4 ms·

You can see slavery as an institution that the nation inherited in conflict with the Enlightenment values and the conflict between slave states and free ones go

You can see slavery as an institution that the nation inherited in conflict with the Enlightenment values and the conflict between slave states and free ones goes back to the founding. Certainly, to some extent, unity with slavers was needed to gain independence, and the stage was set for the civil war almost immediately It's a story of progress: yes, white men liberated themselves first, but progress continued and the slaves were next, and then women. These things don't happen overnight. Just because America didn't live up immediately to her founding ideals doesn't mean that they didn't exist or that she never will Denying the role of the civil war in our history is extremely frustrating to me as a descendant of a Union soldier. What did he give his arm and his brother for?

jollybean 5y ago
"Certainly, to some extent, unity with slavers was needed to gain independence," No - this is note true. America was not founded on a special 'Faustian bargain' with the slavers in order to obtain independence. The Founding Fathers of America themselves - the originators of the 'Constitutional Values' - were slave owners. There is an unambiguous dissonance between the 'Constitutional Values' and 'Actual Values'. While the new 'Constitutional Values' were a nice intellectual foundation, they were secondary to the real power dynamic: that the American Colonial Nobility / Landed Gentry didn't want to take orders or pay taxes to the Empire, even though they benefited from it for the most part i.e. Royal Navy facilitating commerce, and geopolitical protection from Spain/France. First you have a Landed Gentry who wanted 'most of the power', Second, you have a 'Populist Narrative' of the 'Evil King George' (who really was not evil, frankly) - which is necessary to rally the plebes so that they fight to the death for something which may not really improve their lot. Thirdly, this is supported by 'Constitutional Values' but that's just part of the equation. More obviously - how do these 'Constitutional Values' line up with the fact that slavery was abolished in the supposedly 'Unenlightened, Evil Empire' long, long before it was in the US? Among other things. There was effectively no slavery in Canada or Australia. How would you tell a Canadian that the 'American Constitution' is an effective tool of 'Enlightenment Values' when Americans are the last one's to get the message? Everyone in Canada and Australia has better personal safety, they face much less crime, have a much more consistent and fair judicial system, they even have healthcare. They didn't have a revolution, or some special document. One can only wonder if the 'Revolution' were to have happened in the Canadian colonies, while the US remained part of the Commonwealth what history would look like, but I suggest not hugely different. 'What America Is' (or anywhere else) isn't really well explained by the intellectual narrative that it decided to tell itself and it's people. That's a narrative not a reality. They are related, but not the same thing.

jollybean 5y ago

"Certainly, to some extent, unity with slavers was needed to gain independence," No - this is note true. America was not founded on a special 'Faustian bargain' with the slavers in order to obtain independence. The Founding Fathers of America themselves - the originators of the 'Constitutional Values' - were slave owners. There is an unambiguous dissonance between the 'Constitutional Values' and 'Actual Values'. While the new 'Constitutional Values' were a nice intellectual foundation, they were secondary to the real power dynamic: that the American Colonial Nobility / Landed Gentry didn't want to take orders or pay taxes to the Empire, even though they benefited from it for the most part i.e. Royal Navy facilitating commerce, and geopolitical protection from Spain/France. First you have a Landed Gentry who wanted 'most of the power', Second, you have a 'Populist Narrative' of the 'Evil King George' (who really was not evil, frankly) - which is necessary to rally the plebes so that they fight to the death for something which may not really improve their lot. Thirdly, this is supported by 'Constitutional Values' but that's just part of the equation. More obviously - how do these 'Constitutional Values' line up with the fact that slavery was abolished in the supposedly 'Unenlightened, Evil Empire' long, long before it was in the US? Among other things. There was effectively no slavery in Canada or Australia. How would you tell a Canadian that the 'American Constitution' is an effective tool of 'Enlightenment Values' when Americans are the last one's to get the message? Everyone in Canada and Australia has better personal safety, they face much less crime, have a much more consistent and fair judicial system, they even have healthcare. They didn't have a revolution, or some special document. One can only wonder if the 'Revolution' were to have happened in the Canadian colonies, while the US remained part of the Commonwealth what history would look like, but I suggest not hugely different. 'What America Is' (or anywhere else) isn't really well explained by the intellectual narrative that it decided to tell itself and it's people. That's a narrative not a reality. They are related, but not the same thing.