reflections on the subject some five hundred years later. The great philosopher observed that, in many instances, it is the slave who ultimately gains the independent consciousness and power to become the actual master of his or her owner. The Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon is a good historical example of this paradox.
The Mamluk slave warriors, with an empire extending fromLibya to theEuphrates, fromCilicia to theArabian Sea and theSudan, remained for the next two hundred years the most formidable power of theEastern Mediterranean and theIndian Ocean – champions ofSunni orthodoxy, guardians ofIslam's holy places, their capital, Cairo, the seat of the Sunni caliph and a magnet for scholars, artists, and craftsmen uprooted by theMongol upheaval in the East or drawn to it from all parts of the Muslim world by its wealth and prestige. Under their rule, Egypt passed through a period of prosperity and brilliance unparalleled since the days of thePtolemies. [...] They ruled as amilitaryaristocracy, aloof and almost totally isolated from the native population, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and their ranks had to be replenished in each generation through fresh imports of slaves from abroad. Only those who had grown up outside Muslim territory and who entered as slaves in the service either of thesultan himself or of one of the Mamlukemirs were eligible for membership and careers within their closed military caste. The offspring of Mamluks were free-born Muslims and hence excluded from the system: they became theawlād al-nās, the "sons of respectable people", who either fulfilled scribal and administrative functions or served as commanders of the non-Mamlukḥalqa troops. Some two thousand slaves were imported annually:Qipchaq,Azeris,Uzbec Turks,Mongols,Avars,Circassians,Georgians,Armenians,Greeks,Bulgars,Albanians,Serbs,Hungarians.
The Arabic termmamlūk literally means 'owned' or 'slave', and was used for theWhiteTurkishslaves ofPagan origins, purchased fromCentral Asia and theEurasian steppes byMuslim rulers to serve as soldiers in their armies. Mamlūk units formed an integral part of Muslim armies from the third/ninth century, and Mamlūk involvement in government became an increasingly familiar occurrence in themedievalMiddle East. The road to absolute rule lay open before themin Egypt when the Mamlūk establishment gained military and political domination during the reign of theAyyūbid ruler of Egypt, al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb (r. 637–47/1240–9).
The Mamluks, who descended from non-Arabslaves who were naturalised to serve and fight for ruling Arab dynasties, are revered as some of the greatest warriors the world has ever known. Although the wordmamluk translates as "one who is owned", the Mamluk soldiers proved otherwise, gaining a powerful military standing invarious Muslim societies, particularlyin Egypt. They would also go on to hold political power for several centuries during a period known as theMamluk Sultanate of Egypt. [...] Before the Mamluks rose to power, there was along history of slave soldiers in the Middle East, with many recruited into Arab armies by theAbbasid rulers ofBaghdad in the ninth century. The tradition was continued by the dynasties that followed them, including theFatimids andAyyubids (it was the Fatimids who built the foundations of what is now IslamicCairo). For centuries, the rulers of the Arab world recruited men from the lands of theCaucasus andCentral Asia. It is hard to discern the precise ethnic background of the Mamluks, given that they came from a number of ethnically mixed regions, but most are thought to have beenTurkic (mainlyKipchak andCuman) orfrom the Caucasus (predominantlyCircassian, but alsoArmenian andGeorgian). The Mamlukswere recruited forcibly to reinforce the armies of Arab rulers. As outsiders, they had no local loyalties, and would thus fight for whoever owned them, not unlikemercenaries. Furthermore, the Turks and Circassians had a ferocious reputation as warriors. The slaves were either purchased or abducted as boys, around the age of 13, and brought to the cities, most notably to Cairo and itsCitadel. Herethey would be converted to Islam and would be put through a rigorous military training regime that focused particularly onhorsemanship. A code of behaviour not too dissimilar to that of theEuropean knights'Code of Chivalry was also inculcated and was known asFurusiyya. As in many military establishments to this day the authorities sought to instil an esprit de corps and a sense of duty among the young men. The Mamluks would have to live separately from the local populations in their garrisons, which included the Citadel andRhoda Island, also in Cairo.
