As a card carrying member of the left, I am embarrassed by leftists who fail to acknowledge historical context and make palatably false claims about American History. IIRC someone associated co with the 1492 projected claimed that the American Revolution was fought to defend Slavery. er I remember in college friends who claimed Abraham Lincoln owned slaves. In general there seems to sometimes be a confusion between (1) recognizing the significance of African Americans in the fight for abolition I(GOOD!) And minimizing the role some white people played in the fight against slavery(BAD) I get the need to avoid falling into the “white savior” trap, but the solution to this is an accurate nuanced account of the historical situation, not an account biased the other way.
Slavery was legal in the colonies and, later, the original states because it was legal throughout the British Empire. In Britain itself slavery was banned from 1772 on because of the Somerset vs. Stewart decision in 1772. But you know, us Merchant class brits just can’t do without the oh so profitable slave trade, not to mention the wealth provided by the sugar plantations that fed the West’s growing sweet tooth. The Slave Trade was abolished in the Empire in 1807 (for US, 1808.) If anyone asks me “is there anything worse than working as a slave in the American South? I’d say YES, being a person kidnapped and stuck on on a slave ship—the accounts of these voyages are incredibly horrifying, (packed like sardines, literally. Quick google search reveals 12.5 million transported, 1.8 million died in transit.
Not only is it false that the Revolution was fought to defend slavery, the revolutionary generation saw a slew of very active and successful efforts at emancipation. Remember slavery was legal in all the states in 1776. It was abolished in Massachusetts about a third would die enroute (The time scale of abolition in the North also provides evidence, if it be needed, for the connection between slavery and simple economics. In New England, slavery was not a big deal, so those states committed to abolition early (Massachusetts in 1783) On the other hand New York and New Jersey were later, adopting gradual abolitionist, in 1799 and 1804, respectively. “Gradual “ because, unfortunately for the actual slaves alive at the time, they only freed those Born after a certain date (probably the date the law was enacted, maybe a little later. William Seward’s father was a wealthy landowner and slave owner in New York and he recalled his childhood playing with slave children, which might account for his very much enlightened anti-slavery views, until he got old and cranky and aided and abetted the very bad President, Andrew Johnson, foe of reconstruction, enemy of both slave holders and black people generally.
The time scale generally mirrored the economic significance of slavery in each respective state with two key exceptions. Slavery was economically significant in Pennsylvania and yet they were the first to adopt gradual abolition in 1780. Slavery had negligible importance Delaware and yet, perversely never did anything on its own to oppose slavery even during the Civil War. Not everything reduces to economics, moral beliefs and stupid prejudice also played an important role.
If we approach the founders using contemporary moral standards, they fall quite short. women and, except in New England, free black people, were denied the franchise. In the early year of the Republic white men had to meet various different property qualifications in order to vote. This was not as repressive a policy as it was in Britain b/c of the great number of small farmers, but still exhibits the aforementioned private property fetish. Perhaps Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were the most progressive of the bunch, but as of this writing i am ignorant of their specific views on the franchise (Franklin was a founder of the PA Anti-Slavery Society and, yes, when he was younger he owned slaves! We are all raised in a particular culture with particular values, it is a sign of greatness to be able to rise about it.
But what we forget in our sanctimonious judgment is the glaringly obvious fact that in the late 1700s Monarchy, even absolute Monarchy, was still a thing in Europe. Aristocrats did not just play debating society in the British house of lords, they had real power. Social customs we find absurd such as the idea that one can inherit rank or priviledge (not by having rich parents, but just because you are son or daughter of a duke earl count or royal ass wiper (a real position—though maybe not inheritable)
Britain was by far the most “democratic” of the major European states, and about 5% of men had the right to vote. In the US property qualifcations were ended relatively early, in Britain they were not totally removed until late 19th/early 20th century (fascinating history of reform in 19th century britain, but again I digress.
Lots of interesting stuff in the article I linked too. I’m tempted to go and discuss the nuances of anti-slavery politics prior to the civil war.. Maybe i’ll do that in another diary.
Okay, Now come at me with thoughtful criticisms and comments!
