Slavery: America’s “Original Sin”?
David Dixon’s recent post The Door of No Return is a heart-rending glimpse at the African slave trade. As he states, historians striving for a balanced rendition of the nation’s past must objectively account for its horrors and injustices, especially those relevant to persistent, vexing problems of the present. In that, the post provides a valuable service.
I would like to expand on this theme while offering counterpoints to some conclusions concerning why it is a difficult task. David decries a widespread lack of empathy in the American people reflected in their Lost Causeism and unwillingness to face unpleasant realities. He cites as evidence the current political climate. I believe that the evidence is misread and the conclusion unwarranted; the negative climate is an issue, but not for the reasons noted.
The past few decades have witnessed widespread repudiation of Lost Cause historiography along with the rightful elevation of slavery as prime cause of the Civil War. A plethora of academic and public works have appeared correcting misinterpretations and filling historical gaps, including on this platform. The segment of the population still resisting the trend is, I submit, a shrinking fringe.
Perhaps the problem lies not in antipathy or Lost Cause nostalgia, but in several persistent themes plaguing our public discourse regarding the peculiar institution. They can be described as “original sin,” “collective sin,” inherited sin,” and “systemic sin”—concepts that do not withstand rational or historic scrutiny.
We often hear slavery characterized as “America’s original sin,” implying that through some immutable defect, our society bears singular responsibility for its existence. But manual labor servitude existed always and everywhere in many guises, as discussed in the post, and still does.
Reliance on manual labor with its social and civil enforcement structures dominated over ten millennia. This was how the species survived and expanded in a tribal, highly stratified, agricultural, pre-industrial world. Those governing institutions have been superseded only in the past few centuries facilitated by scientific and technological revolutions.
Slavery was nothing new in 1619, neither among recent arrivals to these shores nor among the natives; its existence in 1776 is not surprising. Although the legal framework in the United States possessed unique characteristics, the notion is as old as civilization. A problem that ancient is inherently difficult to resolve. For most of history, it was considered natural. Maybe slavery is mankind’s original sin, but it certainly is not America’s.
The fundamental concept of sin is central to the Judeo-Christian heritage that animated the founders and this society from the beginning. It is, however, by definition individual, not collective, and is instantiated in words and deeds of the moment not inherited. Those who committed the offenses of chattel slavery are beyond judgment, and those who suffered from them are beyond renumeration.
Before blaming our modern collective, one must specify the universe of blameworthy persons in this society, providing definable correlations between macro and micro classifications. Who is guilty now? How is membership in the responsible collective of today to be determined and held accountable? Is it every individual citizen alive of a certain skin color with traceable ancestry to enslavers?
But skin tone is an infinite spectrum (not including the extremes used as color labels), while ancestry is indivisibly mingled and largely indeterminate. Or is every American taxpayer today judged liable regardless of color or ancestry? These notions are meaningless. Assumptions of wickedness based on presumed collective behavior, intermingled and indeterminate ancestry, or immutable or subjective characteristics are never justified.
No American alive today bears responsibility for chattel slavery, and no American alive today is due recompense. To advocate otherwise by applying malicious color labels is simply a reversal of — and as unjust as — the original transgression.
That leaves “systemic sin,” the notion that evils underlying slavery were cemented into the foundation of the nation and are intrinsic to its structure. Promoters of this insidious idea are propagandists, not historians. Structures do not sin; people do.
The founders created the first society in history based on a recorded and popularly endorsed principle rather than on geography, ethnicity, religion, or force. “We hold these truths to be self-evident….” They meant every word while being painfully aware of the contradictions between principle and reality. Principles are by nature never fully realized, but without them, it is impossible to shape reality in a positive direction.
In the midst of an existential struggle, the founders agonized over but couldn’t resolve the ancient paradox of slavery, so they did the next best thing: They deliberately set conditions for its extinction in the Declaration and implemented them in the Constitution, as Abraham Lincoln also argued. Although the process took longer and was much bloodier than they anticipated, two generations is a blink of historical time.
Who ended chattel slavery in America? Americans did — both those here by choice and those not — and at tremendous sacrifice. Why? Because it was wrong; it violated the central principle of the national charters, without which the battle lacked legal justification. All citizens are equal under law. This amazing accomplishment is to be celebrated, not damned because it did not happen instantaneously in 1789.
