9 Responses to “Quote Of The Day”

1. 1 Observer Jul 29th, 2006 at 3:30 am

   I’ve read and re-read that quote, and I’m not sure I understand Medved’s point. Perhaps, his meaning is different than my understanding, but I think he is completely wrong in stating that “Americans inherited” slavery. While there were some who were opposed to the integration of slavery within established law of the proposed union that would later be the United States, it was the so-called Americans, or those who would be, who transplanted to North America, wrote into the Constitution, and ultimately ratified into federal law the institution of chattel slavery.

   These “Americans” didn’t inherit slavery; they haggled over its place within the proposed union at the Constitutional Convention. Those delegates who were opposed to slavery accepted it out of political and economic expediency, while others based their membership within the proposed union on the legality of slavery within the union. The incorporating of slavery into the Constitution was a packaged deal; it was an arrangement agreed upon by most of the delegates (pro-slave and anti-slave alike) in attempt to form a more perfect union. How can it be honestly claimed that slavery was inherited by Americans, when most of the delegates from 12 of the 13 former British colonies agreed to its legal allowance within the Union?

   Maybe I’m missing something, but Americans (Europeans) didn’t inherit slavery in the Americas, they brought it with them.

2. 2 Gustavo Jul 29th, 2006 at 12:21 pm

   this guy is a slavery apologist..he doesn’t make any sense. The U.S. played an active role in ending slavery around the world?!? Give me a break!! How about slaves took an active role in ending slavery. What’s next? Did the U.S. play an active role in creating peace around the world?

3. 3 HispanicPundit Jul 29th, 2006 at 9:49 pm

   I think his point is a little more subtle than that. He is not arguing that the United States was anti-slavery, or in any way morally free from slavery, only that you have to see slavery in the bigger picture, and when you do, you realize that the United States did more to end slavery than to start slavery.

   Yes, the United States participated in slavery, but the portion that is often left out is that so did practically every other race, religion and continent. Slavery has been a part of human history for as long as history has been recorded. And every group has participated in one way or the other. Christians, Atheists and Muslims all had a big hand in it, so did the vast majority of cultures. Bernard Lewis, emeritus professor at Princeton University, writes “The institution of slavery had indeed been practiced from time immemorial. It existed in all the ancient civilizations of Asia, Africa, Europe, and pre-Columbian America. It had been accepted and even endorsed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as other religions of the world.” In fact, the name slavery comes from the word Slavic, because of the frequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe.

   So what is it that makes America unique, if it’s not in having slaves? Thomas Sowell hints at it when he writes:

   …nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century.

   People of every race and color were enslaved — and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed.

   Everyone hated the idea of being a slave but few had any qualms about enslaving others. Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century — and then only in Western civilization.

   Among those who turned against slavery in the 18th century were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and other American leaders. You could research all of 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there.

   Deciding that slavery was wrong was much easier than deciding what to do with millions of people from another continent, of another race, and without any historical preparation for living as free citizens in a society like that of the United States, where they were 20 percent of the total population.

   It is clear from the private correspondence of Washington, Jefferson, and many others that their moral rejection of slavery was unambiguous, but the practical question of what to do now had them baffled. That would remain so for more than half a century.

   In 1862, a ship carrying slaves from Africa to America, in violation of a ban on the international slave trade, was captured. The crew were imprisoned and the captain was hanged in the United States — despite the fact that slavery itself was still legal in both Africa and the U.S. at the time.

   What does this tell us? That enslaving people was considered an abomination but what to do with millions of people who were already enslaved was not equally clear.

   That question was finally answered by a war in which one life was lost for every six people freed. Maybe that was the only answer. But don’t pretend today that it was an easy answer — or that those who grappled with the dilemma in the 18th century were some special villains, when most leaders and most people around the world at that time saw nothing wrong with slavery.

   The founders were definitely far from perfect, nobody is arguing - atleast nobody I’ve read - that they were free from all discrimination and racism, but even with all of these faults, they were miles ahead of the rest of the world at large, and the constitution and the freedoms that it brought, not only set the stage for the abolition of slavery but also for universal suffrage around the world.

4. 4 Dom Jul 30th, 2006 at 7:20 pm

   HispanicPundit — your comment here is better than the original post.

