9 ms·

Pretty much every Founder thought that slavery was a huge political shit-sandwich that made Federalization difficult, and they all hoped that the Federal system

by bhupy 5y ago

Pretty much every Founder thought that slavery was a huge political shit-sandwich that made Federalization difficult, and they all hoped that the Federal system would sow the seeds for its eventual abolition. The infamous Cornerstone Speech was an interesting view into the Founders' perspective. It was the speech given by the Vice President of the unrecognized Confederate States of America, describing the Confederate view of the Founders' philosophy: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1861stephens.asp https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1861stephens.asp > ...the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him 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. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

tptacek 5y ago
This seems like tea-leaf-reading. Neither Jefferson nor Monroe freed a significant number of their slaves --- they owned many --- even from their death beds.
- bhupy 5y ago
  I mean, it's as straightforward a characterization of Jefferson's views as it gets, and from contemporaries. I don't know about Monroe, but Jefferson was unable to free his slaves because he was deeply in debt (https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2015/07/the-debt-and-death-of-thomas-jefferson-2/ https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2015/07/the-debt-and-dea...). He was land (and slave) rich, but cash poor, and had he freed his slaves, his estate would have remained in debt. Jefferson also outlawed the international slave trade, which isn't really something one would be inclined to do if they didn't feel that slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished. Jefferson could have freed his slaves and left his estate in an irrecoverable debt for the greater cause of abolishing slavery, and at best you could argue that his unwillingness to do that constitutes some form of hypocrisy. That said, it's not at all obvious that his unwillingness to do that suggests that he _wasn't_ opposed to the institution of slavery itself, any more than a socialist/communist today that uses an iPhone is inherently a hypocrite.
  - syki 5y ago
    So for the financial stability of his estate he kept people in bondage and yet believed that this said bondage was evil. You don't consider that a massive hypocrisy? It is extremely hypocritical especially in light of his views on usufruct.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Yeah, I mean, say what you will about the moral character of the founding documents (I think they did a pretty good job for the time, minus the slavery clauses), the question of the founders integrity isn't much in doubt! They were rank hypocrites.
      - bhupy 5y ago
        > minus the slavery clauses Which slavery clauses? In fact, the only clauses in the US Constitution that addressed slavery in any form (the Three-Fifths Compromise) were actually incentives to abolish slavery. > They were rank hypocrites Sure, I think the crux of the debate is whether or not that hypocrisy is one that can be overlooked given the context of the time, and all other deeds/actions. We're so far removed from the institution of slavery today that the tradeoff of riddling your descendants with debt by freeing slaves seems absurd (and it obviously is, in 2022), but back then it was likely a far more nuanced tradeoff. That's not to say that it's excusable — some of the Founders would have disagreed with where Jefferson ultimately came out on that trade-off — but just that it would have been far more debatable back then than it is today. My analogy with the modern anti-capitalist that chooses to be a shareholder in corporations out of necessity to participate in today's society is an attempt to draw a comparison with an institution that is seen as less clear cut by _today's_ moral standards.
jimmyvalmer 5y ago
Pretty much every Founder thought that slavery was a huge political shit-sandwich Who knows what they thought? Chernow was lambasted by historians for embellishing Hamilton's story by making him out to be a hater of slavery. Written history is no different than any other literary endeavor. To get readers, you need to tell a feel-good story. My cynicism about human nature notwithstanding (as someone who doesn't like confrontation, I'm pretty sure I'd be on the wrong side of history more often than not), the book-pushing reason alone is enough to doubt cherry-tree-chopping, log-cabin-building portrayals of our marquee statesmen.
- bhupy 5y ago
  But the big difference is that, unlike Chernow, many (if not all) Confederates were contemporaries of the Founders, including Jefferson. It would be like modern historians today trying to work out Reagan's political positions. And the Cornerstone Speech is really just the most on-the-nose characterization of Jefferson's views, but our understanding of his views is the product of analysis of a variety of his own writings and actions (including, famously, the outlawing of the international slave trade): https://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/historylabs/Where_Did_Thomas_Jefferson_Stand_on_the_Issue_of_Slavery.PrinterFriendly.pdf https://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/historylabs/Where_Di... And finally, _even if_ one were to concede that Jefferson was somehow a dishonest broker and was secretly an apologist for slavery, it has very little bearing as to the merits of the values enshrined in the US Constitution. That some of the Founders happened to own slaves doesn't render the principles of the freedom of speech invalid. That some of the Founders happened to own slaves doesn't render the principles of a restrained government with checks and balances invalid.
  - jimmyvalmer 5y ago
    And I'll assume you also believe LBJ didn't harbor a racist thought when he passed landmark civil rights legislation as a senator and as president. We don't believe our politicians' words match their thoughts even when televised live. Why should we then take them at their word from crumbling parchment dating back hundreds of years? Well, at least we can agree that their innermost thoughts are largely besides the point of what the Constitution actually says.

