Categories
History

Slaves Had No Protection against Cruelty

gavel

First, the accusation of cruelty to slaves is greatly overemphasized. Even in Uncle Tom’s Cabin there are kind masters and cruel masters. One of the best things in the DVD series North and South, in my opinion, is that it pointed out that cruel masters were cruel men—to everyone in their dominion, and that the North had its share of cruel masters in its industries.

Legally, every southern state had anti-cruelty laws to protect slaves (“servants”) by the early 1800s. Cruelty included abridgement of rights. Rights listed in these laws included:

  1. the right to marry
  2. the right to sue another and to give evidence in certain cases
  3. the right to have days off
  4. the right to hire themselves out
  5. the right to receive care from these temporary masters as from a permanent master
  6. the right to write up and sign their own work contracts
  7. the right to practice and receive religious instruction
  8. the right to receive food, clothing, shelter, and a small piece of land adjacent to the cabin to grow their own crops
  9. the right to receive care in times of illness, disability, and childbirth
  10. the right to child care until the child is old enough to work
  11. the right to be cared for in old age until death.

Please understand that these are laws and had to be popular enough to pass when voted on. Remember that until the Nat Turner Rebellion, black people were not only allowed but encouraged to read and write, as well as learn skills and professions that were open to them.

Were these laws enforced? Yes. There are records of warnings, fines, time served in jail, and one white person was shot! (I don’t know if he resisted arrest or was executed.)

I have to admit there were difficulties in enforcement, however. The idea that “a man’s home is his castle” was strong in the South, so neighbors did not interfere unless the cruelty was horrendous. Next, some plantations were as large as a European country and some were far from officers of the law. It would almost take an inspection—which was illegal without a complaint—to gather enough evidence against a white man to arrest him.

Do you see what is missing? I have not discovered anti-cruelty laws in northern slave states or Washington (D.C.).  And why do we hear no screams of protest against cruel slave masters in the north? It stretches credibility that they were all kind.

Categories
History

The United States Wallowed in the Slave Trade Longer Than Other Nations

colonial illustration

We had stated the belief that “all men are created equal.” After that, the Revolutionary War took all of our efforts. In 1782-1790, a wave of voluntary emancipation swept the states, but this was only encouraged by conscience, not law.

In 1794, the United States was the first country in the world to pass a law that impeded the slave trade. The building and outfitting of slave ships in American harbors was outlawed.

Yes, I know. This is a far cry from the emancipation of all slaves. But remember that gradual movement toward emancipation was by far the preference of the American people.

This law ended slavery for no one, but it immediately impacted the slave trade itself. American harbors were closed to building and outfitting slave vessels.

This immediately cut the demand for slaves in Africa, where slavery had increased exponentially because of foreign demand. It also cut American cruelty during the middle passage.

The only Americans who continued the trade had to buy and outfit ships in other harbors, which was an extreme nuisance. The American slave trade was almost erased without making slavery itself illegal.

What were other results within the United States?

Southern states were fine with the law. As would be seen in later years, there were plenty of slaves already in the South to procreate more for future needs.

New Englanders who were involved in the slave trade were screaming. They had been making fortunes in the slave trade: building and outfitting slave ships then running the slave trade in those ships. However, most New Englanders were not in the slave trade and approved the law.

Categories
History

Reconstruction Was the First Plan to Solve the “Negro Problem”

road to the future

Wrong again.

What to do about slavery and the resulting free Negroes was never far from the minds of the public and politicians.

Fernando Fairfax, a prominent Virginian, was the first known individual to write a proposal. It was called the “Plan for liberating the negroes within the united states.” (Notice the capitalization choices.) It is dated “Richmond March 6, 1790.” The text can be found in Encyclopedia Virginia.

Fairfax first reviews the arguments.

Pro-emancipation friends claim their basis on natural right and justice, considering this claim “paramount” to all other considerations. (This will be the stand of abolitionists of the Civil War era.)

The other party agrees with the claim of natural right and justice, but insists on a cohesive policy that also considers “the inconveniences which would result to the community and to the slaves themselves.” These included the right to property legally obtained at the time of purchase.

And in this explanation, we see the conflict of liberal and conservative thinking that continues today.

Liberals see in black and white, and can therefore demand something be done immediately. The results are always “unintended consequences.” Conservatives see in color, considering all shades of the problem. Therefore, they proceed slowly and often offer step by step solutions. They rarely see unintended consequences, because they have foreseen outcomes.