   It’s surprising to me that so many people believe that slavery is a fairly modern invention, that it involved only Europeans (as slavers) and Africans (as slaves), and that today, after the US Civil war, it does not exist else at all. All three statements are false.

5. 5 Observer Jul 31st, 2006 at 2:28 am

   Sowell makes some astute observations, but there are a few that he appears to be a bit to uncritical.

   Well yes, just about every group practiced slavery, but to imply that slavery was practiced universally in the same manner is intellectually dishonest. For example, the “American” model of chattel slavery was believed to have different, in some ways significantly so, from pre-Columbian Mesoamerican slavery. The slaves in pre-Columbian Americas, unlike in the U.S., were not consider property; they were similar to indentured servants. In other words, slaves in the pre-Columbian Mesoamerica retained certain advantages that Black slaves in “America” never enjoyed- they weren’t treated like cattle. What does this tell us? It tells us that the institution of slavery in the United States was, in some ways, harsher than in the Mexica (Aztec) Empire.

   History does note that the first record of objection to human bondage is found in Western civilization literature. However, that does not necessarily mean that Europeans were the only peoples to ponder the morality of slavery, it just means that there is no record of any other people on the matter of morality and slavery.

   Washington and Jefferson “turned against slavery?” Well I’d say they turned against slavery as much as a drug dealer who continues to sell to minors even though he recognizes the immorality of peddling heroin to children. While alive, both Washington and Jefferson refused to manumit their slaves; they did so only postmortem.

   The historical hanging of a ship’s captain who violated a federal law by importing slaves is no more an indication of that society’s disgust with slavery than the contemporary imprisoning of gunrunner who illegally imports firearms is an indication of this society’s hatred of guns. Americans seem to love their guns (I know I do) but tend to despise those who violate law. Although, I am not aware of the case Sowell is talking about, I’m inclined to think it was more of a political message to southerners than it was a symbol of disgust over human bondage. Put another way, slavery was seen by some as bad business for the U.S.; its affect on the slave was, by and large, unconsidered.

   HP, you create a reply to a straw-man argument; no one has argued that the Founding Fathers were perfect or free from a racist outlook. I will enthusiastically concede that they were imperfect, and were bunch of white supremacists. But, was the U.S. miles ahead of the rest of the world in emancipating their slaves?

   Consider the following: Sweden emancipated its slaves in 1335; Portugal in 1761; Scottland 1776; Haiti, via rebellion 1791; Canada in 1973; Argentina in 1813; Gran Columbia (Ecuador, Columbia, Panama, & Venezula) in 1821; Chile in 1823; Mexico in 1829; British Empire in 1833; Denmark in 1848; France in 1848; Peru in 1851; Russia (serfs) in 1861; the Netherlands in 1863; and the U.S. in 1865.

   I wouldn’t say they were miles ahead, would you, still?

6. 6 HispanicPundit Jul 31st, 2006 at 8:17 am

   was the U.S. miles ahead of the rest of the world in emancipating their slaves?

   I didn’t say the U.S. was miles ahead of the rest of the world, I said the founders were, and the constitution in particular.

   As far as dates go, the North as early as the middle of the 18th century was already arguing against slavery, they just had to deal with the opposition from the south, of which the civil war solved.

   As far as owning slaves go, well the reason for that distinction is simple - property rights as we know them didn’t really get a firm footing until the 17th and 18th century, had strong property rights been part of feudal societies, I’m sure slavery would have been very similar to how it was in the Americas.

   Oh yeah, and while slavery was outlawed in Sweden in 1333, slave trading was a part of Sweden’s colonies long after that, all under the Kings orders, and slavery would stop only after strong pressure from the British of which, had already abolished the trans-atlantic slave trade.

   Update: Comment updated and edited for typos.

7. 7 Observer Jul 31st, 2006 at 2:49 pm

   I didn’t say the U.S. was miles ahead of the rest of the world, I said the founders were, and the constitution in particular.
   -HP

   In regards to slavery, the some of the representatives at the Convention argued against it, but in the end they agreed to its continued practice (although they did agree to outlaw the importation of slaves in 1808). Also, in regards to slavery, the Constitution didn’t provide the path to abolition; in fact, it was used to strengthen the institution of chattel slavery in 1857 (Dred Scott Case).

