"Negro slavery is not an invention of the white man. As Greeks enslaved Greeks, as the Hebrew often consented to make the Hebrew his absolute lord, as Anglo-Saxons trafficked in Anglo-Saxons, so the negro race enslaved its own brethren. The oldest accounts of the land of the negroes, like the glimmering traditions of Egypt and Phenicia, of Greece and of Rome, bear witness to the existence of domestic slavery and the caravans of dealers in negro slaves. The oldest Greek historian commemorates the traffic. Negro slaves were seen in classic Greece, and were known at Rome and in the Roman empire. It is from about the year 990, that regular accounts of the negro slave-trade exist. At that period, Moorish merchants from the Barbary coast first reached the cities of Nigritia, and established an uninterrupted exchange of Saracen and European luxuries for the gold and slaves of Central Africa. Even though whole caravans were sometimes buried in the sands of the desert, and at others, without shade and without water, suffered the horrors of parching thirst under a tropical sun, yet the commerce extended because it was profitable; and before the genius of Columbus had opened the path to a new world, the negro slave-trade had been reduced to a system by the Moors, and had spread from the native regions of the Ethiopian race to the heart of Egypt on the one hand, and to the coasts of Barbary on the other." - George Bancroft, History of the Colonization of the United States, 1848.It is virtually forgotten today that there were colonies going back about 200 years before the Founding, and that slavery became a feature of North America under the British Monarchy to which all the Founders were subjects, long before the establishment of the United States government.
"It is well known, that it constituted a grievance, of which some of the colonies complained before the revolution, that the introduction of slaves was encouraged by the crown, and that prohibitory laws were negatived. [....] Let it be remembered, that at this period this horrible traffic was carried on with the encouragement and support of every civilized nation of Europe; and by none with more eagerness and enterprise, than by the parent country." - Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice appointed by James Madison, Commentaries on The Constitution of The United States, Prohibitions on The United States, 1833.The Founders were born into the firmly established acceptance of slavery, in the same manner everyone reading this will no doubt have been born into the firmly established acceptance of abortion. And like abortion, which despite only being around several decades is already a billion dollar industry with significant lobbying power, slavery was deeply entrenched in America by the time of the Revolution. The Founders could no more abolish that practice on a whim than can present day opponents of abortion abolish that practice on a whim. Just as subverted federal courts routinely overturn pro-life initiatives at the state level today, efforts on the part of colonies to abolish slavery prior to the Revolution were overturned by the "parent country" (British government) to which they were subordinate, because various parties within the latter benefited from the importation of slaves to the American colonies.
"Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he (the King) has prostituted his negative (veto) for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce." - Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 1: 1760-1776.
"A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of the Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more slaves into that colony. This request however, will probably not be granted, as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed, and as the interest of a few merchants here has more weight with government than that of thousands at a distance." - Benjamin Franklin to Richard Woodward, April 10, 1773.Franklin says "here" because he was living in Britain at the time. Basically, he's saying the efforts of American colonists to abolish slavery had always been overturned by the British government, because it cared more about the business interests of slave traders in England than the interests and happiness of its subjects in the American colonies. The practice was being imposed upon the colonies, to their detriment, to benefit merchants back in England.
The veracity of Franklin's claim is reflected in the Articles of Association, adopted two years prior to the Revolution for American Independence.
"We will neither import nor purchase, any slave imported after the first day of December next; after which time, we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it." - The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774.At the time of the Revolution the Founders were presented with a circumstance that had no copacetic solution. They could with their Revolution either liberate most of the people now and the rest later, or liberate none by seeking to abolish slavery in addition to seeking Independence (which some wanted; e.g., Jefferson), resulting in the loss of southern support for the initiative and almost certainly killing it. They made the logical choice, securing the former and paving the way for the eventual liberation of the rest, via documents like the Declaration which establish the philosophical and legal basis for individual liberty (making no distinction based upon race when doing so).