That is not to say that we are not all sinners or that the foibles of human nature do not persist. Prejudice and ignorance can be passed to future generations, but if conscientiously confronted, they might not. To maintain that conditions are fundamentally unchanged since 1776 (or 1619) is to deny immense sacrifices of blood and treasure through war, protest, and heroic struggle. It is ahistorical.
Along with these horrors of history, unsung heroes are being more prominently chronicled in post-Lost Cause historiography. Enslaved men and women who escaped their condition or mitigated its burdens through persistence and courage are taking their rightful place. Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman are prominent examples, but countless individuals, often unknown, committed countless acts of resistance to loosen their shackles while maintaining dignity and family.
One of my favorites is Robert Smalls, whose learned capabilities as a coastal pilot enabled him to courageously steal a Confederate gunboat and carry himself, family, and friends to freedom. (The U.S. Navy recently named a warship for him.) This is why Florida’s Standard in Social Studies specifies instruction in topics such as, “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied to their personal benefit.” Suppressing knowledge of their heroism denies agency to them and denies their example to ethnic descendants.
As David notes, comprehensive understanding of past problems illuminates the present and helps guide the future; slavery infected the entire nation. Many Northerners utilized merchandise and products originating in bonded labor or obtained through multi-layered commercial transactions with the Southern economy. Furthermore, some Northerners profited directly through indifference and greed from slavery-derived transactions and from illegal trade in human beings.
Most citizens of Northern states, however, lived their lives with no direct involvement, producing through individual efforts prosperity, wealth, and progress; their possession of slavery-derived goods was largely subconscious. The horrors of Deep South fields were faraway below the awareness of daily pursuits in a primarily rural nation.
The apparent apathy to horrors down South could be attributed to ignorance — which was being combated by abolitionists facilitated by the rapid growth of newspapers and other publications, especially Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Even back-country Southerners subsisted without, and perhaps in opposition to, the institution.
The economy of the South also possessed a great deal of the nation’s wealth, but this was in land and human beings. It was static, on paper, dependent on Yankee finance, employed only to maintain a dead-end social status quo. The region had sustained itself on intergenerational forced labor while the nation overall was dynamically prospering on the capitalist entrepreneurial spirit and inventiveness of hard-working Northerners, characteristics that also won the war.
Historic parallels today are inescapable with moral and constitutional imperatives unchanged. Vast numbers of Americans benefit constantly from products whose material, components, and/or manufacture originated with enslaved and exploited labor in faraway places. Their apathy also is driven largely by ignorance — even with global information technology — and by lack of alternatives to perceived necessities.
Furthermore, significant segments of the current economy — again through indifference and greed — exploit low-cost labor of non-citizens at the expense of citizens. They acquiesce in or actively promote comprehensive efforts to subvert immigration laws. Human trafficking amounting to wage and sex slavery abounds along with drug trafficking.
The nation is backsliding on hard-won civil-rights advances of the last two centuries. The inalienable rights of the Declaration — including of life itself — are devalued today in ways our ancestors would not have accepted. We must combat these continuing contradictions as resolutely as they did theirs.
David also points out that words matter, particularly for those who attempt to record and explain history. Substituting the terms “enslaved” or “enslaved persons” for “slave,” for example, is an expanding and welcome practice that reinforces their humanity and helps unite the people.
Contrarily, the ubiquitous language of identity labels only drives us apart and sets us against each other. Such terms are tools of the demagogue, manipulators of the ignorant, and antithetical to our national character. Collective guilt and perpetual victimhood were primary weapons of bloody totalitarianisms in the last century.
Too much of our public discourse engages these perverse ideologies, replacing subjective categories of ethnicity or class with immutable characteristics, undefinable color labels, and fluid characterizations of intimate behavior. Such emotionalist arguments purposely invoke fear, anger, envy, hate, and greed in the service of power while subverting reason, logic, and truth. I submit that this is more of a problem than apathy.
Human nature being constant, Americans are no better or worse as individuals than people everywhere in every age. This collective is exceptional, however, in shared civic institutions hard won through centuries of strife and maintained on a standard that has rendered the society more diverse, equal, and inclusive than any in history. This standard — grounded in individual rights, not in collective guilt or perpetual victimhood — empowers life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As historians, we strive to confront the continuing contradictions between our ideals of liberty and equality against the reality of human nature by objectively describing both horrors and heroes. The United States is not perfect, but that does not mean it is not good. Or great. Our institutions represent original, collective, inherited, and systemic virtues, not sins. They must be taught to our children and celebrated as such, or they will be lost along with the freedoms they protect.
