Day of Tears

“Us Butler plantation slaves used to be the envy of all the slaves in these parts because Master Butler—the first one and then this one—treated their slaves almost like they was family.”

Will discusses the nature of slavery on the Butler plantation. He argues that Butler’s slaves used to be the most well-treated out of all the slaves around. However, in saying that they “used to be the envy,” he now implies that their positionality within the greater slave community represents one of pity, not envy. Will speaks to how the Butlers treat their slaves “almost like they was family,” linguistically drawing a line between the Butlers and the slaves. This suggests that the slaves can never be part of the Butler family, as is the nature of slavery itself. Will also suggests the importance of names in the time of slavery. White families can establish their familial lines through common last names and become identifiable as a group of related individuals. In contrast, the slaves are without surnames, effectively alienating them from one another. This alienation demonstrates the vulnerability of their familial relationships, in which they have no agency to decide to remain with their families and no links tying them to one another. Here, the readers glimpse the alienation inherent within slavery that allows for the tragic breaking of these fragile familial ties, foreshadowing how Pierce will eventually break apart Emma’s family.

“Master say he wasn’t going to separate husbands from wives and parents from their children. He must’ve forgot, ‘cause he sold my sister and her husband to a master from Tennessee, and their daughter was bought by a lady from Mississippi. The one what bought my sister didn’t even let her come and say good-bye to me […] I ain’t never going to see her again.”

Will describes the slave auction to Emma, affording readers the first inkling that Pierce will not keep his words and foreshadowing the pain that is to come when he sells Emma to Mistress Henfield. Although Will gives Pierce the benefit of the doubt when Pierce “forgets” his promise to keep families together, it is hard to believe that Will’s words are without sarcasm or criticism. Will understands the reality of his situation and his positionality as a slave, in which familial ties seem to bear no meaning for the slave owners. The author affords readers a unique look into the lives of even “well-treated” slaves to demonstrate the inherent trauma within this American institution.

“Ain’t no such thing! If he was good, he wouldn’t be a master.”

Mattie argues with another slave who believes that Pierce is a good “master.” The simplicity of Mattie’s argument demonstrates the heartbreaking reality of slavery: There are no good enslavers, only ones that are less terrible than others. Without explicitly stating that Pierce is evil, Mattie implies that his actions—and slavery in general—go against the rule of God and are therefore immoral. Mattie expresses that slavery is inherently evil, and so anyone who practices slavery is evil as well.

“In one of her books it said a picture was worth a thousand words […] when I think back to slavery and all what happened that day when God cried, couldn’t no picture make you feel what it was like […] that picture couldn’t make you feel how thick and heavy the air was and how hard it was to breather […] you’d see me and Mama in that picture and we would look like we wasn’t feeling a thing. That picture would be a lie.”

In the first Interlude, Emma, as an old woman, reflects on the importance of words in understanding the trauma of slavery. Lester uses the character of Emma to convey his reason for deciding to create an entire novel out of dialogue. He wants to give voices to those whom history has rendered voiceless. Lester allows the characters to speak for themselves, giving them a measure of agency that slave owners did not afford their slaves. Lester demonstrates that a typical novel would not be able to accomplish the same ends as it would possibly focus more on setting the scenes and the narrative arc than on the words of the slaves themselves. Lester does not rely on to convey the powerful emotions and the heartbreaking tragedy experienced by slaves in America. Emma argues that pictures can lie but words—especially those of marginalized voices—don’t, using the truth of words to convey the horrors of slavery.

“I want to tell them how sorry I am to have to do this. But I don’t know if it would matter to them […] They probably aren’t feeling anything. That’s one of the ways n****** are different from white people. Their emotions are not as refined as ours […] If someone tried to take my Sarah or Frances away from me, I think I would kill them.”

Pierce asserts that the slaves are inherently different from white people, refusing even to refer to the slaves as people. Slavery renders human beings into little more than products, and any theory of agency or control that slaves might have over their lives does not exist in this context. Pierce uses racism—i.e., the assertation that Black people don’t experience emotions the way that white people do—to convince himself that what he is doing is not wrong.

“Us slaves’ survival depends on us knowing what the white folks are thinking. Sometimes we know what they’re thinking before they do but I didn’t know Master was planning on taking Emma today. Me and him is almost like sister and brother because my mama was his wet-nurse. I hope he ain’t forgot that.”

When Pierce tells Mattie that he is taking Emma to the slave auction, Mattie is surprised because she did not expect this behavior from Pierce. Mattie explains how her “survival” lies in anticipating Pierce’s thoughts and actions, a position which allows her to counteract them if necessary. However, Mattie is nervous that Pierce might sell her daughter. She realizes that the bonds of family cannot cross racism; although she and Will both think of Pierce like a brother, the text implies that Pierce does not think of them in the same way and that slavery usurps any claim of familial ties.