"The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction, than by the author of the Declaration himself (Jefferson). [...] They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country, and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth." - John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before The Inhabitants of The Town of Newburyport, July 4, 1837. (Parentheses mine.)Adams's assertion that the Founders, even the Southern ones, were fundamentally opposed to slavery and sought its eventual abolition, is corroborated by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens nearly 24 years later, when he declared that the Confederacy the supporters of slavery wished to establish would be based upon opposing principles to the "old (U.S.) Constitution."
"The prevailing ideas entertained by him (Jefferson) and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away." - Alexander Stephens, Cornerstone Address, March 21, 1861. (Parentheses mine.)Less well known is that the efforts of the Framers to end slavery are found in the Constitution as well. Though they could not secure an outright abolition of slavery in the Constitution, they did work toward the abolition of the international slave trade, as a preliminary step to that end.
"America stood forth alone, uncheered and unaided, in stamping ignominy upon this traffic on the very face of her constitution of government, although there were strong temptations of interest to draw her aside from the performance of this great moral duty. [....] It was notorious, that the postponement of an immediate abolition was indispensable to secure the adoption of the constitution. It was a necessary sacrifice to the prejudices and interests of a portion of the Southern states. The glory of the achievement is scarcely lessened by its having been gradual, and by steps silent, but irresistible." - Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice appointed by James Madison, Commentaries on The Constitution of The United States, Prohibitions on The United States, 1833.
"Some of the politicians of that day thought the introduction of that unfortunate class essential to the prosperity, if not to the existence of the southern States; and, therefore, would not consent to allow Congress to exercise the right, they would otherwise possess, under the general power of regulating commerce, to put an immediate end to this inhuman traffic. The result was a compromise, by which the power of Congress was restricted for a limited period." - James A. Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Limitations of The Powers of Congress, 1833.This postponement of an abolition to which Story refers, and restriction upon the power of congress to regulate slave commerce to which Bayard refers, is contained in Article 1 Section 9:1 of the U.S. Constitution.
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. [....] No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." - U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 9:1 & 4.The purpose of these provisos is provided by Senator James Bayard.
"These clauses relate to the importation of slaves, and the assessment of direct taxes; and being matters of contract, were not to be altered. The former (Article 1 Section 9:1) was temporary in its terms; and, as has been already noticed, the importation was forbidden as soon as the prohibition expired." - James A. Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Miscellaneous Subjects, 1833. (Parentheses mine.)It's even more significant, when one realizes the first draft of Article 1 Section 9:1 contained no time limit, rendering it indefinite and therefore a de facto prohibition on banning the slave trade. The time limit was deliberately included in a subsequent draft to allow for the eventual abolition of the slave trade.
President Thomas Jefferson, who opposed slavery, observing that the prohibition in Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution preventing a ban on the slave trade would soon expire, stated in 1806.
"I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally, to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country, have long been eager to proscribe." - Thomas Jefferson supporting a ban on slavery, Sixth Annual Message, December 2, 1806.This language in the Constitution is now a long forgotten, and constantly overlooked, conspicuous manifestation of the anti-slavery disposition of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, and their efforts to achieve its eventual abolition. As Bayard observes.
"To the honor of our country, a law was passed, which went into operation on the first day of January, 1808, prohibiting the slave-trade under severe penalties; and, by subsequent laws, it is declared to be piracy, and those engaged in it are to be punished with death. - James A. Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Limitations of The Powers of Congress, 1833.The wildly misconstrued "three fifths" clause of the Constitution is another portion of that document commonly used by leftists to advance a fallacious narrative.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." - Article 1, Section 2:3.This portion of the Constitution, which it should be noted was applicable only to slaves and not free blacks, is incessantly cited as proof the Framers were ardent slavery supporters. The complete converse is true. It was the slave owners that wanted their slaves to be considered "full" people (as opposed to property) in the population tally, despite denying them all the rights thereof, because as shown above a state's representation in congress is based on population. If slaves were considered full people, and counted in the census as such, it would have augmented the population of slave states by millions giving slave states more representation in congress, and therefore more legislative power in the federal government, than they otherwise would. So when modern leftists denounce the thee fifths clause of the Constitution, and claim slaves should have counted as five fifths of a person, they are supporting slavery.