I applaud you for this great article. It should be required reading in every history class. So sad that writing and publishing a thoughtful and factual article such as this must be considered a brave act, but there we are.
Thank you, Stephen!
The phrase “America’s Original Sin” doesn’t mean that slavery originated in North America or the US, or is unique to North America or the US. It means that our country, the United States, tolerated, promoted, expanded, exploited, protected, profited from, human bondage. And these profits and exploitation are key factors in the early development of this country. And this country, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, developed a pernicious ideology of white supremacy to justify millions of slaves, an ideology that endured past the end of slavery into our lifetimes.
That is the problem with collective guilt. “Our country” did not “tolerate, promote, expand, exploit, protect, profit.” Specific American citizens did. Many other American citizens did not. Many others actively opposed. A whole lot of them fought against precisely because that proposition had been established and approved by the people as the central principle of our country.
Slavery was a system, backed by law and armed force. The Mexican War, the Trail of Tears, these weren’t acts of individuals, acting individually. Its like saying Germany didn’t commit the Holocaust, individuals did.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, passed and enforced by elected officials representing the will of the people. So yes, slavery, etc. was backed by law and armed force because that initially was the will of most of the people as understood by their representees. Until, that is, a new majority rose up and decided that should no longer be the case because it violated the national charter and was wrong. They changed the laws. The “system” is not to blame and is not systemically corrupt. Representative democracy worked and needs to keep working.
I agree with Stephen, a great, factual and straight-forward article without ‘an agenda’. It should be read by every American and incorporated into high school & college history classes.
The author writes that slavery was “static” and employed only to support a social “dead end.” That does not characterize slavery in the antebellum era, where it was constantly adapting, growing, increasing its territory, reaping profits, taking advantage of new technology, promoting conquests of foreign lands, demanding the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, smashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights whenever they conflicted with slavery. Slavery owners finally attempted to tear apart the United States itself.
You’re correct that slavery expanded in territory, that is until a whole bunch of Americans stopped it, shedding a great deal of blood in the process. The only new technology I am aware of is the cotton gin, which was hardly new by 1861.
“The River of Dark Dreams” explores the use of steam powered riverboats and the influence of railroads on slavery. Not to mention, replacing free labor with enslaved labor in factories like the Tregedar Iron Works in Richmond. We associate slavery with cotton, but its was adaptable.
Free labor did a much better job of exploiting industrial technology and winning the war. Slave labor was never very successful.
“Free labor did a much better job of exploiting industrial technology and winning the war. Slave labor was never very successful.”
It was, in fact, so successful that it continued through the 20th century in prison camps. Read “Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War Until World War II”.
Being used in a prison camp is not an indication of success.
“Being used in a prison camp is not an indication of success.”
Then why was it done? Why were black people arrested on false charges, sentenced with fines, fines bought by capitalists, and then put to work for capitalist pursuits? How were these same capitalists able to become very wealthy through this peonage system? Coca Cola was initially funded through this peonage – what does success look like to you?
And hand and hand with American slavery, is American white supremacy. And after the bloodsoaked end of slavery, the long decades of Jim Crow, redlining, and all the other practices and beliefs of a society where white supremacy is so hardbaked, people can’t understand that they get to ride in the front of the bus. De jure racial segregation extended into our lifetimes, in our country, the one we have the power to shape and change. It doesn’t mean no one in history has never done a bad thing. But it doesn’t excuse the bad things we have been doing, or excuse us from trying to make a fairer, and more just society.
Precisely. And de jure segregation ended in my lifetime after heroic struggle because most Americans opposed it as antithetical to the national character. Unfortunately, some are trying to bring it back. The pernicious notion of superiority over some “other” however defined is “hardbaked” into human nature, hardly unique to our country, which has done more to combat it than any in history.
Whether its inherent in human nature, well I’m always skeptical about that kind of thing. I think that its a little complacent to think that someone else did all the hard work, and we can bask in their reflected glory, and lift nary a finger.
“Free labor did a much better job of exploiting industrial technology and winning the war. Slave labor was never very successful.”
The factories were mostly in the free states. But factory owners in the slave states often found enslaved laborers preferable to free laborers.
The opposition to slavery, whether in the antebellum US, or now, isn’t its economic inefficiency, but that its wrong.
Right on again, Matt. That’s why we engage in these discussions. We are lifting fingers. We celebrate the hard work of those who went before and try our best to build on it.
The murders of our Native Americans was and remains our original sin and shameful history. America had never been great!!!