   The U.S. Supreme Court ruling (based on the U.S. Con.) virtually nullified any state law (including those in the North) that prohibited slavery. So while some of the Founding Fathers argued against slavery they allowed it, and the Constitution they drafted did not represent, in any way, a pathway to abolition. Even though some of the Founding Fathers were not in favor of slavery, they accomplished little to nothing to destroy it and drafted a document that eventually was used to strengthen the institution. Therefore, I do not agree that “they were miles ahead of the rest of the world at large” and that “the Constitution…not only set the stage for the abolition of slavery but also for universal suffrage around the world.”

   C’mon now, even you note that it was the War (not the Constitution) that brought about emancipation.

   As far as owning slaves go, well the reason for that distinction is simple - property rights as we know them didn’t really get a firm footing until the 17th and 18th century, had strong property rights been part of feudal societies, I’m sure slavery would have been very similar to how it was in the Americas.
   -HP

   Your assurances (speculation) aside, slavery in pre-Colombian Mesoamerica, as history suggests, wasn’t like that chattel slavery the Americans instituted in the Americas. A farmer whose cow gave birth was entitled to own that calf, similarly under chattel slavery, the offspring of slaves were considered property and were owed by the master who owned the mother. That type of slavery (chattel slavery) was not practiced in the Americas before the arrival of the European. Also, the Europeans at around that time also practiced a milder form of human bondage that was similar to the slavery practied in the Americas before the arrival of the European.

   Many indentured servants, who were white and who were brought to the Americas, were not recognized as property of the master, and their children were also not considered property. However, Black slaves and their offspring were seen as property. And the Supreme Court eventually ruled that no state could not deprive a citizen without due process his property (slave). In essence, it reduced the slave’s status to that of a chair. Put another way, no state in the Union retained the right to deny the slave master his slave anymore than it retained the right to deny him his rocking-chair.

   As far as property rights and your assurances that chattel slavery would have taken hold eventually taken pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, why is it that white slaves were not seen by whites as property but Black slaves were? Why do you conclude that the pre-Columbian Mesoamericans who enslaved other Mesoamericans would have behaved any differently than the Europeans who enslaved other Europeans?

   In any case, the historical fact still remains, chattel slavery was imported (not inherited) to the Americas by Europeans. To imply that slavery was practiced similarly worldwide is to spread ignorance, and to suggest that a form of chattel slavery would have come in to being in the Americas independent of European actions is purely speculative, and is completely without merit.

8. 8 HispanicPundit Jul 31st, 2006 at 6:55 pm

   Also, in regards to slavery, the Constitution didn’t provide the path to abolition; in fact, it was used to strengthen the institution of chattel slavery in 1857 (Dred Scott Case).

   The Dred Scott case was an improper reading of the constitution (damn activist judges!) and because of such, was one of the many events that led to the civil war. In other words, it was because everyone knew what the constitution really meant, that one (the abolitionist, particularly) could argue effectively that the Dred Scott case went to far.

   why is it that white slaves were not seen by whites as property but Black slaves were?

   Because of racism. Slavery has been justified on many grounds, whether it be skin color, religion, tribal membership, loss of war, etc…in the United States and the America’s in general, it happened to be skin color. Maybe that is the real disagreement, I see all slavery as wrong, whatever the justification, you, on the other hand, seem to separate one justification as more ‘noble’ than the other.

   I will end this with one last quote from Wiki:

   Until the Revolutionary era, almost no white American colonists spoke out against slavery. Even the Quakers generally tolerated slaveholding (and slave trading) until the mid 18th century, although they emerged as vocal opponents of slavery in the Revolutionary era.

   Following the Revolution, some of the new states began to write constitutions that eliminated slavery, though the new Constitution of the United States limited the ability of the Federal Government to interfere with slavery, or for a time, the slave trade.

   The founders were not perfect but compared to their contemporaries they were far ahead of the curve.

1. 1 By Any Means Necessary at Gustavo Rojo Dot Com Pingback on Jul 29th, 2006 at 5:00 pm

Leave a Reply