|
|
"I wish most sincerely there was not a slave in the province". -- Abigail Adams
According to biographer David McCullough, the Adams' were alone among the founding fathers in that they never owned a slave. Does slave ownership diminish the moral standing of men like Jefferson and Washington?
|
Posts:
387
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(220 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
May 14, 2008 11:28 AM
|
> E pluribus Unum. Out of the many one. There are
> many valid, but differing American Experiences. No
> individual can rightfully assert their interpretation
> of American History as THE only CORRECT view, since
> all views and all experiences contributed to the
> development of The United States Of America.
I loved your post - you are right on with your assertions. It makes absolute sense that the slave's view of this terrible period of our history is going to be vastly different than the slave owner's. America is the melting pot; it's what makes our country so diverse, so rich and so great.
All American experiences are like bits of colorful cloth woven together, different in color and texture as you say, but cut from the same cloth. If we learn from history, respect it and never forget those who suffered we triumph as a people and as a country.
--
*********
Host_Ginna
HBO Forums Host
|
|
|
Posts:
89
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(219 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
May 8, 2008 2:12 PM
Rate this post:
|
DIFFERENT IS NOT DEFICIENT...
Native Americans have a unique view of American History. It is different from the commonly accepted view of the founding of the nation, but it is not deficient and it is not incorrect.
African Americans have another unique experience of the founding of America. It is different from the commonly accepted view of the founding of this nation. Their interpretation of history is not wrong and it is not deficient. It is simply experienced differently.
Mexican Americans have a different view of the founding of America, especially surrounding the concept of "manifest destiny". Their view is an indisputable part of American history. It is different but it is true.
Still other Americans interpret the founding of America through the lens of their own experience.
E pluribus Unum. Out of the many one. There are many valid, but differing American Experiences. No individual can rightfully assert their interpretation of American History as THE only CORRECT view, since all views and all experiences contributed to the development of The United States Of America. Individuals are free to offer a speculative opinion about what the founders meant and intended, but attempting to belittle the equally valid interpretation of other Americans is unethical and way out of bounds.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,284
Registered:
10/23/05
|
|
(218 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 27, 2008 3:14 PM
|
> In reply to various replies, first I would like to
> thank all who took the time to comment.
>
> The question of the morality of slavery was indeed a
> topic of considerable debate before, during, and long
> after the period. However, the abolitionism that was
> endemic throughout New England was forcefully
> rebutted by the Southern colonies dependent upon the
> practise. It is to those areas, I was referring,
> which point, I had hoped was clear. My apologies if I
> was not. The waves of negative sentiment revolving
> around slavery ebbed and flowed from well before the
> Revolution as the nation forged its identity, coming
> to its first national crisis in 1820-1 with the
> Missouri Compromise and becoming more acrimonious
> with westward expansion. Simply put, although the
> moral issue of slavery was a much-discussed subject
> for at least two centuries before its final death
> throes began at Fort Sumpter, it was, in many ways, a
> casualty of war and hardship in anything but
> philosophical terms until extended peace and
> prosperity post-War of 1812, and the move west raised
> the issue to critical importance and saw the rise of
> aggressive abolitionist action, both political and
> practical. This was, of course, coupled with the
> rise of Victorian sentiment and morality and that of
> the burgeoning middle class; the whole social
> makeover from 18th to 19th century.
>
> In response to the question of 1776, obviously the
> point was the fragile confederation between the 13
> colonies. Without the full support of the Southern,
> slave-holding states, there would have been no
> Revolution at all, politically, psychologically or
> financially. In declaring their independence of
> Britain, the colonies had to contend with both the
> physical enormity of America and the disparity of the
> various colonies. That they chose to favour
> independence over emancipation does not diminish
> their achievement and the fact that the issue was
> hotly debated indicates an intense awareness of the
> inherent problem. For a fledgling nation---a group of
> loosely aligned colonies so different socially,
> spiritually and economically---already 6 months at
> war with the greatest power in the Western world,
> without international aid or resources, the very fact
> that there was a consensus at all is still
> remarkable, particularly a consensus of such sweeping
> magnitude.
>
> Again, I must repeat, that judging history by modern
> standards and mores is fraught with peril, not the
> least of which is sacrificing scholarship and careful
> research for popular sentiment.
I do agree with you for the most part, but I don't think that we should refrain from allowing the reputation of the founding fathers to become sullied by the fact that they did make a compact with evil. Unfortunately for them, even Jesus didn't come out strong against slavery. this created an environment ripe for slavery in the world.