Hi Joe: Thanks for the comment. The tragic interaction between Europeans and Native Americans was, like slavery, emblematic of cultural clashes throughout history as humanity grew, spread, and competed. Again like slavery, it is human sin of a time and place, not somehow unique or systemic to this nation. Like slavery, and Jim Crow, etc., Americans have strived to overcome that prejudice and to account for it. That is truly unique and thanks to the founding.
And like slavery it predated the existence of the United States.
There are so many things to unpack here. I will highlight only one. Rather than the religious concept of sin, rather look at the legal concept of damage. Denial of rights damaged people of African-American descent long after 1865. Legally it persisted for another 100 years and unofficially until today. For proof simply look at the wealth, education, health, incarceration, etc, disparities between African-Americans and the remainder of the population. There are only 2 possible explanations – first, African-Americans are inherently inferior or second, the system is rigged. Yes some individual African-Americans have overcome the system but demographics don’t lie.
Kevin: You’re right that the issue is denial of rights, which in my mind is a sin. I discussed that concept as it is applied in public discourse as a political weapon without justification. However, I have to strongly disagree with your premise of only two explanations for statistical disparities. I believe most Americans wholly reject both your options. Obsession with a “rigged system” also is a political weapon that only distracts from highly complex and difficult social pathologies, a primary one being degradation of the family and other community support structures. We should work on those problems, not blame “the system.”
I formerly held this belief but now no longer accept it. The African -American family structure – as well as the church and other societal support groups – was extremely strong through mid-century. Since then family structures have changed for all ethnic groups. Divorce rates, single parent families are rising everywhere. Other cultures- see Europe – exhibit these trends but without distinct disparities in societal success. Family structure change is more attributable to opening of equal opportunity to women. I have yet to find any explanation for African-American underachievement other than long-term denial of rights. I am always glad to hear alternative suggestions.
I think a good case can be made that degradation of family structure beginning in the ’60s is largely the effect of well-meaning but fundamentally destructive welfare state and social policies, which primarily affected the urban poor they were intended to help. Expanded opportunity for women is a good thing and doesn’t explain that. Those shouting loudest about systemic prejudice today point to (often questionable) statistical disparities and just proclaim the cause, blaming it on political opponents while ignoring all other factors.
Thoughtful, mature, intelligent…unlike most of the juvenile discourse that characterizes our contemporary political commentary. Dwight, you spoke to our round table on the CSS Shenandoah, via Zoom, back in the dark days of the COVID phenomenon. We need to get you down here in person one of these days.
I would be delighted, Bill. Keep in touch.
Well written and well reasoned. Thank you for contributing such a fine article. In addition to your article, I also appreciate your dialog with the “yeah, but …” crowd. Your comments are respectful, informative and clearly focus on the topic. Well done.
Thank you, Victor!
This is the best post I have ever read on ECW. And, as a strident supporter of ECW, I respectfully submit it is not the forum for pushing divisive, neo-Marxist Modern Left identity politics. There are more than enough forums for that already. If that becomes a recurring theme here, I will respectfully bid you farewell. I am not and never have been a Lost Causer. I understand the driving force behind the Cotton States’ secession which set off this national calamity–which brought about the end of the institution they were trying to protect in the United States. But that does not require me to subject myself to the propaganda of The Frankfurt School, Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, Ibram Henry Rogers (“Ibram X. Kendi” for more “radical chic” cache ), Nikole Hannah-Jones or any other neo-Marxist race-baiters. I seriously doubt many ECW supporters come here for such crap.
When this is a fan of your work you’ve got a big red flag staring you in the face.
Thanks Glen. I agree.
I respectfully disagree, I think the take that America is “back sliding” on civil rights…that can NOT be further from the truth. This nation has more civil rights in 2024 than ever before. That is away over blown by modern day political voices.
Hello Dwight and thanks for your thoughtful reply to my post in your post. I think it is essential to explore different points of view on topics like slavery that remain relevant today. Rather than engage in a protracted debate on our collective responsibility as a nation for perpetuating that horrible institution, I think I will respond briefly to a few of your statements from my point of view.
Although Lost Cause mythology has been thoroughly debunked and slavery as the cause of secession and subsequent civil war overwhelmingly validated by eminent historians, I believe the segment of the general population resisting modern scholarship (or more likely denying it without reading it) is a growing, not a declining fringe, and is corrosive to seeking truths about our history.
