Saturday, July 30, 2016

Jefferson's Plagiarism : Slavery in the Land of the Free








“Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man...”
-John Locke, Two Treatises of Government




“[Slavery is a] slow Poison, which is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People.” 
–George Mason 


Thomas Jefferson based the framework of the Declaration of Independence on the ideologies and writings of John Locke and George Mason.  Particularly, Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights.  Jefferson proclaims in his writing that “all men are created equal,” and that these men, who are equal, “are endowed… with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  We must then ask the question, why was slavery permitted to exist in the United States after the Revolutionary War and the signing of the Declaration of Independence?

Today, mainstream media’s breaking news includes alleged plagiarisms by Melania Trump, sparking adversarial news outlets to point out alleged plagiarisms by President Obama and Hillary Clinton.  One can only imagine what mainstream media would have thought about Thomas Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress’s Declaration of Independence.  Would they be outraged? Impressed? Moved? Disgusted?  I guess that would assume on the political opinions of Jefferson, in general, and what news broadcast is on the T.V.

Anatole France would be completely fine with Trump and Obama's alleged plagiarism, and also Jefferson's.  The French journalist and poet, France, said that “when a thing has been said and said well, have no scruple.  Take it and copy it." [1]  Jefferson, suffering an illness, was put in charge of authoring the Declaration, and heeded to France's advice.  The language that Jefferson uses in the Declaration are clearly derived, borrowed, plagiarized, or whatever you feel necessary to describe it as, from Mason's May 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights.  

Ben Franklin and John Adams pushed Jefferson into authorship of the document.  Pauline Maier points out that Franklin’s fit of gout and Jefferson’s Virginian status gave great political advantages to the process; expanding support for independence to the agricultural south.[2]  The support in Virginia was already gaining strength.  In June of 1776, Prince William County Baptists petitioned on the grounds of “contending for the civil rights & liberties of mankind against the enslaving scheme of a powerful enemy.”[3] Another, more intriguing, reason for Jefferson’s selection was due to what Maier refers to as the “obnoxiousness” of John Adams.[4]  

Jefferson owned over 150 slaves when writing the Declaration.  He also fathered at least one child with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, according to DNA evidence released in 1998.[5]  This makes Jefferson an interesting selection as an author.  Although a slave-owner, Jefferson “revealed an almost instinctive dislike of slavery.”[6]  Further, Jefferson would have preferred to be in Virginia, assisting in drafting their state constitution “with an explicit provision” for gradual abolition rather than writing the Declaration of Independence.[7]  Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason in May of 1776, laid the framework to key language used by Jefferson.  Primarily, Mason's concept that “all men are born equally free… and have certain… natural rights… of Life and Liberty… Property…and obtaining Happiness.”[8]  Jefferson was not given the opportunity to go to Virginia, instead his language in the Declaration “delivered a deathblow to American slavery” in the future.[9]  Maier explains that Jefferson’s language in the Declaration made it easy for abolitionist advocates to argue that all men were in fact, equal.[10]  This would not take place in the immediate future, as Jefferson and many founding fathers wanted a slow, gradual abolition of slavery in the country, yet it would take over half a century and hundreds of thousands to die for slavery to meet its end.

Portion of Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Now, to the important question.  Why did a nation based on the elements of equality, liberty, and freedom not abolish the slave trade or institution of slavery at its inception?  Evidence suggests the social and economic importance of slavery outweighed the urge and moral right to abolish the institution.




Economics:

You do not need an economics chart to understand that slave labor will increase the profit margin.

After the Seven Years’ War, the British found themselves in economic distress; the Americans after the Revolutionary War were not immune from the same problem.  A nation, especially a new nation, must be economically stable to rise to the status of a world power.  An English Economist surmised that “the Negroe-trade…may justly be termed an inexhaustible fund of wealth… to this [American] nation.”[11]  The slave trade provided free labor in an environment that needed men.  The typical colonial family was large, not due to a want of a large family, rather a want of more hands to help operate the daily needs of a farm.  Slavery was free labor for a population where “most of the inhabitants of every colony made their living from the soil.”[12]  


Slavery itself could be turned as a profit for slave owners.  A slave owner could purchase a slave for a one-time payment.  That payment could turn into decades of slave labor and/or the birth of more slaves (which could be sold).  The initial investment could be paid off rather quickly and the profit margin for the slave owner would be rather significant.  The basic diagnosis is that slaves were not treated or seen as humans, but property.  Take a runaway ad from Thomas Jefferson himself, as summation of the mentality towards slaves.


The Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg,  September 14th, 1769
                                "When drunk is insolent and disorderly..."  Shocking!



