I'm a bit curious about this because of the twelve million or so Africans kidnapped and shipped to the Americas from about 1500 through the 19th century, about half ended up in Brazil. But by the mid-19th century, when Brazil began its slow process of abolition, the enslaved population was something like 1.5 million (in contrast something like 350,000 Africans were shipped to what is now the United States, but by 1860 the enslaved population was four million).
My understanding is that Brazilian slavery was particularly brutal and horrific, especially in sugar cane fields. But there also was quite a bit of manumission and a fairly sizeable population of freedpeople.
Do we have a sense how long on average a Brazilian enslaved person would be in that condition, and what was the likelihood that enslavement would end in a premature death, versus manumission? I'm also assuming this varied quite a bit in terms of who was manumitted or wasn't. Do we also have any sense of the numbers and fates of indigenous people who were enslaved?
Do we have a sense how long on average a Brazilian enslaved person would be in that condition, and what was the likelihood that enslavement would end in a premature death, versus manumission?
I had to really stew on the first part of your question. Here is a quote from Barbara Fields, a southern U.S. historian, with universal application to slave regimes:
“Freedom, is not a fixed condition, but a target in constant movement.”
Brazilian slaves existed in a system manipulated by both the slaves themselves and the patrões (masters). The substitution system allowed African slaves to travel back to Africa or acquire their own slaves to substitute their place, granting them manumission (a paper denoting one's 'freed' status) (slaves still had to show gratitude to their former owners and thus still remained attached). When doing archival work, I noticed large swaths of slaves in Brazil owning their own slaves (slave-masters in a sense, or 'quasi-slaves'). Slave-masters owned their own family members, preventing their loves ones from being sent away; trained slaves to fill their spots; and used their master status as a marker of wealth and a symbol of 'freedom'. It is entirely ironic that slaves became owners in a bid to distance themselves from their enslaved past.
As far as how long slaves lived in an 'enslaved' condition, even with manumission, slaves were always "in that condition." Once manumitted, slave property testaments (wills) detailed "gratitude" to former patrōes (masters).
To what extent ties were maintained with patrōes (masters)?
It is unknown, but a connection was certainly maintained based on the property testaments (wills) recorded by slaves and those manumitted. 'Freed' slaves always mentioned their former masters in their wills under the guise of "showing gratidão (gratitude)" (wills were recorded using a standard formula set by the state apparatus). Often, masters manumitted slaves during times of rebellion to maintain the slaves' loyalty. In the case of Salvador, Brazil, rebellions were extremely violent and masters went to extreme lengths to secure their slaves' loyalty (twisted paternalism?), even if it meant granting their property "manumission."
Manumission rarely meant that ex-slaves were free to operate above and outside of the slave regime. The slave regime took on a new meaning with 'freed' status. To be 'freed' meant that the formerly enslaved were the 'freed'people of their former masters (those manumitted could be re-enslaved) (see, Katia M. de Queirós Mattoso, To be a Slave in Brazil).
It's really difficult to determine the 'brutality' of Brazilian slavery. Documentation was inconsistent and the archive in Brazil is quite literally a mess:
"The archive is, in this case [of the slave Venus], a death sentence, a tomb, a display of the violated body, an inventory of property, a medical treatise on gonorrhea, a few lines about a whore’s life, an asterisk in the grand narrative of history. Given this, “it is impossible to ever grasp [the slaves’ lives] again in themselves, as they might have been ‘in a free state.’” (see, Hartman, "Venus in Two Acts.")
What can be said is that the slave system was just as complicated as freed society. Slaves operated in a social system that ranged from literate (taught by masters and quite rare) to backbreaking, abusive labor in the cane fields.
Brazilianists are no longer focusing on debates related to how "brutal" Brazilian slavery was or comparisons between the U.S. and Brazil. The new focus is "cracking the archive" in a bid to understand the complexity of the slave system from a micro-historic lens (understanding the day-to-day of individual slaves/'freed' people), especially in periods of rebellion (both domestic and abroad as slaves worked on ships between slave centers and shared information with one another).
But, once 'freed', manumission was merely a paper, as 'freedom' was a target in constant movement.
I am not able to answer the question about premature death, as the archive is unable to capture precise numbers (numbers were rarely kept, see Hartman's "Venus In Two Acts"). To be a slave in a cane field would contrast entirely with those working directly with masters in shipping/trade (see Katia M. de Queirós Mattoso, To be a Slave in Brazil, 1550-1888).
The bottom line: The Brazilian slave system was extremely complicated. There was no 'average' slave. As far as numbers, the only proof of brutal conditions exists in court records/inquests. Slave owners were rarely brought before a judge for treating the enslaved poorly. That is not to say that it never happened (see, Katia M. de Queirós Mattoso, To be a Slave in Brazil).
To be a slave in Brazil meant there was no "general fate."
Sources:
I am a journalist and MA/MSc graduate in International History. Feel free to shoot me a message.