"The slave holding States insisted on a representation strictly according to the number of inhabitants, whether they were slaves or free persons, within the State. The non slave-holding States contended for a representation according to the number of free persons only. The controversy was full of excitement, and was maintained with so much obstinacy, on each side, that the Convention was more than once on the eve of a dissolution. At length, the present system was adopted, by way of compromise. [...] The real difficulty was, as to slaves, who were included under the mild appellation of "all other persons." Three fifths of the slaves are added to the number of free persons, as the basis of the apportionment. In order to reconcile the non-slave-holding States to this arrangement, it was agreed, that direct taxes (the nature of which we shall hereafter consider) should be apportioned in the same manner as Representatives. [...] The slave holding States have, at the present time, in Congress, twenty-five Representatives more than they would have upon the basis of an enumeration of free persons only. [...] It has sometimes been complained of as a grievance, founded in a gross inequality and an unjustifiable surrender of important rights. But whatever force there may be in the suggestion, abstractly considered, it should never be forgotten that it was a necessary price paid for the Union; and if it had been refused, the Constitution never would have been recommended for the adoption of the people." - Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice appointed by James Madison, A Familiar Exposition of The Constitution of The United States, The House of Representatives,1840.
"Another difficulty arose, respecting the slaves, who form so large a portion of the inhabitants of some of the States. To compute them among the numbers represented, would be giving them an importance to which their character did not entitle them; or, rather, would be introducing a representation of property, contrary to the general tenor of the Constitution; to omit them altogether, in the computation, would be to reduce the influence of the southern States, in a manner to which they would never consent. As a medium between these, it was agreed that five slaves should be accounted as three citizens, in arranging the representation, and the apportionment computed accordingly. To counterbalance, in some degree, this direct concession to the southern states, direct taxes are to be apportioned by the same rule as representation; so that the same cause which increases their influence in the national legislature, subjects them to the necessity of making larger contributions to the national treasury." - James A. Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Of The House of Representatives, 1833.Woven into the Constitution by the Framers, in addition to the three fifths clause, is Article 1 Section 9:4. The concession made to the southern states of allowing their slaves (property) to count as three fifths of a person, for the purposes of representation and exemption from commerce regulation, is mitigated by increasing their burden of taxation in proportion. The Framers ensured they could not have their cake and eat it too.
Yet another anti-slavery instrument is the Ordinance of 1787, authored by staunch opponent of slavery Rufus King, which establishes the criteria by which territories seeking admission into the union as a state may be admitted.
"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." - Ordinance of 1787.So as we see from colonial times, to the earliest days of the Republic and beyond, the Founders were opposing slavery and seeking its abolition to the extent they were able in various ways. Through measures that sought to (and ultimately did) end the trafficking of slaves to the continent, measures that sought to contain slavery to those places it already existed and prevent it from spreading elsewhere (through the Ordinance of 1787), ultimately seeking to abolish slavery altogether through a Constitutional Amendment.
"I hope it will not be conceived from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter, in slavery. I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it—but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by Legislative authority: and this, as far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting." - George Washington, to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786.The Founders wanted slavery to be ended through peaceful means, and not through violence or war.
"The abolition of slavery must be gradual, and accomplished with much caution and circumspection. Violent means and measures would produce greater violations of justice and humanity than the continuance of the practice." - John Adams, to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley, January 24, 1801.Unfortunately the Founders did not get to see that Amendment realized in their lifetimes, though they indisputably paved the way for its reification. And Adams's warning of "greater violations of justice and humanity" would be realized in the conflict known as the "Civil War."
No comments:
Post a Comment