Basically, there was a significant profit made by wealthy, powerful Americans through the institution of slavery.  The Americans put themselves into a difficult position after their gained independence.  It was the perfect storm to accumulate debt and create a display of vulnerability to foreign powers.  Congress passed the Articles of Confederations in 1781 as the governing document of the country.  Often overlooked in history, the Articles (in effective for almost a decade) were a 180 degree turn from monarchical government that the Americans fought to free themselves.  One important weakness of the Articles was the inability of the National Government to collect taxes.  This is where the perfect storm begins.  The British, after the Seven Years’ War, initiated a system of taxes and acts to sway their national debt accrued from the war.  The Americans did not have the ability to collect a tax.  Worst yet, there was no executive (President) or national courts (Judicial Branch) to enforce the collection of taxes.  No ability to collect taxes, no one to enforce the collection of taxes, and the economic instability of the United States would make them vulnerable to foreign countries.  Their only consistent and significant economic aspect was slavery, which fueled the economic growth the country. 



Social:

Slave Inspection
Library of Congress
Thomas Fleming explains that “few people criticized or objected to slavery… one of the world’s oldest social institutions.”[13]  In fact, to validate slavery, differences between whites and blacks spread throughout.  Ira Berlin surmises attempts by “racialist scientists” to identify physical and psychological differences between whites and blacks.  These scientists would go as far to argue that “black people were a separate species”, which lends credence to the concept of slaves being property. [14]  Although Jefferson may have been an opponent of slavery, the social impact of slavery did not prevent him from owning slaves and offering rewards for their return.[15]  This attitude towards the black race is evidenced further in John Saffin’s 1701 poem, The Negroes Character, in which he describes the character of an African slave as “cowardly and cruel…prone to revenge… [having] Mischief and Murder in their very eyes…libidinous, deceitful, false, and rude…”[16]  The reputation that was put on slaves did not differ greatly from the reputation the English put on the colonists.  Referring to them as quarrelsome, divisive, and in general rude.  The comparison is the attachment and reliance the colonists had on the English was the same that the slaves had on the Americans; this social bond was difficult to break asunder.

The American population reflected a social bond with slavery.  Dr. Peter Van Cleave, Professor of History at Arizona State University, identifies a social hierarchy that comes with independence, and that is dependency.  Dr. Van Cleave surmises that the white “ownership of enslaved peoples, in their minds, makes them independent.”[17]  The dependency of slaves on the white population was significant in the Revolutionary Era.  Slaves made up 41% of Virginia’s population, 34% of North Carolina, 53% of South Carolina, and 37% of Georgia.[18]  This created a reliance on slavery to confirm independence.  The following chart shows the attachment to slavery in each state's written validation to secede during the Civil War era.  Slavery or a State's right to own slaves is the most important topics of the South.

Courtesy of: The Civil War Trust
www.civilwar.org

Abolitionist Movements:

                We will see the creation of a divide, both culturally and geographically, which widens to the tipping point of Civil War after the Revolutionary War.  The North, will become industrially-focused and lead toward complete abolition.  Upon independence, states in the North tended to prohibit the slave trade and then follow-up with the complete elimination of slavery.

Ira Berlin: Generations of Captivity: A History of African-American Slaves, Cambridge, London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003.
As the chart shows, there was a consistent and significant drop in the amount of slaves in the Northern states after the Revolutionary War.

                The South, kept with the way of using the land as a means of economic success.  Agriculture was the backbone of the South, and slavery thrived in the Southern states.  This reliance on slavery for economic subsistence was deep-seated in the culture of Southern states.  The attachment to slavery, the growth of land ownership, Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase that doubled the size of the United States, and the world's need for cotton exploded the overall population of slaves in the United States.  This growth in the slave population came even as the North gradually abolished the institution.



This growth not only goes against the general understanding of slave mortality rates, but it shows the South's attachment to and importance to the Southern culture and its economics.

          Although the Declaration did not directly address slavery, to Jefferson's disappointment, the Continental Congress had already prohibited the slave trade in 1774.  Connecticut, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and both North/South Carolina accepted laws that would either forbid or discourage any importing of slaves (This said nothing of breeding).  And, the decision to stop the slave trade did very little in limiting the amount of slaves in the United States. 

*Only 6% of worldwide importation of slaves came to the United States.
This shows the value of slave breeding to the institution in America.