This is why our best government is when liberals and conservatives actually talk to each other. But liberals have no time for thoughtful consideration. They live in the present.

Fairfax next says that the general opinion is for gradual emancipation. So, there are few who agree that slavery should exist perpetually. As a conservative, Fairfax points out the unfairness and illegality of taking a person’s property by force or legislation. Therefore, the states would be required to reimburse the owners. We know that the states, at this point in time, were still struggling with debt incurred by the Revolutionary War and could not reimburse immediate emancipation.

Fairfax says that “it is equally agreed, that, if they be emancipated, it would never do to allow them all the privileges of citizens: they would therefore form a separate interest from the rest of the community.”

Fairfax provides no proof for that statement. He has not explored this from the black point of view at all.

He also states that the one thing that could form a common community would be intermarriage between whites and blacks. He asks which owner, upon freeing a male slave, would allow his daughter to marry that man.

This is faulty logic, but it does show white thinking that would exist in many places well into the 1960s. To Fairfax, this is the final determinant in his argument.

The Fairfax plan is gradually to emancipate slaves, first on a voluntary basis and then, as the states become financially secure, by reimbursement to the owners. All former slaves would be exported to a colony in Africa, to be governed by whites until the blacks show the educated ability to rule themselves thanks to schools established for that purpose.

Fairfax then repulses the argument that England tried this and failed by insisting that the plan did not accomplish the policy. From what Fairfax says, England failed because the slaves were not required to operate within a capitalistic society. What we know as a socialistic society failed, just as it did in the initial years at Jamestown, according to Fairfax.

This plan would actually remain the most popular choice among whites all the way to the Civil War and would be the personal opinion of Abraham Lincoln, as he stated himself on a number of occasions.

https://encyclopediavirgina.org/primary-documents/ferdinando-fairfax-plan-for-liberating-the negroes-within-the-united-states-december-1-1790

Categories
History

First Federal Intervention with Slavery was the Mason-Dixon Line

Midwest US map

It began long before that. The New England states were, as usual, flexing their power muscles.

The first federal intervention was the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that established the new territory located northwest of the Ohio Rivers. It established the admission protocol for future states. It addressed the slavery issue by declaring the Territory as free; however a fugitive slave law was also included.

This sounds like a good compromise on paper, but the South was not happy.

The federal government had, for the first time, addressed the slavery question instead of leaving it to the people. This was against the US Constitution’s limitation of powers, as the South saw it.

It also did not like the fugitive slave law. It set a bad precedent.

Most insidious of all, this established a way for New England to expand its power base because all of the future states were already proclaimed free. Future federal senators and representatives of the states would vote with New England.

Categories
History

Emancipation Proclamation was First Large-Scale Emancipation

breakikng chains overhead

That is another lie.

The first large-scale emancipation occurred 1782-1790. It didn’t take a constitutional amendment or federal intervention by a proclamation or a law. Each slave was manumitted by his or her owner without coercion. It was the result of promises to revolutionary veterans, the US Constitution, personal ethics, and state laws.

In 1776, the population of the new United States of America was 2.5 million. More than 500,000 blacks were part of that population, including about 450,000 slaves.

In 1782, Virginia led the charge with the 1782 Manumission Act, which allowed owners to free slaves by will or deed. In contrast, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey implemented gradual emancipation. Notice that each state chose its own course.

Gradual emancipation allowed the development of economic knowledge and work skill mastery that would enable the slave to make a decent living without oversight. Thus, for owners taking advantage of this, they would continue to make income from the slave in the meantime and allow owners to adjust economic realities to a free workforce.

The wave of emancipation ended in 1790. In that census, there were 59,000 free blacks in the United States. Of that, Virginia freed at least 20,000.

Categories
History

The Constitution and the 3/5 Clause

flag next to we the people parchment

The Article of Confederation did not work well. Congress had the power to make rules. However, it had no power to demand funds (only request) from the states. It had no enforcement power and could not regulate commerce or print money.

In May 1787, through the hot summer, and until September 17, rancorous arguments erupted about nearly everything within the shuttered windows of the State House. With delegates sworn to secrecy, the citizens of the new republic waited for news. European nations waited for the collapse of the American experimental government.

