Posted on 10/03/2007 11:24:47 PM PDT by TheThinker
Those who want to discredit the United States and to deny our role as historys most powerful and pre-eminent force for freedom, goodness and human dignity invariably focus on Americas bloody past as a slave-holding nation. Along with the displacement and mistreatment of Native Americans, the enslavement of literally millions of Africans counts as one of our two founding crimesand an obvious rebuttal to any claims that this Republic truly represents the land of the free and the home of the brave. According to America-bashers at home and abroad, open-minded students of our history ought to feel more guilt than pride, and strive for reparations or other restitution to overcome the nations uniquely cruel, racist and rapacious legacy.
Unfortunately, the current mania for exaggerating Americas culpability for the horrors of slavery bears no more connection to reality than the old, discredited tendency to deny that the U.S. bore any blame at all. No, its not true that the peculiar institution featured kind-hearted, paternalistic masters and happy, dancing field-hands, any more than its true that America displayed unparalleled barbarity or enjoyed disproportionate benefit from kidnapping and exploiting innocent Africans.
An honest and balanced understanding of the position of slavery in the American experience requires a serious attempt to place the institution in historical context and to clear-away some of the common myths and distortions.
1. SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION. At the time of the founding of the Republic in 1776, slavery existed literally everywhere on earth and had been an accepted aspect of human history from the very beginning of organized societies. Current thinking suggests that human beings took a crucial leap toward civilization about 10,000 years ago with the submission, training and domestication of important animal species (cows, sheep, swine, goats, chickens, horses and so forth) and, at the same time, began the domestication, bestialization and ownership of fellow human beings captured as prisoners in primitive wars. In ancient Greece, the great philosopher Aristotle described the ox as the poor mans slave while Xenophon likened the teaching of slaves to the training of wild animals. Aristotle further opined that it is clear that there are certain people who are free and certain who are slaves by nature, and it is both to their advantage, and just, for them to be slaves. The Romans seized so many captives from Eastern Europe that the terms Slav and slave bore the same origins. All the great cultures of the ancient world, from Egypt to Babylonia, Athens to Rome, Persia to India to China, depended upon the brutal enslavement of the masses often representing heavy majorities of the population. Contrary to the glamorization of aboriginal New World cultures, the Mayas, Aztecs and Incas counted among the most brutal slave-masters of them all --- not only turning the members of other tribes into harshly abused beasts of burden but also using these conquered enemies to feed a limitless lust for human sacrifice. The Tupinamba, a powerful tribe on the coast of Brazil south of the Amazon, took huge numbers of captives, then humiliated them for months or years, before engaging in mass slaughter of their victims in ritualized cannibalistic feasts. In Africa, slavery also represented a timeless norm long before any intrusion by Europeans. Moreover, the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch or British slave traders rarely penetrated far beyond the coasts: the actual capture and kidnapping of the millions of victims always occurred at the hands of neighboring tribes. As the great African-American historian Nathan Huggins pointed out, virtually all of the enslavement of Africans was carried out by other Africans but the concept of an African race was the invention of Western colonists, and most African traders saw themselves as selling people other than their own. In the final analysis, Yale historian David Brion Davis in his definitive 2006 history Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World notes that colonial North America surprisingly received only 5 to 6 percent of the African slaves shipped across the Atlantic. Meanwhile, the Arab slave trade (primarily from East Africa) lasted longer and enslaved more human beings than the European slavers working the other side of the continent. According to the best estimates, Islamic societies shipped between 12 and 17 million African slaves out of their homes in the course of a thousand years; the best estimate for the number of Africans enslaved by Europeans amounts to 11 million. In other words, when taking the prodigious and unspeakably cruel Islamic enslavements into the equation, at least 97% of all African men, women and children who were kidnapped, sold, and taken from their homes, were sent somewhere other than the British colonies of North America. In this context there is no historical basis to claim that the United States bears primary, or even prominent guilt for the depredations of centuries of African slavery.
2. SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAYS AMERICANS. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution put a formal end to the institution of slavery 89 years after the birth of the Republic; 142 years have passed since this welcome emancipation. Moreover, the importation of slaves came to an end in 1808 (as provided by the Constitution), a mere 32 years after independence, and slavery had been outlawed in most states decades before the Civil War. Even in the South, more than 80% of the white population never owned slaves. Given the fact that the majority of todays non-black Americans descend from immigrants who arrived in this country after the War Between the States, only a tiny percentage of todays white citizens perhaps as few as 5% -- bear any authentic sort of generational guilt for the exploitation of slave labor. Of course, a hundred years of Jim Crow laws, economic oppression and indefensible discrimination followed the theoretical emancipation of the slaves, but those harsh realities raise different issues from those connected to the long-ago history of bondage.
3. THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASNT GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT. Historians agree that hundreds of thousands, and probably millions of slaves perished over the course of 300 years during the rigors of the Middle Passage across the Atlantic Ocean. Estimates remain inevitably imprecise, but range as high as one third of the slave cargo who perished from disease or overcrowding during transport from Africa. Perhaps the most horrifying aspect of these voyages involves the fact that no slave traders wanted to see this level of deadly suffering: they benefited only from delivering (and selling) live slaves, not from tossing corpses into the ocean. By definition, the crime of genocide requires the deliberate slaughter of a specific group of people; slavers invariably preferred oppressing and exploiting live Africans rather than murdering them en masse. Here, the popular, facile comparisons between slavery and the Holocaust quickly break down: the Nazis occasionally benefited from the slave labor of their victims, but the ultimate purpose of facilities like Auschwitz involved mass death, not profit or productivity. For slave owners and slave dealers in the New World, however, death of your human property cost you money, just as the death of your domestic animals would cause financial damage. And as with their horses and cows, slave owners took pride and care in breeding as many new slaves as possible. Rather than eliminating the slave population, profit-oriented masters wanted to produce as many new, young slaves as they could. This hardly represents a compassionate or decent way to treat your fellow human beings, but it does amount to the very opposite of genocide. As David Brion Davis reports, slave holders in North America developed formidable expertise in keeping their bondsmen alive and healthy enough to produce abundant offspring. The British colonists took pride in slaves who developed an almost unique and rapid rate of population growth, freeing the later United States from a need for further African imports.
4. ITS NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES. Pennsylvania passed an emancipation law in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island followed four years later (all before the Constitution). New York approved emancipation in 1799. These states (with dynamic banking centers in Philadelphia and Manhattan) quickly emerged as robust centers of commerce and manufacturing, greatly enriching themselves while the slave-based economies in the South languished by comparison. At the time of the Constitution, Virginia constituted the most populous and wealthiest state in the Union, but by the time of the War Between the States the Old Dominion had fallen far behind a half-dozen northern states that had outlawed slavery two generations earlier. All analyses of Northern victory in the great sectional struggle highlights the vast advantages in terms of wealth and productivity in New England, the Mid-Atlantic States and the Midwest, compared to the relatively backward and impoverished states of the Confederacy. While a few elite families in the Old South undoubtedly based their formidable fortunes on the labor of slaves, the prevailing reality of the planter class involved chronic indebtedness and shaky finances long before the ultimate collapse of the evil system of bondage. The notion that America based its wealth and development on slave labor hardly comports with the obvious reality that for two hundred years since the founding of the Republic, by far the poorest and least developed section of the nation was precisely that region where slavery once prevailed.
5. WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION. In the course of scarcely more than a century following the emergence of the American Republic, men of conscience, principle and unflagging energy succeeded in abolishing slavery not just in the New World but in all nations of the West. During three eventful generations, one of the most ancient, ubiquitous and unquestioned of all human institutions (considered utterly indispensable by the enlightened philosophers of Greece and Rome) became universally discredited and finally illegal with Brazil at last liberating all its slaves in 1888. This worldwide mass movement (spear-headed in Britain and elsewhere by fervent Evangelical Christians) brought about the most rapid and fundamental transformation in all human history. While the United States (and the British colonies that preceded our independence) played no prominent role in creating the institution of slavery, or even in establishing the long-standing African slave trade pioneered by Arab, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and other merchants long before the settlement of English North America, Americans did contribute mightily to the spectacularly successful anti-slavery agitation. As early as 1646, the Puritan founders of New England expressed their revulsion at the enslavement of their fellow children of God. When magistrates in Massachusetts discovered that some of their citizens had raided an African village and violently seized two natives to bring them across the Atlantic for sale in the New World, the General Court condemned this haynos and crying sinn of man-stealing. The officials promptly ordered the two blacks returned to their native land. Two years later, Rhode Island passed legislation denouncing the practice of enslaving Africans for life and ordered that any slaves brought within the liberties of this Collonie be set free after ten years as the manner is with the English servants. A hundred and thirty years later John Adams and Benjamin Franklin both spent most of their lives as committed activists in the abolitionist cause, and Thomas Jefferson included a bitter condemnation of slavery in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence. This remarkable passage saw African bondage as cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty and described a market where MEN should be bought and sold as constituting piratical warfare and execrable commerce. Unfortunately, the Continental Congress removed this prescient, powerful denunciation in order to win approval from Jeffersons fellow slave-owners, but the impact of the Declaration and the American Revolution remained a powerful factor in energizing and inspiring the international anti-slavery cause. Nowhere did idealists pay a higher price for liberation than they did in the United States of America. Confederate forces (very few of whom ever owned slaves) may not have fought consciously to defend the Peculiar Institution, but Union soldiers and sailors (particularly at the end of the war) proudly risked their lives for the emancipation cause. Julia Ward Howes powerful and popular Battle Hymn of the Republic called on Federal troops to follow Christs example: as he died to make men holy/let us die to make men free. And many of them did die, some 364,000 in four years of combator the stunning equivalent of five million deaths as a percentage of todays United States population. Moreover, the economic cost of liberation remained almost unimaginable. In nearly all other nations, the government paid some form of compensation to slave-owners at the time of emancipation, but Southern slave-owners received no reimbursement of any kind when they lost an estimated $3.5 billion in 1860 dollars (about $70 billion in todays dollars) of what Davis describes as a hitherto legally accepted form of property. The most notable aspect of Americas history with slavery doesnt involve its tortured and bloody existence, but the unprecedented speed and determination with which abolitionists roused the national conscience and put this age-old evil to an end.
6. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAYS AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA. The idea of reparations rests on the notion of making up to the descendants of slaves for the incalculable damage done to their family status and welfare by the enslavement of generations of their ancestors. In theory, reparationists want society to repair the wrongs of the past by putting todays African-Americans into the sort of situation they would have enjoyed if their forebears hadnt been kidnapped, sold and transported across the ocean. Unfortunately, to bring American blacks in line with their cousins who the slave-traders left behind in Africa would require a drastic reduction in their wealth, living standards, and economic and political opportunities. No honest observer can deny or dismiss this nations long record of racism and injustice, but its also obvious that Americans of African descent enjoy vastly greater wealth and human rights of every variety than the citizens of any nation of the Mother Continent. If we sought to erase the impact of slavery on specific black families, we would need to obliterate the spectacular economic progress made by those families (and by US citizens in general) over the last 100 years. In view of the last century of history in Nigeria or Ivory Coast or Sierra Leone or Zimbabwe, could any African American say with confidence that he or she would have fared better had some distant ancestor not been enslaved? Of course, those who seek reparations would also cite the devastating impact of Western colonialism in stunting African progress, but the United States played virtually no role in the colonization of the continent. The British, French, Italians, Portuguese, Germans and others all established brutal colonial rule in Africa; tiny Belgium became a particularly oppressive and bloodthirsty colonial power in the Congo. The United States, on the other hand, sponsored only one long-term venture on the African continent: the colony of Liberia, an independent nation set up as a haven for liberated American slaves who wanted to go home. The fact that so few availed themselves of the opportunity, or heeded the back-to-African exhortations of turn- of-the-century Black Nationalist Marcus Garvey, reflects the reality that descendants of slaves understood they were better off remaining in the United States, for all its faults.
In short, politically correct assumptions about Americas entanglement with slavery lack any sense of depth, perspective or context. As with so many other persistent lies about this fortunate land, the unthinking indictment of the United States as uniquely blameworthy for an evil institution ignores the fact that the record of previous generations provides some basis for pride as well as guilt.
Michael Medved, nationally syndicated talk radio host, is author of 10 non-fiction books, including The Shadow Presidents and Right Turns.