Petitions to Congress for Abolition of Slavery:

The Missing Grievance: 

          Thomas Jefferson did make an attempt to address slavery in his original draft to Congress.  In Jefferson's original draft, he accuses that:

King George II
"He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere of to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.  This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.  Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.  And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." 
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being his Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and other Writings, Official and Private (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury, 1853-1854). 
This grievance, which blames King George III for the institution of slavery, was completely eliminated from the final draft of the Declaration of Independence.  The leaders for its deletion?  Delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, states which held slavery as a social and economic necessity.






Now, the question at hand is why did a new nation, founding itself on the principles of abolitionist advocates and using terms such as equality, liberty, freedom and natural rights permit the institution of slavery to exist?  Evidence suggests that it was an economic and social necessity to validate their independence and provide some semblance of economic stability to a new, vulnerable nation.





It is no surprise that slavery was a hot-button issue in the debates leading to the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution.  But, why was such an understood evil, allowed to exist in a nation built on freedom?  



Now, it's your turn!  Tell us what you think?



-Why did slavery exist in the United States after the Revolution?
-What made slavery such an economic necessity in the South?
-Why is slavery a difficult topic to discuss in American history?

Post your thoughts?!  Let's Hash Out History!


Some other interesting resources, check them out:





[1] Anatole France Himself: A Boswellian Record by His Secretary, Jean-Jacques Brousson (1925), trans. John Pollock (Read Books, 2007), p. 56. 
[2] Pauline Maier, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (New York: Vintage Books, 1997),, 101.
[3] “Petition of the Baptists of Prince William County, Virginia, June 1776,” accessed July 15, 2016. http://www.smithsoniansource.org/display/primarysource/viewdetails.aspx?PrimarySourceId=1012.
[4] Maier, Scripture, 101.
[5] Lois E. Horton, “Avoiding History: Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemings, and the Uncomfortable Public Conversation on Slavery,” in Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory, ed. James O. Horton and Lois E. Horton. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 139.
[6] Thomas J. Fleming, A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 2013), 29.
[7] Ibid
[8] George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776.
[9] Fleming, Disease, 30.
[10] Maier, Scripture, 197.
[11] David B. Davis, Inhuman Bondage:  The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World (New York: 2006), 80.
[12] Edmund Morgan, The Birth of the Republic 1763-89 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013), 7.
[13] Fleming, Disease, 15.
[14] Ira Berlin, “Coming to Terms with Slavery in Twenty-First-Century America,” in Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory, ed. James O. Horton and Lois F. Horton (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 16.
[15] Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Gazette, September 14, 1769.
[16] Fleming, Disease, 18.
[17] Dr. Peter Van Cleave, “The Many Faces of Revolution” (Lecture presented in History Course, HST 406: American Revolution, Arizona State University. Summer Session B 2016).
[18] Morgan, Republic, 96.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

The Third Revolution of America?




We are on the verge of a revolution.  Today, 86% of Americans disapprove of Congress and 52% of Americans disapprove of President Obama.  This is no surprise. We have discussed in the previous two revolutionary attempts in United States history (Revolutionary War and the Civil War),  that Americans, in general, question authority and do not want to be told what to do.  What is more interesting and important is that 3 out of every 4 American citizens feel that the country is on the wrong track. 

Why interesting?  Well, one out of every five colonists was outspokenly loyal to the King. That means 80% of the colonists were not happy with their governing body.  During the 1860 election, on the eve of the second revolutionary attempt, 60% of Americans did not want Abraham Lincoln to be their president.  In fact, he only earned 38% of the popular vote.  Division and radical politics led to his election.  Currently, we do not have a presidential candidate that is polling at over 50% of the general popular vote.  We are at a stage in the United States where we have never been more divided. 



In the vitriolic atmosphere­­­ surrounding American citizens, we are watching terrorist attacks around the world at an uncomfortable consistency, seeing radical movements causing domestic conflict, and seeing the populace of the United States moving to the extreme right or the extreme left.  The United States domestically and abroad are in conflict.


    The 2016 election for the United States President is not so different from the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln.  As the issues of states’ rights and slavery came to a head, the Democratic Party separated into two factions, leading to Lincoln’s election as the first Republican President in United States history.  We are seeing a similar divide in the GOP.  Donald Trump has thrown a wrench into the Republican Party.  The party is now finding it difficult to throw its full support behind a candidate such as Trump.  Will this enable an easy victory for the Democrats? Or, will history give us a false example and Donald Trump will unify the clearly divided GOP and win the election?

As we have seen in the history of the United States, the revolutionary spirit goes hand-in-hand with radical politics.  The radical politics are clearly seen today… the ring leaders?  Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. 