What emerged was a document so radical that it was not sent to the state legislatures to ratify, because it required states to give up some of their power, and that never would have passed. Instead, special ratifying conventions were convened in each state. Even then, only 6 states were willing to ratify it. Massachusetts, the last state needed, agreed to ratify the Constitution only with the agreement that it would be amended later. It was with the Bill of Rights.

Some changes were a stronger central government which could regulate commerce, print money, and enforce their laws. It was limited strictly to the list of powers within the Constitution. All branches of the government were equal and ways to balance this were described. The election to congress was a balance between democracy (the House was elected directly by the people) and a republic (senators were nominated by state legislature!)

The argument that is still talked about today, was the disagreement regarding how many House representatives each state should have. The constitution stated one representative for every 30,000 people. The term “people” had been used throughout the Constitution, but in this instance, it translated directly into POWER. Southern states, as can be seen in the excised Jeffersonian section, held the world understanding that, of course, slaves were also “people of the United States.” (Notice, the Constitution does not say Citizens of the United States anywhere except for the members of the central government.) Northerners, determined to limit southern power, refused to count slaves in the assignment of representatives.

The final compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a person—but note that it was the northern states that denied personhood to slaves.

That is not what we have been taught.

Categories
History

Articles of Confederation and Slavery

Drafting Articles of Confederation Stamp

The Articles of Confederation enacted in 1777 was the first attempt at a document of self-governance. The federal government would prove to be too weak to be effective.

Today, we can see it in the function (or dysfunction) of the United Nations. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.

For our discussion on slavery and the Civil War, the most important point of this document is the choosing of the word “state.”

Why did the representatives endorse the use of “state?” Why not province? Or county? Or parish?

Because “state” relates to an independent power, a nation.

The United States of America could be rendered the United Nations of America. This was a political union of nations primarily for defense and diplomacy. There is no mention of slavery.

It is the definition of “state” that underlies the entire “states’ rights” conversation.

Categories
History

Jefferson’s Anti-Slavery Comment Removed!

Declaration of Independence

The first draft of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson contained a 168 word section lambasting King George III for slavery in the colonies. Here it is:

“ He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither, this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain, determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & Murdering the people pon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. (Library of Congress)

This didn’t even make it to the whole Continental Congress, only to a select committee. Jefferson said north and south representatives voted to remove it. Apparently, the only states willing to accept it were the Mid-Atlantic States!

Some people jump to the conclusion that it was removed because those states participated in the shipping and sale (north) or use of slaves (south, mostly). They give no support to their opinion. It could also be because the representatives, still hoping for a peaceful separation, felt Jefferson’s language too extreme.

By the way, notice Jefferson’s use of the word “men.” This answers the question of what “men” means in “all men are created equal.”

Categories
History

“All Men Are Created Equal” or Are They?

raised hands before USA flag

There is a great difference of opinion about what the founding fathers meant by this. Did they mean whites are created equal? Or white men, but not women, are created equal? Or did they mean all mankind, regardless of sex and race, is created equal?

Now we know that everyone was not treated equal. We can agree on that.

But what did the phrase mean? We have to look at facts.

  1. Linguistically, “men” and “mankind” were used to include all humans, as well as the more restricted usage of male humans. This was true until recent years. In neither case, was the usage restricted to whites.
  2. Women were active patriots. They did not act as second rank citizens. Abigail Adams exemplifies this in her letter to her husband John Adams wherein she encourages him to “remember the ladies.”
  3. We have to be careful to separate states during the Revolutionary War from the same states during the Civil War. We must stick to the facts.

For instance, three New England states voted for slavery before the first future Confederate state.

Although the south had become the center of plantation business, New England was and would continue to be the hub of the shipbuilding and slavery trades. In fact, Delaware would enter the Civil War as a slave state.

The proof of the difference is what actually happened within the states. The phrase “all men are created equal” already existed in a state constitution: that of Virginia. Yes, Virginia.

The immediate result of the acceptance of this phrase was that during the first twenty years of the USA, tens of thousands of slaves were set free. And Virginia, who freed 10,000 slaves, emancipated more than all other states together.

The reason we look at the first twenty years is because it gave masters time to adjust their lives and businesses to run without slaves, and—just as important—it worked as a period of apprenticeship during which slaves learned trade and economic skills necessary for independent living. After all, there was no free child care, free medical care, free clothes, free food, free care for the elderly and the infirm, free funeral care, and no assured employment.