by bhupy 5y ago

tptacek 5y ago

This seems like tea-leaf-reading. Neither Jefferson nor Monroe freed a significant number of their slaves --- they owned many --- even from their death beds.

bhupy 5y ago
I mean, it's as straightforward a characterization of Jefferson's views as it gets, and from contemporaries. I don't know about Monroe, but Jefferson was unable to free his slaves because he was deeply in debt (https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2015/07/the-debt-and-death-of-thomas-jefferson-2/ https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2015/07/the-debt-and-dea...). He was land (and slave) rich, but cash poor, and had he freed his slaves, his estate would have remained in debt. Jefferson also outlawed the international slave trade, which isn't really something one would be inclined to do if they didn't feel that slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished. Jefferson could have freed his slaves and left his estate in an irrecoverable debt for the greater cause of abolishing slavery, and at best you could argue that his unwillingness to do that constitutes some form of hypocrisy. That said, it's not at all obvious that his unwillingness to do that suggests that he _wasn't_ opposed to the institution of slavery itself, any more than a socialist/communist today that uses an iPhone is inherently a hypocrite.
- syki 5y ago
  So for the financial stability of his estate he kept people in bondage and yet believed that this said bondage was evil. You don't consider that a massive hypocrisy? It is extremely hypocritical especially in light of his views on usufruct.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Yeah, I mean, say what you will about the moral character of the founding documents (I think they did a pretty good job for the time, minus the slavery clauses), the question of the founders integrity isn't much in doubt! They were rank hypocrites.
    - bhupy 5y ago
      > minus the slavery clauses Which slavery clauses? In fact, the only clauses in the US Constitution that addressed slavery in any form (the Three-Fifths Compromise) were actually incentives to abolish slavery. > They were rank hypocrites Sure, I think the crux of the debate is whether or not that hypocrisy is one that can be overlooked given the context of the time, and all other deeds/actions. We're so far removed from the institution of slavery today that the tradeoff of riddling your descendants with debt by freeing slaves seems absurd (and it obviously is, in 2022), but back then it was likely a far more nuanced tradeoff. That's not to say that it's excusable — some of the Founders would have disagreed with where Jefferson ultimately came out on that trade-off — but just that it would have been far more debatable back then than it is today. My analogy with the modern anti-capitalist that chooses to be a shareholder in corporations out of necessity to participate in today's society is an attempt to draw a comparison with an institution that is seen as less clear cut by _today's_ moral standards.

jimmyvalmer 5y ago

Pretty much every Founder thought that slavery was a huge political shit-sandwich Who knows what they thought? Chernow was lambasted by historians for embellishing Hamilton's story by making him out to be a hater of slavery. Written history is no different than any other literary endeavor. To get readers, you need to tell a feel-good story. My cynicism about human nature notwithstanding (as someone who doesn't like confrontation, I'm pretty sure I'd be on the wrong side of history more often than not), the book-pushing reason alone is enough to doubt cherry-tree-chopping, log-cabin-building portrayals of our marquee statesmen.

bhupy 5y ago
But the big difference is that, unlike Chernow, many (if not all) Confederates were contemporaries of the Founders, including Jefferson. It would be like modern historians today trying to work out Reagan's political positions. And the Cornerstone Speech is really just the most on-the-nose characterization of Jefferson's views, but our understanding of his views is the product of analysis of a variety of his own writings and actions (including, famously, the outlawing of the international slave trade): https://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/historylabs/Where_Did_Thomas_Jefferson_Stand_on_the_Issue_of_Slavery.PrinterFriendly.pdf https://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/historylabs/Where_Di... And finally, _even if_ one were to concede that Jefferson was somehow a dishonest broker and was secretly an apologist for slavery, it has very little bearing as to the merits of the values enshrined in the US Constitution. That some of the Founders happened to own slaves doesn't render the principles of the freedom of speech invalid. That some of the Founders happened to own slaves doesn't render the principles of a restrained government with checks and balances invalid.
- jimmyvalmer 5y ago
  And I'll assume you also believe LBJ didn't harbor a racist thought when he passed landmark civil rights legislation as a senator and as president. We don't believe our politicians' words match their thoughts even when televised live. Why should we then take them at their word from crumbling parchment dating back hundreds of years? Well, at least we can agree that their innermost thoughts are largely besides the point of what the Constitution actually says.