Bernie Sanders­­:




    Sanders described himself as a democratic socialist.  The word socialist did two things when Sanders threw his hat into the ring for the presidential election.  First, it terrified the conservative right into a more conservative economic position.  Second, it sparked political interest into a previously un-enthusiastic voter base, the youth.  Sanders gave the favorite for the Democratic Nomination, Hillary Clinton, a more than nerve-racking primary season.

    Ultimately, Sanders was unsuccessful in his bid for the office of the President of the United States, yet he accomplished a few monumental goals that created transparency into the election process of the United States.  The Super Delegate process in Democratic Primaries was put into the forefront as an unfair and un-democratic election process because of Sanders.  Sanders also projected himself as an outsider from the traditional politician.  However, the most interesting and driving-to-revolution aspect of the Sanders run was that he successfully pulled the typical Democrat farther to the left.  He has encouraged and led changes into the Democratic platform and pulled the Democratic Nominee, Hillary Clinton, farther to the left.

*Critics now argue that Sanders has shed his identity of a political outsider by endorsing Hillary Clinton.


Donald Trump:



    Trump is a true political outsider.  Trump, unexpectedly, came to be the leader of the pack that included many traditional Republicans.  Trump rose to the top through his disregard for political correctness and a connection with the conservative voters that did not exist with known GOP entities such as Jeb Bush.  Already an American icon for his reality T.V. and business savvy, Trump sparked the ‘silent majority’ and created a movement that the GOP lacked in the attempts of John McCain and Mitt Romney.  Trump’s media buzz, often negative, came from both liberal-leaning as well as conservative-leaning news outlets, CNN and Fox News respectively. This oddly boosted his approval from conservative voters.  Trump’s questioning of and challenging of the authority of the moderators in debates led to spikes in his popularity.  This led other Republicans to follow suit.

    Trump’s rise to the top of the Republican Party pulled the GOP to the far right.  His opinions on free trade, immigration, military importance, and social issues made moderate Republicans shutter, some not even showing up to the Republican Convention. 

*Critics identify Trump's switch from previous viewpoints as questionable with his Republican identity.


Hillary Clinton:


    Although not seen as a radical, her political viewpoints have moved farther to the left due to the political success of Bernie Sanders.  Clinton previously failed in a 2008 Presidential run, losing to President Obama in the Democratic Primary.  Since, she has served as Secretary of State and has made media buzz through her e-mail scandal, which the FBI recommended no charges, and Benghazi. 

     Clinton is the traditional nominee for the Democratic Party.  This leaves Clinton as the only experienced politician in the Presidential Election, excluding Green and Libertarian Party Candidates.




For analysis of the Political Revolution: 


    Both Sanders and Trump started movements for both sides of the political isle in America.  Is this the beginning of a third revolutionary attempt in the United States?

    If we look at similarities between the United States right now with the U.S. before the Civil War and the British North American Colonies prior to the American Revolution, there is evidence that we may be in the midst of another revolutionary period in the United States.

America 2016
America 1860s
America 1760s-70s
These three movements revolve around the goal of unity in a climate where unity did not exist.  We are more divided in the U.S. now than ever.  The North and the South were split in half, while the North wanted to preserve unity.  The Colonists wanted to unite against the King and Parliament.


Radical Movements:
Occupy
Black Lives Matters

Radical Movements:
John Brown’s Raid

Radical Movements:
The Paxton Boys
Boston Tea Party
Sons of Liberty

Challenging Authority:
86% Disapproval Rating for Congress

Challenging Authority:
Secession from the Union

Challenging Authority:
Protesting of Parliamentary Acts
Protesting the crown King George III

Public and Law Clashes:
Police Brutality

Public and Law Clashes:
John Brown’s Raid
Fugitive Slaves

Public and Law Clashes:
Boston Massacre


Radical Politics:
Republicans vs. Democrats

Radical Politics:
Republicans vs. Democrats

Radical Politics:
Loyalists vs. Revolutionaries

Internal, Domestic Conflicts:
Illegal Immigration
Racial Issues


Internal, Domestic Conflicts:
Slave vs. Free


Internal, Domestic Conflicts:
Sons of Liberty
Customs Agents
Loyalists vs. Revolutionaries

Key Political Issue:
Role of Government in everyday life
*Social Issues
*Tax Initiatives
*Immigration/Civil Rights

Key Political Issue:
Role of Government in everyday life
*State vs. Federal Rights
*Secession
*Civil Rights

Key Political Issue:
Role of Government in everyday life
*Tax Initiatives
*State vs. Federal Rights

Individual Freedoms:
*LGBT Rights
*Women’s Rights
*Protection of the Bill of Rights