“This selling business has been hard on me. Some of the slaves look at me like they think I’m Satan himself. It’s not like I want to sell ‘em. If they think I’m enjoying this, they don’t know a thing about me. I wouldn’t be doing this if I had a choice in the matter.”

Pierce attempts to rationalize his decision to sell slaves and break apart families, asserting that he has no choice when he speaks to the slave-seller. However, Pierce could go to jail to settle his debts. Because he does not think of his slaves as people, it’s more logical to him to not burden himself with jail. He believes that he is the victim in this occurrence and argues that he is misunderstood. He relates his misfortune to another white male—the only person he believes might be sympathetic to his plight.

“Though English, he shared my sentiments about slavery and slaves, and after the War we returned to the Butler plantation. It had always been my dream to restore it to the glory it had enjoyed during my great-grandfather’s time. Alas, that was not to be. If the slaves were difficult to manage when they were slaves, they were impossible after the war that set them free.”

As an adult, Frances Butler reflects about the nature of her marriage. Frances married an Englishman who shares Frances’s view of slavery. In speaking about her familial legacy, Frances demonstrates the fallacy of Southern “glory.” The author’s characterizations of slave voices forbid any notion that slavery was a glorious time. The harsh reality of what slavery truly was contrasts with Frances’s memories of the plantation. Frances has inherited her paternal family’s view of slavery and recalls the period of slavery as one that was prosperous for the Butlers. Because this time has passed, Frances laments her and her husband’s inability to reconstruct the plantation—a failure that she projects onto the nature of Black people.

“I want to take her in my arms and hug her to me, but if I do, my tears will be as great as the rain. My tears would be like that rain God sent when he destroyed the world back in Noah’s time […] the rain comes down like it wants to kill us all.”

As Mattie watches Emma before Emma leaves for the auction, Mattie realizes Peirce’s intent to sell Emma during the auction. Mattie and Emma possess premonitory abilities to discern their futures, perhaps because of their astute knowledge and observation of white people’s thoughts and actions, as previously mentioned by Mattie. However, this knowledge also prevents a display of emotion between mother and daughter. Both know that they will never see each other again and so decide they must not be too emotional. Outward displays of emotion are luxuries that society only permits of white people. Mattie represses her sadness and anger, suggesting that if she were to express her feelings, she might become a kind of God and destroy the world. Mattie equates her tears with the rain to position herself in a divine capacity, using the reference to Noah’s Ark to demonstrate how dangerous her emotions could truly be.

“Slavery has been the best thing that’s happened to n****** because it has helped civilize them, as much as that is possible given their limited intelligence. Slavery also built America. Rather than ending slavery, we need to expand slavery […] With slavery America will become prosperous and strong. Without it, well, I shudder to think what will become of our nation.”

Shortly before Pierce’s death, he argues that instead of abolishing slavery, America must expand it. However, within Pierce’s racism lies an inherently true statement: “Slavery also built America.” Lester uses the racist rhetoric of characters such as Pierce to indicate absolute truths about the modern condition of America, an alleged democracy built on the oppression of a large swathe of its population. The novel critiques slavery as an historical American trauma that has reverberated throughout generations.

“Along the sides are stalls where the horses are kept, ‘cept there’re no horses in the stalls today. Slaves are packed in them tight like cotton in bales.”

Emma describes the auction barn in which the white men tightly pack the slaves in stalls meant for horses. The men treat the slaves comparable to their horses, although there is some indication that slaves are given less space than the horses would be. This excerpt demonstrates how the white slave owners view the Black people as a commodity akin to livestock. The slaves, especially Emma, are aware of the white’s perception.

“I didn’t like the way that man was looking at me.”

When one of the slaves, Bob, tries to convince a man who he deems as nice-looking to take both him and his wife, Mary. However, Mary is skeptical. The author implies the danger inherent not only within being a slave, but also being a female slave specifically. Although the author does not explicitly state that Mary fears the new slave owner will rape her, her fear at his leering eyes does not leave much to the imagination. The author has already indicated that slaves have no agency under the reign of their enslavers, although he now demonstrates an alternate danger that women are placed in as slaves. Without any agency over their bodies, female slaves were subject to sexual abuse and rape by their enslavers, a vulnerability in terms of position that even their male slave counterparts did not experience. This uniquely vulnerable position is demonstrated when Bob dismisses Mary’s comments.

“This is a fine family, young, obviously good procreators, who will undoubtedly enrich your holdings with more healthy and fit slave children […] when you buy a family like this, young and able and fruitful, you’re also buying yourself a new generation of slaves.”