Crediting slavery for our species’ survival is a position I urge you to give more thought to. That could be interpreted in ways you do not intend as someone who despises the practice as you do. I strongly object to the tired”men of their times defense” of white supremacy and slavery. Jefferson, for example, knew it was wrong and was conflicted in so many ways and we cannot give him our nation a pass because it was a widely accepted custom. If it is morally reprehensible, like murder and rape, which have also existed for all time, then it cannot be excused or minimized and our failure to live up to our founding ideals passed off as promises made that might some day be kept.
Structures do sin and structural racism is a persistent legacy of both white supremacy and enslavement. White privilege was cemented into the Constitution from the outset, declaring enslaved people as fractional human beings for political purposes while denying them every basic right and opportunity. Intergenerational wealth disparities have a direct correlation to our twin legacies of racial oppression and slavery. We obviously disagree on these areas.
Northerners unaware of their economic connections to and benefits from slavery? Hardly. The entire nation was complicit and only a radical fringe of abolitionists had the courage to speak out publicly.
The focus on reparations is an unfortunate and unworkable Bandaid approach to a complex structural issue of racial injustice that persist today and have their roots in white supremacy and chattel slavery.
I am glad that my original post prompted robust and mostly civil discussion. This is an emotionally charged topic and it should be.
David. Maybe this is going on too long, but a couple points. Perhaps you have evidence that Lost Causeism is growing, but I have not seen any, so will leave that as an open question. I certainly did not intend to credit slavery per se for species survival. I meant only that humans developed highly stratified, hierarchical, social and governing institutions to manage low-technology, agricultural, and increasingly urbanized societies, which for millennia have required manual labor servitude at the lowest levels, i.e., slavery, peasantry, etc. Slavery certainly is as morally reprehensible as murder and rape, but it was not then a crime and widely accepted as normal, and still is in some places. I suggest that this nation did not fail to live up to its founding ideals. On the contrary, the people struggled and bled for 2.5 centuries in the name of those ideals. The fact that it took longer than we might think it should have is, to me, a failure of perspective. Jefferson and many of his contemporaries thought slavery would be gone in a few decades. The principles of the Declaration and Constitution set necessary conditions for eliminating slavery and enhancing civil rights since. I reject the “structural racism” argument, which implies there is no solution but destroying the structure, which many are actively trying to do. The 3/5 rule was related only to census counts for representation as a necessary compromise. Southern representatives wanted to count them fully as citizens for the increased representation and thus more influence, while a number of Northern delegates didn’t think they should be counted at all based on slavery. Regarding the “tired men of their times” argument, it is our job to understand and judge historical figures in the context of their times. That does not excuse or minimize their actions in the context of ours, but it does help explain them and how events progressed from then to now. If any argument is tired and abused, it is “white supremacy.” What does it even mean? Certainly, people of generally European descent considered themselves culturally superior to persons of African origin, and some nuts can still be found that think that. Again, it’s human nature to be suspicious of and condescending to the other or different however defined. But to classify masses of Americans as “white supremacist” based on subjective observations of skin tone, and then assume they have particular biases, is as prejudicial as “black inferiority.”
What I accidentally didn’t complete scribing in above is to pose this question-
‘If you cite slavery as the original sin, how do you reconcile this with the fact of Europeans conducting what can be well argued is most accurately understood as an ‘invasion’ of the sovereignty of Aboriginal nations?’
‘And this invasion was the precursor to a policy of genocide?’
Not to mention, Europeans land in this area with a distinct view to ‘eliminate’ the presence of other Europeans from their midst (the French colony of Quebec).
Now, am I saying I necessarily agree with all the above in absolute fashion? Not necessarily, because believe me, I am no adherent of Settler Colonialism or ‘Chez Nous’ Quebecois Separatism.
At the same time, nor do I deny or minimise that these distinct theses’ have variable measures of merit and at bare minimum, they raise important issues and questions to be grappled with.
My point is this-
Describing slavery as America’s ‘original sin’ is a thematic and rhetorical way of ‘side stepping’ dealing with these highly pertinent historical matters and marginalising them out of the chat room.
Is it valid to arraign study of history and historiography as a competition for prestige? Or is there more than enough scholarly room to study the diverse aspects of history in a synthesised whole?
Please to see my statements herein.