Individual Freedoms:
*Slavery
*Free vs. Slave States

Individual Rights:
*Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness
*Right of Self-Government

End Result:
TBD

End Result:
*Over 600,000 American Deaths
*A preserved Union
*The Beginning of Civil Rights
*Creation of the Ku Klux Klan
*President Assassinated
*Abolishing of Slavery

End Result:
*Over 7,000 American Deaths
*American Independence
*Failed attempt of government (Articles of Confederation)
*Promotion of individual freedoms




 “A non-violent revolution is not a program of seizure of power.  It is a program of transformation of relationships, ending in a peaceful transfer of power.” –Mahatma Gandhi






    Okay, we get it, it seems far-fetched that an armed revolution is going to take place in the United States in 2016, but a social and political revolution is not out of question.  I would argue the political revolution is already taking place.  When the youth voters came out in incredible numbers for a primary, when Bernie Sanders takes Heavy-hitting political giant Hillary Clinton fifteen rounds, and when Donald Trump, the political outsider, wins the Republican nomination, I believe the people have sparked the political revolution.  Our politicians will begin to change, our way of electing officials will change, and our primary system will change.  The people have started a political revolution by challenging authority.  Just like the patriots of 1776, the American people of 2016 have spoken out against authority and have voiced their opinions regardless of what mass media tells them.

    It is social and political revolutions that will change the United States.  Yet, we are more divided than ever before, so how can we come to terms with our differences.  The population of the United
States has even lost the ability to find reliable news from biased and politically motivated media.  The misinformation and refusal to divulge information from the media is creating an uneducated populace.  The people of the United States are becoming wise to this, which is dangerous.  It is dangerous to the traditional politics of the United States.  It is dangerous to career politicians.  It is dangerous to the politicians that serve big businesses and donors more than they represent the citizens they were elected to represent.  The citizens of the United States can change the United States, yet only in unity. 


    Political revolution is evident with Sanders and Trump's rise in political power.  The social revolution is more complicated, due to the divide of the American citizenry.  There is a stubborn, radical pull of American citizens to the far left or the far right in politics and in their social opinions.  Imagine the impact a united, educated citizenry could make in the way the United States is operated.  The social revolution can be sparked by students.  Students should question what is being taught, why it is being taught, and why there is a lapse in our education compared to other competitive countries. The young voters that came out in high numbers in the primary must be educated in their voting and concerned with how their future will be preserved by candidates.

    As we have seen in the Revolutionary War Era, the Civil War Era, and what we see today, radical politics have led to radical action among the citizens.  Today, we are in the midst of a political revolution.  What will be the outcome?  What is preventing a full-fledged social revolution? 

    What is clear is that we are on the verge of a revolutionary period.  Will it be a success, like the Revolutionary Era of the 18th Century?  Will we come out of this revolution with a new definition of independence, freedom, liberty, happiness?  Or, will it be a failed revolution like the 1860's, and we continue down the path already paved for us?  Will this election decide the success or failure of the future of our country?

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” 

– Martin Luther King Jr.

    This election is arguably one of the most important elections of our lifetime.  What is fact, is that this is a crucial election for the short and long-term future of the United States as it spans into the Judicial Branch of the United States.  This election will have an impact on many aspects of our daily lives. 



 Including:
  • Selecting upwards of four Supreme Court Justices, in effect swaying the majority to the Republican or Democratic side.
  • Deciding to continue or prohibit the executive orders of President Obama from his second term.
  • Obamacare: GOP winner may try to undo Obamacare or allow states the opportunity to opt out.
  • Figuring out how to eliminate the divide between the population (racial, cultural, social, economical, etc.).
  • Analyzing the 2nd Amendment and gun rights in the United States.
  • The Iranian Nuclear Deal
  • Refugee and Immigration Policies
  • Foreign relations with countries including war, trade, terrorism, etc.
  • And many more...


Now, go forth! Research, analyze, discuss, debate, share, and argue!  The Revolution is upon us.  Be an active participant and do not sit on the sidelines as the United States is in a critical stage of its existence.  Is this the most important election of your lifetime? You decide!

Jeff Cox calls this election between “universally despised candidates” the least important of our lifetime.

Josh Holland argues that this election may be the most important election of our lives.


“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” 
– Albert Einstein




Some questions for thought:

Who does the United States need as President of the United States?

Who will you be voting for and why?



What are the key issues in this election?


Does the mass media promote this continued divide in the population?


Do politicians thrive off the conflicts between races, cultures, and wealth classes?






As always, I encourage you to add to the discussion, critique points, argue, and debate!  Comment and share and let’s hash out history!