Many people attempt to mitigate the truth of American slavery by comparing it to slavery practiced across cultures for thousands of years. However, the author demonstrates the reality of American slavery, differentiating it from other practices of slavery. In American slavery, white people disregarded slaves as human beings and considered the slaves’ children as commodities as well. In this way, slave owners denied bodily autonomy not only to the slaves themselves but also to subsequent generations.

“It’s not going to be hard to remember anybody’s face because everybody is wearing the same one. Their mouths are set in a straight line. Their eyes look straight ahead and over the crowd. It’s not like there’s something they’re looking at, but more like they’ve closed their eyes while keeping them open.”

Emma discusses how the reality of being a slave is reproduced in their facial expressions, or lack thereof. The slaves do not permit themselves to display emotion during the auction, rendering their facial expressions as those of the dead. Emma believes that nothing they see registers in their vision, as they have become shadows of themselves, unable to express any kind of emotion. Slavery requires a separate outer self from an inner self, essentially bifurcating the person subjected to this trauma.

“I didn’t know what to do or where to go so I’ve been walking the roads like so many other who were given their freedom but don’t know how to practice it. I gained the freedom to go look for Dorcas. I was better off when I was a slave and could hold Dorcas in my mind. Now I have nothing. I hope the Lord will forgive me for what I’m about to do and will have mercy on my soul. All I want is the peace in death which escaped me in life.”

After finding Dorcas married with a husband, Jeffrey contemplates suicide. He feels hopeless, still suffering from the powerlessness and lack of agency of slavery. Even though Jeffrey is free, the consequences of slavery still affect him, as Dorcas moved on with her life. Jeffrey believes that he was better off as a slave, when he could still hope for a future with his love. Now, after being free, he must come face-to-face with everything that he has lost, and the grief of this trauma becomes too much to bear. The author is careful to unwrap the abolitionist myth, demonstrating that the ramifications for the institutionalization of slavery continue even when one achieves “freedom.”

“But we aren’t brothers, Will! Now, take Sarah out to the Coach or Mattie won’t see you this evening, either.”

After Pierce sells Emma, Will questions how he could do something like that to a person who thought of him like a brother. Pierce’s response is quite indicative of the fallacy Mattie alluded to of the “good” enslaver. Pierce maintains that the two of them are not brothers; in fact, by the laws concerning slavery, they cannot be brothers. Here, Peirce substantiates the breakage in familial ties, indicating that slaves themselves have no families, at least as far as their owners are concerned. Pierce then takes the alienation felt by slaves a step further to threaten Will. The author uses Pierce’s spite to demonstrate the precarious nature of the Black body, which was always under threat of alienation. At the whim of the slave owner, the Black body could be dislocated, forever severing any familial ties the person had. In this way, not only the Black body but also the social institutions that make up a person’s environment—the family—could be altered simply by the decision of a white man. Will must confront the reality of his environment, which is exactly as his wife predicted: there are no good enslavers.

“Master is standing there with a silly grin on his face, holding that dollar out, but Joe walks on past him like he ain’t even there. Now it’s my turn. I stop and look at Master, look him straight in the eye. He starts blinking his eyes real fast […] I keep staring at him until he starts to get real red in the face. Then I walk on […] the sun is shining brightly through a large hole in the clouds. I can feel its warmth on my arms and face.”

The author demonstrates Joe’s passive resistance to the attempted conciliation of Pierce. Pierce does not truly regard his slaves as humans with connections to other people because he believes that they can be bought off with a single silver dollar. Pierce’s decision to give the slaves a silver dollar signifies his belief in the commodification of the Black body. The irony is that Pierce is bad with his money, which is why he sold his slaves in the first place, and this is not lost on Emma or Joe. As a result, Emma follows Joe’s resistance, cursing Pierce with a look and stepping out into the light in an almost Biblical ascension into divinity. This action represents Emma’s first step towards freedom, as it is the first time she refuses the one who requires she call him “master.”

“Will was sitting atop the coach and the tears were just flowing down his face. That’s the first time I’ve ever seen that man cry. He didn’t even cry when his parents died. ‘At least they not in slavery no more,’ was all he said about that.”

Mattie reflects on hearing the news about Emma being sold, which is the first time she remembers her husband, Will, ever crying. Emma’s sale is related to the death of Will’s parents, as her dislocation represents an emotional and social death for her family. Emma never reunites with her family and is essentially dead. Mattie herself suggests this when she remembers Will saying that death is preferable to slavery. Here, the audience sees the integral nature of freedom to the human spirit. Slavery is cast as something worse than death, primarily because in death there is an elimination of suffering. In slavery, however, the suffering continues interminably as the fragility of one’s social positionality eliminates any agency over the person’s body. Many theorists have referred to slavery as a death in and of itself.