Thank you very much for a thoughtful, optimistic post, not only about the Civil War, but about our country in general. We stand on the shoulders of many people, many of them unknown, who made shattering sacrifices so that we can live in a country that offers ordinary people, not just elites, opportunity, freedom, and most importantly, dignity. Americans, from Washington’s soldiers to civil rights protesters in the ’50s and ’60s, fought for a central idea; that each individual has inherent dignity as a child of God. I think that central point is encapsulated in the signs carried by civil rights marchers. Those signs said “I Am a Man.” Those signs did not say, “I Am a Victim” or “I am a Member of a Group.” I pray that we can live up to the sacrifices of those who came before us.
Amen
Dwight, a wonderful, thoughtful and nuanced response to the overheated rant that Dixon inflicted upon the site. There was nothing original in the “sin” of slavery; it had existed throughout human history and continues to this day. Although an exploitive system, it was not murderous as it was in the MesoAmerican principalities, or for that matter in Dahomey itself, with its ritual sacrifice of hundreds of slaves upon the death of the king.
Although the existence of chattel slavery was a self serving blot on the American experience, it was not the cornerstone of capitalism as Dixon would speciously have the debate framed. For both moral and economic reasons it had reached it’s end time in the North, where a burgeoning trade and industrial economy was beginning to push back against the political and social dominance of the planter economy. If capitalism was so accepting of the continuance of the slave economy, then why the continuing tariff debates, or why didn’t it push more ferociously to accommodate southern demands? Kenneth Stampp long ago noted that many moderate southern slaveholders were aware that southern radicals were presuming too much as regards northern acquiescence, and in their paranoia would push to far.
Mostly I find Dixon’s throw it all at the wall methodology with it’s forced meta narrative of slavery, white supremacy and eternal structural racism utterly defeated by the recent objective course of history. It is a tepid reheating of the 1619 Essay, which was ably refuted-by generally liberal historians.- such as McPherson, Gordon Wood and Sean Wilentz. The real tragedy of Dixon is that he seems to blow off most of modern transformative history, from the Civil Rights era onward, adopting instead a “MeToo” victimization narrative. When he and others do this, they ironically demoralize supporters, as has taken place in the Jewish Community, and reinforce the shallow prejudices of others.
The Me Too victimization comment is telling. Thanks for you feedback
The most powerful, perceptive and prescient piece of writing that has been published in a long time. Bravo Zulu Dwight Hughes!
Excellent piece Dwight. I get what you are saying and couldn’t agree more. Well said and stay strong.
America’s ‘original sin’ is a very vaguely defined aspect of history and historiography.
Now, if you want to cite slavery’s existence from 1619 onwards in particular terms, that’s one thing. One must also to consider the
But if we regard ‘original sin’ as begetting from 1776 onwards, then to pose slavery in these terms totally omits two utterly critical points: That as a nation, America was created, undeniably at least in large part, out of racism and genocidal sentiments of the colonists towards two other groups-
Aboriginals and French Canadians.
The Declaration of Independence is a Declaration of War upon the laws the British Government enacted to protect the lands, culture and very existence of these two groups with the 1763 Royal Proclamation and 1774 Quebec Act.
Next, The Lost Cause is not a ‘myth’; it is a historiography (school of historical studies), and a theses.
There is a variable measure of validity to a fair number of its tenets; there are also particular flaws and inset limits to what and how much history it can put at least a satisfactory explanation to.
And even wherein it greatly lacks merit or can be said to be plainly incorrect or inaccurate, even these can tell you something useful.
Gary Gallagher, Brooks D. Simpson, Ty Seidule, David Dixon, etc, are highly wrong to describe it as a ‘myth’.
It is no more such than the ‘Irregular’ Anti-Treaty IRA school/thesis of Ernie O’Malley and Gerry Adams, ‘the Australian Legend’ or ‘New Britainia’ theses of Russel Ward and Humphrey McQueen about Australian history or ‘The Battle Hymn’ theses and historiography created by Ulysses S. Grant and Frederick Douglass, pushed to the full extent in contemporary times by the likes of those cited above in addition to Adam Serwer, Karen L. Cox, Elizabeth Brown Pryor, Ta Nahesi Coates, or Elizabeth Varon.
Dwight Hughes writes:
“No American alive today bears responsibility for chattel slavery, and no American alive today is due recompense. To advocate otherwise by applying malicious color labels is simply a reversal of — and as unjust as — the original transgression.”