But, to ignore the slavery question, and to ignore several other hypocritical events surrounding the founding fathers and declaration, and the constitution, is to not create an environment ripe with the ability to misconstrue what happened at the constitutional convention and also to ignore the individual needs and desires of the society as being the driving force behind the constitution and the FF.
--
I came
I saw
and I conquered
|
|
|
Posts:
1,284
Registered:
10/23/05
|
|
(217 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 27, 2008 3:01 PM
|
>  @ what amounts to the "because I said so!"
> defense
>
> according to this tortured assinine logic, being
> placed on the auction blocks said nothing about the
> humanity of the slaves either. It was merely
> retail advertising
>
> --
> Edited by tallyval at 04/22/2008 11:02 PM PDT
lets try to remain rational and intelligent, rather than sarcastic and emotional. A serious topic, deserves serious people and discussion. this can't be done if you want to use rhetoric and sarcasm.
That a person was sold as a slave, we know is an inhuman act by the seller, not the person for sale.
But, looking at your point of view. yes, the seller selling people felt the slaves were less deserving of human sensitivity. But, it says nothing as to whether the slave was 3/5ths human or not as a law. In addition, the seller was not a doctor, scientist, legislator, or authority on biology, and what he said was not written in stone or law.
As I said, you can find many examples to reinforce our argument that the slaves were seen as less than human, but the 3/5ths clause was about apportionment, and the reasons that led to counting 3/5ths of the slaves had nothing to do with the view point that they were not humans.
Tom Jefferson wrote on the humanity of the slaves, and even created the one drop rule. Lincoln wondered about the humanity of the slaves There are many examples. If you want to be foolish, and use the 3/5ths clause, go right ahead.
I take it you may be thinking that I believe the founding fathers didn't believe the slaves were less than human, and you are wrong on that. I do believe it. I just think it is foolish to use the 3/5ths clause to support your argument. I would like to here people that are critical of the founding fathers make sense and use real historical events to support their argument, rather than make foolish arguments as yours.
Sit down and try to see the 3/5ths clause for what it is, not what you need it to be for your purposes. Just because "B" follows "A" does not mean that "A" is the cause of "B"
--
I came
I saw
and I conquered
--
Edited by cargilb1 at 04/27/2008 12:02 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
89
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(216 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 27, 2008 1:46 PM
|
> I suggest reading the chapter called "The Silence" in
> the Pulitzer Prize winning book "Founding Brothers"
> if you want a clear, understandable picture of the
> issue of slavery at the time of the revolution. As
> previously stated, you can't judge yesterday by
> today's standards. Sometimes, however distasteful,
> you're forced to choose between the lesser of two
> evils. Formation and preservation of the fragile
> union was the initial priority....thus, other equally
> important issues had to be tabled.
regarding all the "yesterday by today's standards" BS, ill treatment of people was wrong yesterday. It is wrong today, and it will be wrong tomorrow. Formation and preservation of the "fragile" union was not the initial priority of slaves and native americans. It was merely what the so-called founding fathers decided was more pressing. Slaves did not find an occasion to rejoice when southern slave owners, band together with northern slave owners to declare independence from a slave trader (Britain). The so-called founding fathers perspective is not the ony valid one and should not be discussed as if their independence was the only consideration.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
4/11/08
|
|
(215 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 27, 2008 12:24 PM
|
|
I suggest reading the chapter called "The Silence" in the Pulitzer Prize winning book "Founding Brothers" if you want a clear, understandable picture of the issue of slavery at the time of the revolution. As previously stated, you can't judge yesterday by today's standards. Sometimes, however distasteful, you're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Formation and preservation of the fragile union was the initial priority....thus, other equally important issues had to be tabled.
|
|
|
Posts:
89
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(214 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 25, 2008 2:45 AM
|
|
For the founders, and their ilk, the question of 1776 may have indeed been about independence from Britain. For the slaves, and their progeny, whose free and forced labor sustained the american economy, the question of 1776 was entirely different.
|
|
|
Posts:
474
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(213 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 24, 2008 5:35 PM
|
|
hippediva, I love the way you put things in perspective relative to their time. Gives a whole new way of looking at our history and why certain people did the things that they did. Thank you for that.
|
|
|
Posts:
5
Registered:
4/19/08
|
|
(212 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 24, 2008 2:13 AM
|
In reply to various replies, first I would like to thank all who took the time to comment.