Be the first to read Michael Medved's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery By Michael Medved Wednesday, September 26, 2007 Email It Print It Take Action Read Article & Comments (377) Trackbacks Post Your Comments
Those who want to discredit the United States and to deny our role as historys most powerful and pre-eminent force for freedom, goodness and human dignity invariably focus on Americas bloody past as a slave-holding nation. Along with the displacement and mistreatment of Native Americans, the enslavement of literally millions of Africans counts as one of our two founding crimesand an obvious rebuttal to any claims that this Republic truly represents the land of the free and the home of the brave. According to America-bashers at home and abroad, open-minded students of our history ought to feel more guilt than pride, and strive for reparations or other restitution to overcome the nations uniquely cruel, racist and rapacious legacy.
Unfortunately, the current mania for exaggerating Americas culpability for the horrors of slavery bears no more connection to reality than the old, discredited tendency to deny that the U.S. bore any blame at all. No, its not true that the peculiar institution featured kind-hearted, paternalistic masters and happy, dancing field-hands, any more than its true that America displayed unparalleled barbarity or enjoyed disproportionate benefit from kidnapping and exploiting innocent Africans.
Archaeologist Joseph Zias speaks at Masada, the desert fortress that was the scene of a mass suicide 2,000 years ago, June 17, 2007. A new research paper published Friday June 22, 2007 takes another look at the remains of three people found at the site, two male skeletons and a full head of women's hair, including two braids. They were long thought to have belonged to a family of Zealots, the fanatic Jewish rebels who killed themselves rather than fall into Roman slavery in the spring of 73 A.D., a story that became an important part of Israel's national mythology. The new research offers new theory on the remains at Masada, saying that the hair belonged not to a Jewish woman but to a foreign woman who fell into the hands of Jewish fighters.(AP photo/Rachael Strecher) Related Media: VIDEO: Death Sentence In Slave Case VIDEO: Wilberforce's Work Still Needed An honest and balanced understanding of the position of slavery in the American experience requires a serious attempt to place the institution in historical context and to clear-away some of the common myths and distortions.
1. SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION. At the time of the founding of the Republic in 1776, slavery existed literally everywhere on earth and had been an accepted aspect of human history from the very beginning of organized societies. Current thinking suggests that human beings took a crucial leap toward civilization about 10,000 years ago with the submission, training and domestication of important animal species (cows, sheep, swine, goats, chickens, horses and so forth) and, at the same time, began the domestication, bestialization and ownership of fellow human beings captured as prisoners in primitive wars. In ancient Greece, the great philosopher Aristotle described the ox as the poor mans slave while Xenophon likened the teaching of slaves to the training of wild animals. Aristotle further opined that it is clear that there are certain people who are free and certain who are slaves by nature, and it is both to their advantage, and just, for them to be slaves. The Romans seized so many captives from Eastern Europe that the terms Slav and slave bore the same origins. All the great cultures of the ancient world, from Egypt to Babylonia, Athens to Rome, Persia to India to China, depended upon the brutal enslavement of the masses often representing heavy majorities of the population. Contrary to the glamorization of aboriginal New World cultures, the Mayas, Aztecs and Incas counted among the most brutal slave-masters of them all --- not only turning the members of other tribes into harshly abused beasts of burden but also using these conquered enemies to feed a limitless lust for human sacrifice. The Tupinamba, a powerful tribe on the coast of Brazil south of the Amazon, took huge numbers of captives, then humiliated them for months or years, before engaging in mass slaughter of their victims in ritualized cannibalistic feasts. In Africa, slavery also represented a timeless norm long before any intrusion by Europeans. Moreover, the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch or British slave traders rarely penetrated far beyond the coasts: the actual capture and kidnapping of the millions of victims always occurred at the hands of neighboring tribes. As the great African-American historian Nathan Huggins pointed out, virtually all of the enslavement of Africans was carried out by other Africans but the concept of an African race was the invention of Western colonists, and most African traders saw themselves as selling people other than their own. In the final analysis, Yale historian David Brion Davis in his definitive 2006 history Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World notes that colonial North America surprisingly received only 5 to 6 percent of the African slaves shipped across the Atlantic. Meanwhile, the Arab slave trade (primarily from East Africa) lasted longer and enslaved more human beings than the European slavers working the other side of the continent. According to the best estimates, Islamic societies shipped between 12 and 17 million African slaves out of their homes in the course of a thousand years; the best estimate for the number of Africans enslaved by Europeans amounts to 11 million. In other words, when taking the prodigious and unspeakably cruel Islamic enslavements into the equation, at least 97% of all African men, women and children who were kidnapped, sold, and taken from their homes, were sent somewhere other than the British colonies of North America. In this context there is no historical basis to claim that the United States bears primary, or even prominent guilt for the depredations of centuries of African slavery.
2. SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAYS AMERICANS. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution put a formal end to the institution of slavery 89 years after the birth of the Republic; 142 years have passed since this welcome emancipation. Moreover, the importation of slaves came to an end in 1808 (as provided by the Constitution), a mere 32 years after independence, and slavery had been outlawed in most states decades before the Civil War. Even in the South, more than 80% of the white population never owned slaves. Given the fact that the majority of todays non-black Americans descend from immigrants who arrived in this country after the War Between the States, only a tiny percentage of todays white citizens perhaps as few as 5% -- bear any authentic sort of generational guilt for the exploitation of slave labor. Of course, a hundred years of Jim Crow laws, economic oppression and indefensible discrimination followed the theoretical emancipation of the slaves, but those harsh realities raise different issues from those connected to the long-ago history of bondage.
3. THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASNT GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT. Historians agree that hundreds of thousands, and probably millions of slaves perished over the course of 300 years during the rigors of the Middle Passage across the Atlantic Ocean. Estimates remain inevitably imprecise, but range as high as one third of the slave cargo who perished from disease or overcrowding during transport from Africa. Perhaps the most horrifying aspect of these voyages involves the fact that no slave traders wanted to see this level of deadly suffering: they benefited only from delivering (and selling) live slaves, not from tossing corpses into the ocean. By definition, the crime of genocide requires the deliberate slaughter of a specific group of people; slavers invariably preferred oppressing and exploiting live Africans rather than murdering them en masse. Here, the popular, facile comparisons between slavery and the Holocaust quickly break down: the Nazis occasionally benefited from the slave labor of their victims, but the ultimate purpose of facilities like Auschwitz involved mass death, not profit or productivity. For slave owners and slave dealers in the New World, however, death of your human property cost you money, just as the death of your domestic animals would cause financial damage. And as with their horses and cows, slave owners took pride and care in breeding as many new slaves as possible. Rather than eliminating the slave population, profit-oriented masters wanted to produce as many new, young slaves as they could. This hardly represents a compassionate or decent way to treat your fellow human beings, but it does amount to the very opposite of genocide. As David Brion Davis reports, slave holders in North America developed formidable expertise in keeping their bondsmen alive and healthy enough to produce abundant offspring. The British colonists took pride in slaves who developed an almost unique and rapid rate of population growth, freeing the later United States from a need for further African imports.
4. ITS NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES. Pennsylvania passed an emancipation law in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island followed four years later (all before the Constitution). New York approved emancipation in 1799. These states (with dynamic banking centers in Philadelphia and Manhattan) quickly emerged as robust centers of commerce and manufacturing, greatly enriching themselves while the slave-based economies in the South languished by comparison. At the time of the Constitution, Virginia constituted the most populous and wealthiest state in the Union, but by the time of the War Between the States the Old Dominion had fallen far behind a half-dozen northern states that had outlawed slavery two generations earlier. All analyses of Northern victory in the great sectional struggle highlights the vast advantages in terms of wealth and productivity in New England, the Mid-Atlantic States and the Midwest, compared to the relatively backward and impoverished states of the Confederacy. While a few elite families in the Old South undoubtedly based their formidable fortunes on the labor of slaves, the prevailing reality of the planter class involved chronic indebtedness and shaky finances long before the ultimate collapse of the evil system of bondage. The notion that America based its wealth and development on slave labor hardly comports with the obvious reality that for two hundred years since the founding of the Republic, by far the poorest and least developed section of the nation was precisely that region where slavery once prevailed.
5. WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION. In the course of scarcely more than a century following the emergence of the American Republic, men of conscience, principle and unflagging energy succeeded in abolishing slavery not just in the New World but in all nations of the West. During three eventful generations, one of the most ancient, ubiquitous and unquestioned of all human institutions (considered utterly indispensable by the enlightened philosophers of Greece and Rome) became universally discredited and finally illegal with Brazil at last liberating all its slaves in 1888. This worldwide mass movement (spear-headed in Britain and elsewhere by fervent Evangelical Christians) brought about the most rapid and fundamental transformation in all human history. While the United States (and the British colonies that preceded our independence) played no prominent role in creating the institution of slavery, or even in establishing the long-standing African slave trade pioneered by Arab, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and other merchants long before the settlement of English North America, Americans did contribute mightily to the spectacularly successful anti-slavery agitation. As early as 1646, the Puritan founders of New England expressed their revulsion at the enslavement of their fellow children of God. When magistrates in Massachusetts discovered that some of their citizens had raided an African village and violently seized two natives to bring them across the Atlantic for sale in the New World, the General Court condemned this haynos and crying sinn of man-stealing. The officials promptly ordered the two blacks returned to their native land. Two years later, Rhode Island passed legislation denouncing the practice of enslaving Africans for life and ordered that any slaves brought within the liberties of this Collonie be set free after ten years as the manner is with the English servants. A hundred and thirty years later John Adams and Benjamin Franklin both spent most of their lives as committed activists in the abolitionist cause, and Thomas Jefferson included a bitter condemnation of slavery in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence. This remarkable passage saw African bondage as cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty and described a market where MEN should be bought and sold as constituting piratical warfare and execrable commerce. Unfortunately, the Continental Congress removed this prescient, powerful denunciation in order to win approval from Jeffersons fellow slave-owners, but the impact of the Declaration and the American Revolution remained a powerful factor in energizing and inspiring the international anti-slavery cause. Nowhere did idealists pay a higher price for liberation than they did in the United States of America. Confederate forces (very few of whom ever owned slaves) may not have fought consciously to defend the Peculiar Institution, but Union soldiers and sailors (particularly at the end of the war) proudly risked their lives for the emancipation cause. Julia Ward Howes powerful and popular Battle Hymn of the Republic called on Federal troops to follow Christs example: as he died to make men holy/let us die to make men free. And many of them did die, some 364,000 in four years of combator the stunning equivalent of five million deaths as a percentage of todays United States population. Moreover, the economic cost of liberation remained almost unimaginable. In nearly all other nations, the government paid some form of compensation to slave-owners at the time of emancipation, but Southern slave-owners received no reimbursement of any kind when they lost an estimated $3.5 billion in 1860 dollars (about $70 billion in todays dollars) of what Davis describes as a hitherto legally accepted form of property. The most notable aspect of Americas history with slavery doesnt involve its tortured and bloody existence, but the unprecedented speed and determination with which abolitionists roused the national conscience and put this age-old evil to an end.
6. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAYS AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA. The idea of reparations rests on the notion of making up to the descendants of slaves for the incalculable damage done to their family status and welfare by the enslavement of generations of their ancestors. In theory, reparationists want society to repair the wrongs of the past by putting todays African-Americans into the sort of situation they would have enjoyed if their forebears hadnt been kidnapped, sold and transported across the ocean. Unfortunately, to bring American blacks in line with their cousins who the slave-traders left behind in Africa would require a drastic reduction in their wealth, living standards, and economic and political opportunities. No honest observer can deny or dismiss this nations long record of racism and injustice, but its also obvious that Americans of African descent enjoy vastly greater wealth and human rights of every variety than the citizens of any nation of the Mother Continent. If we sought to erase the impact of slavery on specific black families, we would need to obliterate the spectacular economic progress made by those families (and by US citizens in general) over the last 100 years. In view of the last century of history in Nigeria or Ivory Coast or Sierra Leone or Zimbabwe, could any African American say with confidence that he or she would have fared better had some distant ancestor not been enslaved? Of course, those who seek reparations would also cite the devastating impact of Western colonialism in stunting African progress, but the United States played virtually no role in the colonization of the continent. The British, French, Italians, Portuguese, Germans and others all established brutal colonial rule in Africa; tiny Belgium became a particularly oppressive and bloodthirsty colonial power in the Congo. The United States, on the other hand, sponsored only one long-term venture on the African continent: the colony of Liberia, an independent nation set up as a haven for liberated American slaves who wanted to go home. The fact that so few availed themselves of the opportunity, or heeded the back-to-African exhortations of turn- of-the-century Black Nationalist Marcus Garvey, reflects the reality that descendants of slaves understood they were better off remaining in the United States, for all its faults.