While most of Dwight’s readers might agree that “No American alive today bears responsibility for chattel slavery” that is not the argument used by legal proponents of “recompense.” What they say is that the United States government and state governments did have a role in maintaining chattel slavery. Unlike non-state sanctioned forms of slavery that have been referred to in the replies, state sanctions were crucial to chattel slavery. Black people were held not as kidnapped individuals toiling for criminals, they were recognized as property and their “owners” were recognized as rich in (human) capital by the state. Black labor may have been held as property by individual owners, but without state sanction, its value would have been greatly diminished. So the proponents of reparations say that the United States government and the governments of states should compensate the heirs of those held as slaves. These proponents are calling for compensation by the state and federal governments. These governments exist today, they are “alive” today, and they can pay compensation.
Mr. Dwight says that “no American alive today is due recompense.” Of course that is true, since there is no law allowing for suits so long after harm has been done, which is why the proponents of reparations are calling a for new laws to compensate for 19th Century wrongs. Many states have passed similar laws to allow sex abuse victims to sue now for childhood sexual depredations even though the statue of limitations had run out, since institutions like the Church, the police, etc. had blocked attempts at compensation within the time period of the statute of limitations. As Mr. Hughes knows, Blacks, even after the 13th Amendment was ratified, were often barred from voting, serving on juries, and holding office as judges. They were also barred in many states from being elected to legislatures. So while child abuse victims were discriminated against in bringing their claims, which is why recent laws were passed, so too were African Americans.
Mr. Dwight also says:
“To advocate otherwise by applying malicious color labels is simply a reversal of — and as unjust as — the original transgression.”
So for someone to advocate “recompense” is similar to holding people as slaves?
In 1861 the Confederate States of America formed, and took their Slave Power with them. The United States Government subsequently fought a war that resulted in destruction of the Confederate States of America, annihilation of the Slave Power, and codification of the illegality of slavery in America. Any debt owed by the U.S. Government was paid in treasure and lives. Anyone seeking further redress, please submit your claim to the SCV.
My name is Mike Maxwell, and I stand with Dwight Hughes.
Interesting points, but less than convincing. Yes, state and federal governments function today under the same Constitution, but not sure in what sense that means a government is “alive.” The persons managing those governments today and the persons served by those governments are alive but are certainly not the persons who managed the government, or were served by it, or were enslaved under it then; they are all long dead. Also, the Constitution and laws have changed; they now forbid slavery, enforced by today’s governments. Getting those amendments and new laws is what the war was primarily about. Theoretically, governments could pay, but only with wealth belonging to citizens alive today who had nothing to do with slavery. Why should they be liable, and why should others alive today benefit from this wealth transfer? How would you determine who pays and who benefits? New laws do allow sex abuse victims to sue long after the fact, but laws only apply to the living. The victims of slavery can’t sue and why would any non-victims have standing?
Dwight Hughes wrote: “Theoretically, governments could pay, but only with wealth belonging to citizens alive today who had nothing to do with slavery. Why should they be liable”
My father was paid a disabled veterans pension more than fifty years after he was wounded in World War II, funds that were supplied by taxpayers who were, by and large, not even alive when World War II took place.
Dwight Hughes wrote: “How would you determine who pays…”
The government would pay, according to proponents.
Your father–God bless him!–earned those payments while he was alive. They stopped when he passed. “The Government” has NO MONEY to pay other than OUR MONEY paid in taxes. When the “government pays,” we pay.
Mr. Hughes wrote: “Your father–God bless him!–earned those payments while he was alive. ” But the lion’s share of the payments made in the last years of his life were paid by people who were not even alive when he was wounded, so you are saying that ““The Government” has NO MONEY to pay other than OUR MONEY paid in taxes. When the “government pays,” we pay.” However taxpayers in 2000, when he died, never entered into an agreement with my father to pay that compensation. Governments pay money as compensation even though the taxpayers change, the government officials change, etc. That is the nature of governments.
Not sure what Pat means when he says those states are still “alive.” The Southern states all drafted new constitutions when they were re-admitted to the Union. Some states then re-drafted another new Constitution when freed from Reconstruction. I suppose the names still exist. But, the state governments look very different from their pre-1961 versions.
I suppose the Northern states that allowed slavery would also be on the hook? But, they have also generally revised or modified their state constitutions since 1865. How can we find the state of Indiana is still “alive” if they have made major changes to their state constitution? I expect major legal issues if we are to find the repugnant states are still “alive.”
