What the 1619 Project overlooks about slavery and the Constitution: There is an important oversight in the so-called scholarship

American Thinker ^ | 02/15/2023 | Stephen B. Young

[SeekAndFind]

There is an important oversight in the scholarship of the 1619 Project that is also implicit in Critical Race theorizing. Neither the 1619 Project nor Critical Race Theory includes the moral position of important White political thinkers opposing slavery as contrary to the natural order of our human species.

While drafters of the Constitution found themselves forced to accept the property laws of the sovereign states, each now fully independent of Great Britain, significant thought leaders philosophically opposed slavery. While thought is less efficacious than action, it is not unimportant. Thoughts set forth the course of action and bring about the will to act.

James Wilson, for one, believed that "slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master, over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the Common Law. Indeed, it is repugnant to the principles of natural law, that such a state should subsist in any social system."

This invocation of natural law laid the foundation for future reform of state laws abolishing slavery , as happened as the result of the Civil War.

In this view, Wilson followed the teaching of John Locke, who in his treatise concerning civil government, in Chapter IV, insisted that persons must never be "subject to the inconsistent, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature."

Federalist Paper #54, written by Hamilton or Madison to recommend adoption of the proposed federal Constitution, followed the ethic of Wilson and Locke.

[SeekAndFind]

In discussing the constitutional provision that persons considered as property under the laws of some states would also be counted as persons for the purpose of the census in order to determine the number of representatives allocated to each state, the essay invoked natural law to make the point that such persons — slaves — must be considered as persons as well as property.

[rktman]

Hey now, if it’s good enough for hulu...... Maybe they should run “Roots” right after. 🤔

[Rurudyne]

1619 is lies, subterfuge, intentional confusions and misrepresentations.

People pushing Marxist comprehencions of history or race, or anything, really (including efforts to backend their ideas onto capitalism via stake holding) have nothing of value to say about anything.

[DIRTYSECRET]

I’m tired of explaining ourselves.

Slaves lived longer in the US. In Africa they ate each other.

[stremba]

Very few people understand the nature of the “Three-Fifths Compromise” and point to it as prima fascia evidence of the racism of the Founders. It actually had nothing at all to do with any perceived lesser value of slaves. It was in fact a purely political argument.

The census as required by the new Constitution served two purposes. It provided a count of population for the purpose of apportionment of representatives in the House and also for the purpose of taxation. The Constitution did not allow direct taxation of citizens; all taxes had to be levied in proportion to the population of the states.

Since most slaves lived in the southern states, the slave-owning delegates to the Convention wanted naturally to count the slave population fully, at least for the purpose of apportioning representatives. They wanted to have things both ways and not count slaves at all for the purpose of levying taxes. Lacking slaves, northern delegates naturally argues for the opposite- counting slaves fully for taxation purposes but not at all for the apportioning of representatives.

The compromise was that 60%, or three fifths for any public school graduates reading this, of the slave population would be counted for both purposes. It was strictly a political compromise and did not reflect any idea of anyone thinking of slaves as less than fully human.

[AndyTheBear]

Yeah, its a “oversight” in the sense of malicious slander.

[pierrem15]

The first political entities in the modern Atlantic world to abolish slavery were the northern American states, which was no mean feat: I believe that at the time of the Revolutionary War, New York was the second highest slave-owning state after Virginia.

[AndyTheBear]

Slaves lived longer in the US. In Africa they ate each other.

This comes off as trying to justify slavery and also being a bit lose with the facts. Not everybody in Africa was a slave, not everybody there was a canibal, and there were certainly individuals whose life was cut short by being captured as slave (particularly while in the dingy hold of a slaver ship). While some individuals might have ended up living longer this can hardly be a justification.

[Tell It Right]

Yes, the 3/5ths clause undermined the slaveholding states, which helped blacks. It’d be worse for blacks if the slaveholders had voting power coming from the non-voting blacks counting as whole persons (in counting representatives and electoral votes per state).

[bk1000]

Projects such as these are not an effort to inform, but to gin up hate.
This won’t end well.

[jdsteel]

It’s also ridiculous to look at Slavery as a North American (America didn’t exist in 1619) issue.

Unless you want to look at the slavery that existed in the Native American populations. That would be valid.

[Petrosius]

The 1619 Project has nothing to do with the truth. It is all about transferring power from the white majority to the non-white minority.

[SunkenCiv]

• The Rev. Al Sharpton to lead protest after Florida governor's ban of African American studies course [02/15/2023]

[Red Badger]

What never gets discussed:

Where would all these folks be if there never was a single African slave brought to the New World?....................

[DIRTYSECRET]

To Andy-it’s called fighting fire with fire.

[escapefromboston]

In America , whites , blacks , Jews, Asians , native Indians all owned slaves.
It’s was a real equal opportunity occupation

[AndyTheBear]

So the idea is that by being unreasonable in a different direction you will cause Leftists to see that they are unreasonable? Not sure that technique works well, seems they will more likely justify their unreasonableness with yours.

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[Robert A Cook PE]

England was as fast actually. More effective at their national level of debate and laws.

[marktwain]

Slavery was a step up in civilization.

Before the social machinery existed for slavery, captured enemy combatants were simply killed. In some cases, they were eaten.

Slavery was near universal across the world by the 1600. Much of Christendom was an exception. Christian priests with the conquistadors ruled American Indians should not be enslaved, unless they were captured in battle.

Muslims were big exporters of slavery and the idea of slavery. Many of the conquistadors' ideas about slavery came from the Muslims, who they had recently driven out of Spain.