  1. It is often mentioned that Jefferson wrote the document, and he owned slaves. First, Jefferson was chosen to write the document because he was the best writer, not because of his ethics. The document was a summary of decisions and supporting thoughts of the whole conference. Second, the document had to be written in such a way that all thirteen states would sign it. Third, Jefferson was a very conflicted person. His morals and ethics did not agree. We can see this in the section he wrote against slavery that was omitted in the final version as unsignable.
  2. One of the great impacts on colonial America was the Enlightenment Philosophy, which stressed such items as scientific inquiry, progress, and the rights of man. The American colonists, who were generally more educated as a whole than we are today, discussed these topics, and they are seen in the document. A constitutional republic with its self-rule was progress from traditional monarchies. The Constitution would eventually contain the Bill of Rights. It was the abridgement of these rights of the people that caused the Revolutionary War.
  3. The Christian faith, mostly Protestant but with a significant Catholic presence, affected every household, and it was an active faith, not like today, or like Britain of that time. All colonials learned to read so they could read whatever holy books their faith allowed. All Protestant homes had a copy of the King James version of the Bible, and usually also Pilgrim’s Progress and the Book of Martyrs. Catholics had their missal and often Lives of the Saints.

I make a big deal of this because the document included the phrase “are created.” Created means to be made from nothing, which is definitely not an enlightenment idea. It supports the “intelligent design” theory, although the “evolutionary process” theory was still in the future. And it says “are” meaning that at the day of the document that was still true and was seen as being true in the future.

When I read the word Providence in works of that time, it always refers to the Judeo-Christian God. Remembering that all colonists would need to vote on this eventually, and their representative would need to join an unanimously approval in conference, there is no other way to interpret the word Providence.

The concept of man created by God is the basis of “inalienable rights.” They are inalienable because they come from God, not the government. Especially, not King George III.

God created one man and one woman, according to the Genesis account. In them was the DNA to create the variety of races seen today. Therefore, all are equal. Woman was a “helper meet” for Adam, created from his rib, not his skull or his feet. She was created equal and her job is to “complete” her man. Therefore, equality between the sexes is ongoing. (The concept of male head of house and church is a separate issue, dealing with God’s ongoing use of living samples, not innate qualities and abilities.)

  1. Christianity and the Enlightenment are not natural opponents. Indeed, many easily believed in both. And then there were radicals such as Jefferson who believed they could not co-exist, and his personal version of the Bible proved that he chose Enlightenment over Christianity.

Because they are not opponents, they could claim a created man and also believe in self-government (which is the original government of the Bible) and in progress.

  1. Because of all of this, the best understanding of “all men are created equal” is that that fact already existed, but the current governments needed to progress (actually regress) so reality among mankind met the American Dream of equality (not equity!) of races and sexes. That is, progress would make earthly reality equal heavenly reality.
Categories
History

It Was Illegal to Educate Slaves

Not only was it legal until the Nat Turner rebellion, sometimes the slave was educated with the master’s children. Everyone in the colonies was expected to learn reading so he or she could read the Bible.

Some, who were exceptionally talented, were educated in advanced studies. Each one who stood in the spotlight was a spokesperson for the intelligence and talents of their race.

A case in point is Phyllis (named for the slave ship) Wheatley (her master’s surname.).

Phyllis was a poet so talented that she toured Europe. She was the first American slave, the first person of African descent, and the third American colonial woman to be published.

Her life of 1753-1784 spanned the American Revolutionary War. Here are some of her poems:

  1. On Being Brought from Africa to America: This poem describes her Christian perspective that “everything works together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose.” She doesn’t like enslavement, but credits her abduction with learning about the Christian faith and how to get to heaven.

“Remember, Christians, Negros, black as Cain,

May be refined, and join th’ angelic train.”

  1. To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty. 1768: This poem expresses loyalty to King George III and appreciation for the good things he does, especially the recent repeal of the Stamp Act.
  2. To the Right Honourable William, Earl of Dartmouth, his Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State of North-America, &c: In this poem, she expresses hope that Dartmouth will be kinder and fairer than his predecessor. She relates her slavery to the experience of the colonists that has hopefully now ended.

…That from a father seiz’d his babe belov’d:

Such, such my case. And can I then but pray

Others may never feel tyrannic sway?

  1. His Excellency General Washington: “Proceed, great chief, with virtue on thy side…”

After publication of her first book, she was set free. She married a free black man. They had three children who seem to have died in infancy. They were always dirt poor. Her husband at one time occupied a cell in a debtor’s prison.