It is challenging enough when in lawsuits today, we seek to hold one corporation liable for the debts incurred by another. In theory, if ABC Corp buys XYZ Corp. then ABC is liable for the debts of XYZ. But, there is a wide body of law explaining that only occurs if ABC’s “intent” was to take on those debts. The courts then measure that “intent” by seeing if ABC truly purchased all of XYZ’s assets, or just some of them or just a few of them. Using the same approach with state governments, that would be a major challenge to argue Indiana (or any other state) is still the same state government, even if their governmental processes and offices are very different.
Tom
In response to patyoungcarecen2019, the government paying reparations means that American taxpayers would be paying reparations. Aside from very real legal issues, how can that be justified? Where is the line drawn? Do descendants of Union soldiers get a tax credit? Do immigrants get a tax credit? Once the reparations are paid, do the taxpayers then get future reverse reparations for shelling out money for the original reparations? Even more importantly, how does this benefit our country? Does anyone seriously believe that this would somehow help unify our country? This country was based on the concept of individual responsibilities and rights. Your father earned a disabled veterans pension, for example, for actions that he took, not because of an ancestor 160 years ago. Balkanizing our country by looking at groups, as opposed to individuals, is a recipe for disaster.
Thank you for taking the time to write this, Dwight. I could pick out pieces I didn’t necessarily agree with wholeheartedly, but mostly I think this is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. I thought the same about David’s piece, and I’m glad that we have a platform here for discourse at this level.
I couldn’t agree more, Pat! And I’m grateful that we live in a country and time period where we CAN disagree with one another.
May I please put the following points to this discussion?
For all those who support the paying of reparations to those whose ancestors were held as slaves in America, via the various municipal/county/state/federal/constitutional legal components as are cited above, have you considered such questions as these:
-If you create legal precedent for the successful suing of the USA by descendants of Black American slaves, what if in turn, not only the described above government bodies are sued, but the recipients of such awards, by descendants of (A) French Canadians whom were affected by the Declaration of Independence as-vehicle to affect the genocidal and racist sentiments of the American colonists, who created said governmental/constitutional bodies/etc? (B) Same in turn coming from descendants of Aboriginals so affected by same processes re. the Royal Proclamation of 1763?
The latter, in particular, can claim ‘the nation that came into being that afflicted your ancestors could only do so by not only the destruction of ours, and how many other Aboriginal nations, but the very elimination of us as a race?’
In other words, both physical and cultural genocide and with French Canadians, definitely cultural (with fears of physical being evidenced a century later even during the CW/WBTS).
-Next, would you support the payment of said reparations to, let us assume, the most diehard, ideologue ‘Lost Cause’ adherents whom identify as White Americans, yet could prove they had at least one enslaved Black American ancestor and whom applied for such monies w/o making any change in such cultural affiliation?
If your answer is anything but an automatic ‘Yes’, then politics, not history or heritage, is the true bearing of the matter. Those who ascribe to only a very sharply defined nationalism and political ideology are the group this champions, not the accurate identification of persons of particular historical background.
-Next, do the proponents of such support for reparations also voice to sue the governments of certain African nations today?
In the early 1990s, the attempt by several African nations to sue at the UN court several nations of the West (Britain, Holland, etc), was negated by the UN as the African slave trade was demonstrably impossible w/o the explicit complicity and knowledge of African tribal nations themselves, at the time. Refer to ‘America Is Me’, by Kennel L. Jackson.
-If you accept that ibid African nations were not formal states in the era of slavery, then imagine the controversy if it should be put to said African nations they have absolutely no link or continuation of any kind to the tribal nations from which many of their citizens are now descended.
My point in all this is, have these and other such important questions been duly reckoned with or shunted out of the way by nationalist sentiments?
There would be nothing to sue about. Reparations would not constitute a new cause of action.
That’s not addressing the essence of the point by means of technicalities.
Are you prepared to see the above unfold?
Have you considered how/why attempts to bring about reparations in earlier years for slavery were denied and the reasons why on the international stage?
Continuing on from immediate point above, are you prepared to see a myriad of competing claims and conditions emerge that could well render a chaotic social condition based upon nationalistic hierarchies of competitive prestige?
Have you considered the situation in which some persons whom ‘identify’ as Black Americans today have their claims rejected, but others who identify as White Americans and the, say, ‘stereotypical’ Lost Causer (for lack of better terms), receive such reparations from having adequate proof of an enslaved ancestor?
Hugh, similar arguments could be used against any other form of reparations. Could someone be persecuted as a Jew in Germany in World War II even though before s/he he was persecuted s/he thought of himself as a German citizen who was an atheist? Of course. Most reparation proposals involve similar specificity.