Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I never mean ... to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees." -George Washington
Washington was by the 1780's and 90's very much opposed to slavery, but he was a gradual abolitionist. He seemingly feared the potential economic and political results of pushing the issue in the young nation. Financial issues and an unwillingness to break up families kept him from freeing his slaves until his death. By our standards he did too little against slavery, but history must be understood in the context of that time in which events took place. The union was fragile and young and, in the south, there was next to no support for abolition. Southern states likely would have broken away had the Constitution outlawed slavery. Leaving Americans highly vulnerable in a hostile world (our independence was rather precarious until after the War of 1812).
While he may have feared the potential economic and political consequences for the young nation, it's easy to make the case that Washington feared the consequences he personally would have faced more. I can't really find much nobility in his position that abolition would be something others should aspire to while Washington kept his slaves through his (and his wife's) lifetimes. He criticized the practice of buying and selling slaves, but since he owned them through inheritance, he could afford to hold others to a different standard. Yes, he was a product of his times, but I think it's a stretch to call him even a gradual abolitionist.
The other piece of this is that until the invention and availability of the cotton gin in the late 18th century, the prospect of gradual emancipation, as enacted by northern states, was far more viable. With the emergence of 'king cotton', the demand for slaves greatly increased. It is fair to question what Washington's position on manumission would have been had he lived another 20 or 30 years.
I realize that for the decent majority blacks were considered less than whites but do you think any of the founding fathers actually believed it was quite hypocritical to form a country based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and saying all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights yet still condone and accept slavery? Do you look at it as a black mark against them for not abolishing it?
It only was for white MEN.
White men are God's children.
It only was for white MEN.
White men are God's children.
Everything in that time period coming from all of Europe was for white men and white men only. So what? That's how it was then and that was perfectly normal.
Everything in that time period coming from all of Europe was for white men and white men only. So what? That's how it was then and that was perfectly normal.
So what?
We're talking about why the Constitution didn't address slavery. That's what.
Slavery was an accepted fact of life in many parts of the world. It wasn't a big issue to debate at the time. Why would it be mentioned in the constitution?
Slavery was an accepted fact of life in many parts of the world. It wasn't a big issue to debate at the time. Why would it be mentioned in the constitution?
Seriously? It wasn't a big issue where?
In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV issued Immensa Pastorum condemning slavery of indigenous people.
In 1706 Sir John Holt, Lord Chief Justice of England rules that any "negro" brought to England was to be declared free.
1772 England rules that no slave could be forcibly removed from Britain.
1774 Portugal prohibits the transportation of black slaves to Portugal and the emancipation of the children of slaves in Portugal.
1775 The Pennsylvania Abolition Society is founded.
During the Constitutional Convention southern delegates introduced a measure that would constitutionally prohibit the federal government for outlawing the importation of African slaves. Delegates, Martin Luther of Maryland, Gouverneur Morris, and George Mason rose to oppose it. The debate was so central the drafting of the Constitution that the only compromise was to put off the measure until 1808.
Slavery was an accepted fact of life in many parts of the world. It wasn't a big issue to debate at the time. Why would it be mentioned in the constitution?
Exactly! Slavery, albeit "cosmeticized" as feudal serfdom, was the predominant form of economic organization throughout the civilized world until the late Middle Ages. The rise of the burghers, or bourgeoisie, became possible only as civilization advanced to the point where the economy could support a larger group of craftsmen and artisans, rather than confining the entire plebian population to subsistence agriculture.
But perhaps in parallel to the present day's widening gap between a small number of highly successful innovators and a much-larger portion of the workforce confined to micromanagement in return for wages or a small fixed salary, the problem becomes one of finding a way to fill the absolute bottom-of-the-heap jobs nobody wants. The "slave trade", which spawned relatively immediate and much stronger opposition among the enlightened, did not emerge on a grand scale until the development of the New World.
The Renaissance and the Enlightenment spelled the end of slavery, and on a global basis; the principal obstacles in the path of those forces -- monarchy, theocracy, fascism, Marxism -- all rely upon a return to coercion to meet their objectives, and can all be tarred with the same brush
Exactly! Slavery, albeit "cosmeticized" as feudal serfdom, was the predominant form of economic organization throughout the civilized world until the late Middle Ages.
The middle ages are dated from the 5th to 15th century, the topic at hand is the era of the late 18th century some 300 years later. So how "exactly" fits into the conversation is beyond me. Yet even in the "middle ages" slavery was coming under assault in Europe. Venice abolished the slave trade in 960. In 1102 the trade of slaves was condemned by the Council of London. Slavery is abolished in Iceland in 1102 and how does one get around the Magna Carta?
I realize that for the decent majority blacks were considered less than whites but do you think any of the founding fathers actually believed it was quite hypocritical to form a country based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and saying all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights yet still condone and accept slavery? Do you look at it as a black mark against them for not abolishing it?
I think if you look at the Constitution closely that one of the major things the framers did was completely side-step the issue of slavery. This was a matter of necessity and practicality at the time.
This was done deliberately because if they had allowed slavery to get in the way it probably would have prevented the colonies from banding together and beating the British in the American Revolution. Southern colonies would not have joined with northern colonies in the Articles of Confederation if slavery had been allowed to become a major issue.
The same thing was true in 1787 when the Constitutional Convention was held. The 3/5's compromise which is referred to in the Constitution deliberately allowed southern states to count slaves (who could not vote) as 3/5's of a person in terms of determining their amount of representation in the US House of Representatives. Benjamin Franklin and a handful of others vigorously opposed slavery and actually made weak attempts to outlaw slavery in the Constitution. This, of course, went nowhere. If the Constitution had attempted to outlaw slavery or even if the 3/5's compromise had failed its doubtful that southern states would have ratified the Constitution.
I have heard politics referred to as a "sausage machine". The end product might taste all right, but the process through which you make sausage may make you sick if you think too much about it. In the end, the framers had to pick. They could have a United States of America with a Constitution that maintained slavery or they could have no nation and certain people could take a moral position against slavery.
It gets complicated. I think there were plenty of people who believed slavery would die out on its own if enough time passed. Than, Eli Whitney came along and invented the cotton gin. With the cotton gin, in post revolutionary America, cotton growing became very profitable and slavery suddenly became more attractive than it had been in the past. The cotton gin may be the most unfortunate thing ever invented.
I do feel it was unfortunate indeed that issue of slavery could not be dealt with in 1787. The failure to do so would lead to a very bloody Civil War in 1861.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
