4 ms·

With respect, that's a pretty asinine reading of the comment. Slavery was not a founding pillar of the United States, any more than monarchy is a founding pilla

by bhupy 5y ago

With respect, that's a pretty asinine reading of the comment. Slavery was not a founding pillar of the United States, any more than monarchy is a founding pillar of the European Union just because some of its member states happen to be Constitutional monarchies. In fact, it should be quite clear from that comment that not only was slavery NOT a foundational pillar of the United States, it was the opposite of a foundational pillar since its abolition was a long-run goal, the Founders placed Federal incentives to drive its abolition, and ultimately hoped that later generations would be able to do so across the entire Union once and for all.

tshaddox 5y ago
Was monarchy essential to the socioeconomic system of the EU members? The point is not that slavery was a founding pillar simply because it existed at the time of founding.
- logifail 5y ago
  > Was monarchy essential to the socioeconomic system of the EU members? The point is not that slavery was a founding pillar simply because it existed at the time of founding Thought experiment: a state that actively uses the death penalty applies to join the EU...
- bhupy 5y ago
  Uh, yes? Monarchy is an essential component of the political systems of the Netherlands, the UK, and Denmark (to name a few). There are a variety of reasons the citizens of those countries continue to preserve that institution. The question at hand is whether it's a foundational pillar of the EU, which it's obviously not, because that's not a concept that's defined at the EU-level. Similarly, slavery as an institution had no bearing on the socioeconomic systems of the Northern States, but it was quite essential to the Southern States. All the US was (at the time) was a Union of all of those States. The concept didn't really exist at the US level, and insofar as it did exist, it was in the form of an incentive to abolish slavery. The foundational pillars of the United States were simply a Federal union of States with a bicameral legislature, a set of enumerated powers, and a set of limitations on the Federal government. That's it. Just because it did nothing to abolish slavery at its founding does not mean that slavery was itself a foundational pillar of the institution. By that logic, <insert atrocity committed by UN member country> is a foundational pillar of the United Nations. A totally unserious argument.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    > Uh, yes? My question wasn't rhetorical. I actually do not know the history. If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar. > Similarly, slavery as an institution had no bearing on the socioeconomic systems of the Northern States, but it was quite essential to the Southern States. That isn't the impression I've gotten from my admittedly non-expert reading of history, but I'm willing to be shown how I'm wrong. My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants. > By that logic, <insert atrocity committed by UN member country> is a foundational pillar of the United Nations. A totally unserious argument. No, again, it's not about the mere existence of a phenomenon. I'm not claiming that wearing a tricorne hat was a founding pillar of the United States because it was common at the time of founding. I think I've been clear about that.
    - bhupy 5y ago
      > If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar. The disagreement is that it's not accurate to call it a founding pillar even in such cases. "The founding pillar" of most unions has nothing to do with the specifics of members of that union, unless explicitly stated. And in fact, as I pointed out above, the Framers added systems to incentivize its abolition, so not only is it inaccurate to argue that slavery was a foundational pillar, it's arguably the opposite. We actually have a rich set of literature outlining what the so called "founding pillars" were, and they were the Federalist Papers. The outlined "founding pillars" were (in no particular order): federalism, bicameralism, minority rights, republicanism, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants. There was certainly trade between Southern and Northern States, but the North was overwhelmingly industrialized, whereas the South was an agrarian slave-driven economy. When the Civil War ended, the North continued to prosper, while the South's economy was decimated; in fact when slavery was abolished, the GDP of the US increased(https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html). And although you're correct that Pennsylvania didn't abolish slavery until 1780, the US Constitution wasn't drafted until 1787; until then the States were governed by the Articles of Confederation. By 1787, every single Northern State except New Jersey (1806) had abolished slavery. And FYI, abolition meant freeing existing slaves, not just banning the importation. By 1806, all former slaves in the Northern states were free.
bigbillheck 5y ago
'Foundational' or not, it was certainly load-bearing as its attempted (and incomplete) removal almost brought the whole thing down.

by bhupy 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

Was monarchy essential to the socioeconomic system of the EU members? The point is not that slavery was a founding pillar simply because it existed at the time of founding.

logifail 5y ago
> Was monarchy essential to the socioeconomic system of the EU members? The point is not that slavery was a founding pillar simply because it existed at the time of founding Thought experiment: a state that actively uses the death penalty applies to join the EU...
bhupy 5y ago
Uh, yes? Monarchy is an essential component of the political systems of the Netherlands, the UK, and Denmark (to name a few). There are a variety of reasons the citizens of those countries continue to preserve that institution. The question at hand is whether it's a foundational pillar of the EU, which it's obviously not, because that's not a concept that's defined at the EU-level. Similarly, slavery as an institution had no bearing on the socioeconomic systems of the Northern States, but it was quite essential to the Southern States. All the US was (at the time) was a Union of all of those States. The concept didn't really exist at the US level, and insofar as it did exist, it was in the form of an incentive to abolish slavery. The foundational pillars of the United States were simply a Federal union of States with a bicameral legislature, a set of enumerated powers, and a set of limitations on the Federal government. That's it. Just because it did nothing to abolish slavery at its founding does not mean that slavery was itself a foundational pillar of the institution. By that logic, <insert atrocity committed by UN member country> is a foundational pillar of the United Nations. A totally unserious argument.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > Uh, yes? My question wasn't rhetorical. I actually do not know the history. If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar. > Similarly, slavery as an institution had no bearing on the socioeconomic systems of the Northern States, but it was quite essential to the Southern States. That isn't the impression I've gotten from my admittedly non-expert reading of history, but I'm willing to be shown how I'm wrong. My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants. > By that logic, <insert atrocity committed by UN member country> is a foundational pillar of the United Nations. A totally unserious argument. No, again, it's not about the mere existence of a phenomenon. I'm not claiming that wearing a tricorne hat was a founding pillar of the United States because it was common at the time of founding. I think I've been clear about that.
  - bhupy 5y ago
    > If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar. The disagreement is that it's not accurate to call it a founding pillar even in such cases. "The founding pillar" of most unions has nothing to do with the specifics of members of that union, unless explicitly stated. And in fact, as I pointed out above, the Framers added systems to incentivize its abolition, so not only is it inaccurate to argue that slavery was a foundational pillar, it's arguably the opposite. We actually have a rich set of literature outlining what the so called "founding pillars" were, and they were the Federalist Papers. The outlined "founding pillars" were (in no particular order): federalism, bicameralism, minority rights, republicanism, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants. There was certainly trade between Southern and Northern States, but the North was overwhelmingly industrialized, whereas the South was an agrarian slave-driven economy. When the Civil War ended, the North continued to prosper, while the South's economy was decimated; in fact when slavery was abolished, the GDP of the US increased(https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html). And although you're correct that Pennsylvania didn't abolish slavery until 1780, the US Constitution wasn't drafted until 1787; until then the States were governed by the Articles of Confederation. By 1787, every single Northern State except New Jersey (1806) had abolished slavery. And FYI, abolition meant freeing existing slaves, not just banning the importation. By 1806, all former slaves in the Northern states were free.

bigbillheck 5y ago

'Foundational' or not, it was certainly load-bearing as its attempted (and incomplete) removal almost brought the whole thing down.