The question of the morality of slavery was indeed a topic of considerable debate before, during, and long after the period. However, the abolitionism that was endemic throughout New England was forcefully rebutted by the Southern colonies dependent upon the practise. It is to those areas, I was referring, which point, I had hoped was clear. My apologies if I was not. The waves of negative sentiment revolving around slavery ebbed and flowed from well before the Revolution as the nation forged its identity, coming to its first national crisis in 1820-1 with the Missouri Compromise and becoming more acrimonious with westward expansion. Simply put, although the moral issue of slavery was a much-discussed subject for at least two centuries before its final death throes began at Fort Sumpter, it was, in many ways, a casualty of war and hardship in anything but philosophical terms until extended peace and prosperity post-War of 1812, and the move west raised the issue to critical importance and saw the rise of aggressive abolitionist action, both political and practical. This was, of course, coupled with the rise of Victorian sentiment and morality and that of the burgeoning middle class; the whole social makeover from 18th to 19th century.
In response to the question of 1776, obviously the point was the fragile confederation between the 13 colonies. Without the full support of the Southern, slave-holding states, there would have been no Revolution at all, politically, psychologically or financially. In declaring their independence of Britain, the colonies had to contend with both the physical enormity of America and the disparity of the various colonies. That they chose to favour independence over emancipation does not diminish their achievement and the fact that the issue was hotly debated indicates an intense awareness of the inherent problem. For a fledgling nation---a group of loosely aligned colonies so different socially, spiritually and economically---already 6 months at war with the greatest power in the Western world, without international aid or resources, the very fact that there was a consensus at all is still remarkable, particularly a consensus of such sweeping magnitude.
Again, I must repeat, that judging history by modern standards and mores is fraught with peril, not the least of which is sacrificing scholarship and careful research for popular sentiment.
|
|
|
Posts:
89
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(211 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 23, 2008 1:58 AM
|
@ what amounts to the "because I said so!" defense
according to this tortured assinine logic, being placed on the auction blocks said nothing about the humanity of the slaves either. It was merely retail advertising
--
Edited by tallyval at 04/22/2008 11:02 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,284
Registered:
10/23/05
|
|
(210 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 22, 2008 11:52 PM
|
> > it was the south that vehemently argued that
> the
> > slaves should count as a whole person.
>
> I have been wondering exactly what the two of you
> have been arguing about. If the above statement is
> it, I will add my agreement with that statement.
> Since the number of representatives in the house for
> each state is dependent on the every ten year
> population census, the slaves counting as a whole
> would be of great benefit to the South. Yes they
> wanted the slaves counted as a whole. That way would
> result in more representatives in the House. The
> North's argument was that since slaves couldn't vote
> they should not count at all. The 3/5ths was a
> compromise.
>
> Neither argument is respectful of slaves as humans.
> Not even close.
the argument was about whether the 3/5th clause meant that the slaves were 3/5ths human. I said it does not mean that. The issue as to whether the slaves were human or not can be made in many other ways, this was merely a clause where the apportionment was at issue.
whether it was respectful is another issue.
--
I came
I saw
and I conquered
|
|
|
Posts:
7
Registered:
3/17/08
|
|
(209 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 22, 2008 7:04 PM
|
I truely believe that slavery along with the massacre
of native-americans is the darkest and most inhumane
harm done to our fellow man.
It is something which has haunted us for hundred of years
until this day we still cope with the aftermath.
I for one think the Spaniards were the cruelst of all in
their torture of Africans. I think because of them and
others who profited in the trade, we are all till this
day still suffering, both the black and white race.
If there is a HEll, those responsible for thier sins are burning in it.
|
|
|
Posts:
139
Registered:
4/10/08
|
|
(208 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 22, 2008 6:07 PM
|
|
hippiediva, I applaud your post! I stay amazed at the people in our country that simply don't know their history .(I've got a degree in the subject and still don't pretend to be an expert on everything)! Many of us just love to get on our high horse and try to judge our fore fathers.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,944
Registered:
6/11/07
|
|
(207 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 22, 2008 4:03 PM
|
> The sheer presumption of judging an 18th century
> world by 21st century standards is not only
> illogical, it is specious history at its PC worst.
> The realities of plantation culture
> would become both morally and economically untenable
> but it would take another 70+ years for the issue to
> come to a head.
&Second, it is quite clear that
> Americans know so little of their history.
--
Wrong on your first point, correct on your second. Anti-slavery on moral grounds was a hot button issues in the 1770s. Quakers and northern states already were active against slavery by the time John Adams was president.
http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/timeline/united.states.html
|
|
|
Posts:
10
Registered:
12/8/03
|
|
(206 of 220)
Re: Slave Ownership and Morality
Apr 22, 2008 2:25 PM
|
|
The American Revolution did abolish slavery in the New England states. The first step toward complete abolition within the next generation of the revolutionaries.
|
|
|
|
|
