The lives of slaves were quite different, simply because field slaves and house slaves lived in such very different worlds.

First, realize that the numbers are tremendously different between field slaves and house slaves. Douglass asserts that his first master, Colonel Lloyd, kept 10 to 15 "house-servants" (house slaves), but owned an additional thousand field slaves. Obviously, then, their lives are going to be tremendously different from each other. House slaves must do very specific labor for the master - possibly directly for him, on an everyday basis - whereas field slaves may go most of their lives without ever seeing their master. Indeed, this actually happens in Douglass's autobiography, and Colonel Lloyd, offended that his slave (not recognizing him) said that he thought his owner worked him hard, sold the slave further south to a harsher plantation. House slaves would know the master intimately as well as every single other member of his household, including his wife and children, as well as extended relatives and close friends.

On a very fundamental level, field slaves tended to be given worse food than house slaves, who could at times received better quality food. House slaves had more opportunity steal better food from the kitchen, if particularly careful. Certainly both field and house slaves ate lower quality food than their masters. One might argue that field slaves, who had more time to scavenge/hunt nearby and grow personal gardens by their quarters, might have had a more diverse diet. Douglass notes that field slaves often sought out food in Colonel Lloyd's fruit gardens, for which, when caught, they were whipped fiercely.

Many field slaves suffered in terms of a lack of clothing, especially children who could not yet labor. Frederick Douglass comments on this predicament: "Their yearly clothing consisted of two coarse linen shirts, one pair of linen trousers, like the shirts, one jacket, one pair of trousers for winter, made of coarse negro cloth, one pair of stockings, and one pair of shoes; the whole of which could not have cost more than seven dollars." In regards to clothing field slave children, the situation is darker: "The children unable to work in the field had neither shoes, stockings, jackets, nor trousers, given to them; their clothing consisted of two coarse linen shirts per year. When these failed them, they went naked until the next allowance-day. Children from seven to ten years old, of both sexes, almost naked, might be seen at all seasons of the year."

In contrast, slave owners would have felt it very inappropriate for their house slaves, including their children, go naked or in raggedy clothing. House slaves best represented how the slave owner treated his slaves - and a poorly clad slave was a bad reflection of him in terms of visitors coming to his house. Furthermore, slave owners would see their house slaves frequently, possibly throughout each and every day, and would want them not only well-dressed but neatly groomed and respectable-looking. Douglass experiences this when he is sent to Boston and has to scrub himself thoroughly because urban slaves (who are much more like house slaves) were expected to be well dressed and groomed. One 1857 British observer remarked while on vacation in Boston, "A large proportion of [house slaves] were well dressed and of decent bearing, and had all the appearance of enjoying a holiday." Some plantation owners and mistresses would give their hand-me-downs to their house slaves who tended to them personally. Contrast this with the naked 7-year-old field slave child, and you'll visualize the difference quickly.

Even working at the largest plantation where the owners' main house resided created a different life for certain field slaves. Douglass describes this in regards to his first slave owner: "Few privileges were esteemed higher, by the slaves of the out-farms, than that of being selected to do errands at the Great House Farm. It was associated in their minds with greatness. A representative could not be prouder of his election to a seat in the American Congress, than a slave on one of the out-farms would be of his election to do errands at the Great House Farm." He even remarks on how they would happily create songs as they walked to the Great House Farm after being selected. There were simply more privileges and even a further sense of pride being so close to the master.

Field slaves worked sunup to sundown, with perhaps a small break midday for lunch, which consisted usually of corn meal, hard, and pork with perhaps some gathered greens. They labored usually every day but Sunday. The major crops were cotton, tobacco, rice, and sugar-cane, and these all demanded a great amount of physical exertion. Combined with their high-fat, high-starch, low-vitamin diet, field slaves could physically and emotionally break down fairly easily if not careful.

House slaves did not exactly have it "better" - they just experienced a different life. They were under intense scrutiny. Whereas their field counterparts worked under the gaze of an overseer and drivers, house slaves worked directly with the master or his loved ones, meaning they were being carefully watched at all times. In Douglass's autobiography, he describes two house slaves who are Colonel Lloyd's carriage house caretakers - Old Barney and Young Barney, a father and son pair, with the position being obviously inherited. As Douglass states, "To attend to this establishment was their sole work. But it was by no means an easy employment; for in nothing was Colonel Lloyd more particular than in the management of his horses." Douglass does not believe that they have an easy life, and instead, he makes it quite clear to his audience that they are subject to much stranger and harsher whims than the field slaves. He puts the blame on their close proximity to their master: "They never knew when they were safe from punishment. They were frequently whipped when least deserving, and escaped whipping when most deserving it. Every thing depended upon the looks of the horses, and the state of Colonel Lloyd's own mind when his horses were brought to him for use."

Indeed, Douglass explains that Colonel Lloyd had three sons and three sons-in-law, and all "enjoyed the luxury of whipping the servants when they pleased, from old Barney down to William Wilkes, the coach-driver." Certainly the master and his male relatives could have struck any field slave they wanted to, but their closeness - both in proximity and in relationship to the house slaves - meant that their attention was fixed on these individuals. The life of a house slave was one under the watchful, irrational, and often cruel eye of the slave master.

House slaves did sometimes form close bonds with their master and/or his loved ones. They had more opportunity to do so than a field slave who toiled all day picking cotton and then enjoyed slave community life and well deserved sleep. House slaves would raise the master's children, help dress the master and his family, maintain and clean the house, cook the food for the family and guests, wait on the master and his family at the table, etc. They sometimes were given rooms in the main house and, if not, were often kept nearby. Masters and their male relatives often sought out female house slaves for sexual purposes. Mistresses and female relatives sometimes treated female house slaves as confidantes and companions, though they could turn on these women due to the indecent behavior of their male loved ones. In contrast, field hands had little personal interaction with the master and his family. Again, visualize a black female house slave helping dress the slave mistress every morning for decades, and then compare that to a black female field slave with a baby on her back picking cotton in the field under the midday sun.

The house slave lived in a surprisingly different world, and he could even be born and die without knowing anything else but a close relationship with the master and family. The same British observer in 1857 explained the distinctive life of the house slave. He remarks, "The house­servant is comparatively well off. He is frequently born and bred in the family he belongs to; and even when this is not the case, the constant association of the slave and his master, and master's family, naturally leads to such an attachment as ensures good treatment." He even states that some owners "overindulge" their house slaves (!). He even comments that "it is no uncommon thing to make pets of slaves, as we do of other inferior animals." Contrast the house slave as a "pet" to when Douglass admitted in shame that he and his fellow field slaves were put beside livestock (cows, pigs, horses) at auction.

This could go on endlessly, but I hope this helps explain some ways that the lives of house slaves and fields slaves were different. I think that PBS puts it best: "The lives of enslaved men and women were shaped by a confluence of material circumstances, geographic location, and the financial status and ideological stance of a given slaveholder. The experience of slavery was never a comfortable one. Nevertheless, the kind of labor assigned, the quantity and quality of food and clothing received, the type of shelter provided, and the form of punishments dealt could lessen or increase the level of discomfort slaves had to endure."

Sources:

• Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass.
• PBS, American Experience: Slavery and the Making of America.
• James Stirling, Letters From the Slave States.