“I always save him something to eat and we sit around the table and talk about things, just like Mama and Papa did […] I like having someone I can talk to, somebody who listens to me and understands what I’m saying.”

Emma reflects on how she and Joe sit around the kitchen and talk, just like her mother and father did. It seems that despite white people’s best efforts, slaves still form relationships. Emma and Joe still seek to build something for themselves, just like Mattie and Will did. In this, the slaves find strength and eventually the resolve to escape. Emma’s comments also bring to light the importance of having a voice as well as the importance of being heard. Emma makes it clear that having a voice means nothing if no one listens, indicating that an audience is a crucial aspect to the enfranchisement of oppressed and marginalized individuals. The author uses Emma to speak to the audience, implicitly thanking them for their participation in mitigating oppression.

“Slavery is so bad on some of the plantations down there that the n****** don’t pray for freedom; they pray for death. If they was free they’d still have to live with the memories of all the things they’d seen, all the things that had been done to them. Death was the only thing that would give them peace.”

Sampson reflects on his past as a slave in Alabama, suggesting that death was preferable to slavery in conditions in which owners terribly mistreated slaves. Many of the novel’s slaves would argue that death was preferable to slavery, so what Sampson suggests is actually applicable to all slaves, even those like Emma and Joe, who never received beatings. Sampson’s argument reflects upon the traumas of slavery, as the memory still haunts the slave. As Jeffrey suggests, death becomes the only way to escape the hold slavery still has upon the freed slave, as the slave will always remember the pain and trauma. This trauma has subsequently conditioned Sampson to accept and embrace his position as Mistress Henfield’s slave.

“In all the excitement I had clean forgotten about Ruth. What if she had woken up and I wasn’t there […] I didn’t see Emma among them, but of course not. Emma’s first thought would have been of Ruth and she would have gone to her […] The next morning I understood everything, of course, when I was awakened by Ruth’s crying and calling for Emma.”

When Mrs. Henfield first learns about the fire, her first thought is not of her daughter but of her horses and livestock. She assumes that Emma will immediately run to care for Ruth, even though Ruth is not her own child. Henfield expects Emma to exhibit behavior that is more instinctively maternal than herself, as though slavery has eliminated the bond between mother and child. And yet, Mrs. Henfield still inexplicably believes Emma to be inferior to herself, even though she acknowledges that Emma’s maternal instincts are higher than her own. Henfield has internalized not only the racism of slavery but also the patriarchy associated within American society, which lends greater value to the capitalism of male gender roles than to the empathy typically associated with the female role as nurturer. Henfield’s position as a slave owner precludes her ability to develop meaningful relationships with other people, including her own daughter.

“I don’t want to think about what will happen to us if we don’t get free. Mistress will have us whupped until we’re as close to death as a person can be and not be dead. Then she’ll sell us to Jake Pendle. I’ll kill myself before I let that man be my master.” 

Emma considers the possibility that they may not be free, at which point she knows that Henfield will sell them to Pendle out of spite. Emma resolves to die before this occurs, indicating that she knows the potential for increased trauma that Sampson believes she is ignorant of. Instead of ignorance, Emma actually has a good idea of the relative peace she has encountered at the Henfield plantation; however, unlike Sampson, she decides that her freedom—and, by extent, the freedom of her future children—is too important not to risk everything in order to escape. Emma does not fear death in the same way that Sampson does; rather, she sees her own proximity to death as a slave. Unlike Sampson, who believes he can rely upon his own wiles to manipulate white people, Emma constructs the white mind as something which is unknowable, unpredictable, and inherently dangerous. She knows her body is not safe if it remains the possession of someone else, and so she decides to risk it in a gamble that she might one day be free from the burden of possession.

“But when Mrs. Henfield and Pendle told me that my ‘passengers’ had set the barn on fire and Sampson had almost been killed trying to save the horses and mules, my heart sank. I didn’t want to believe them […] Sampson was the kind of slave I didn’t have much respect for, though I couldn’t fault him […] Even though I’d had nothing to do with Sampson almost being killed, I couldn’t escape some responsibility since I was the one who dangled freedom in front of Joe’s eyes.”

As demonstrated through the character of Mr. Henry, even the abolitionist is not untouched by the systemic infection of American racism. Henry assumes that what Pendle is saying is true, even though Mr. Henry does not like him and knows him to be a brutal man. However, Pendle is white, so Henry accepts his claims about Joe as the truth. As a Black man, Joe is guilty before he is proven innocent, an idea that indicates the inherent racism entrenched within the abolitionist movement itself. Mr. Henry finds no fault with Sampson and yet does not extend Joe the same level of empathy, even though Mr. Henry knows Joe better than he knows Sampson. The author demonstrates how integral racism is to the very fabric of America, as it permeates the beliefs of even the most sympathetic abolitionists within the novel.