In short, politically correct assumptions about Americas entanglement with slavery lack any sense of depth, perspective or context. As with so many other persistent lies about this fortunate land, the unthinking indictment of the United States as uniquely blameworthy for an evil institution ignores the fact that the record of previous generations provides some basis for pride as well as guilt.
I remember reading somewhere that the Africans Bill Clinton apologized to were actually the descendants of the slave traders who sold the slaves.
One myth I wish Medved had addressed is the myth that a war was necessary to end slavery in the United States. Slavery ended peacefully everywhere in the western world except here and Haiti. It would have ended peacefully here as well.
Which has as much impact on the nation as if the local old maid who lives with a hundred cats did the same.
Bingo! And I think centrist should conduct a poll amoung black Americans asking the following questions:
1. Where would you prefer to live as an average citizen, Europe or Africa?
2. Within the last 400 years, which governments established a relatively high quality of life for its citizens, European or African?
3. Which continent has had slavery throughout its history and where slavery still exists, Europe or Africa?
4. In which continent do people die by the thousands every year to leave due to unliveable conditions, Europe or Africa?
5. As an American, which continent best describes your values, Europe or Africa?
6. Which political party promotes the values of Africa in America for black Americans, Republican or Democratic?
7. Which political party promotes the values of Europe in America for black Americans, Republican or Democratic?
8. Which values do Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton promote for black Americans, European or African?
9. Which values should black Americans have, European or African?
10. Which values should white Americans have, European or African?
This would provide hard data to support the claim that the left's destruction of black America is based on illusions that are created in the minds of white and black Americans.
Sharia law institutionalizes slavery...all Muslims accept slavery to Allah....many Western leaders, politicians call it a noble religion when it is first and foremost a political system of no freedom of thought, action at all...its way of life rules every minute of the day in required compliance to all its rules. Darfur in Somalia is named from the old Arabic term dar-fur..meaning land of slaves...it is where Arabians have obtained slaves for 1400 years and still do today. Muslims in the US have gone to jail recently for having slaves in this country. This latter fact is an inconvenient truth. WE are not ensuring that mosques in this country in their unmonitored teachings would not, do not, allow slavery....after all, all Islam is noble. This is the 7th inconvenient truth.
It is this hypocrisy of the American system that makes it a greater embarrassment.
In many ways the U.S. was not a legitimate constitutional republic until after the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments were passed.
Several weeks ago I saw Al Sharpton on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. They discussed the immorality and inhumanity of slavery at length, as if they think we are not aware enough of it.
I just wish one of those knuckleheads had mentioned that the Republican Party was fought to end slavery while the Democratic Party fought to maintain it.
A little historical perspective could be helpful, eh. Oh, wait, we can’t let people actually know the truth, can we.
OK, one more try:
I just wish one of those knuckleheads had mentioned that the Republican Party fought to end slavery while the Democratic Party fought to maintain it.
The check was written; it just hadn't been cashed.
That may be a nicer way of putting it.
He said tribal chiefs bore more responsibility for slavery than European and American slave traders.
From the newsroom of the BBC World Service Clinton acknowledges wrongness of slavery
Something not often told is how when returned to Africa, the first thing the former slaves did was enslave the native Africans.
True but it is a greater abomination for the Americans that most benefited from slavery in the past to still use it in current times. True Republicans (not ex-Dixiecrats) have been the force against slavery in the past, present and foreseeable future.
Really? The U.S. led the world in ending slavery.
The roots of which began in England by the Christian evangelical movement.
The south quit the union mostly because of the prohibition of
extending slavery into the free terretories. I suppose you would let that stand.
Embarrasement? 600,000 dead. was this in vain?
A rather convenient comment from a cushy computer keyboard.
The power of our constitution was the realization that slavery had to end to fulfill these human rights.
Our civil war was the only war in the scope of fighting for an idea , not land nor conquering another nation.
Are you justifying or triializing the extermination of Jews in Germany?
Of course, J Aguilar, one's point of view will be different when one looks at just WHAT the British were "Utterly Improving"
ENGLAND'S IRISH SLAVES
"...Records are replete with references to early Irish Catholics in the West Indies. Gwynn in Analecta Hibernica, states: 'The earliest reference to the Irish is the establishment of an Irish settlement on the Amazon River in 1612."(1) Smith, in Colonists in Bondage, reports: "a Proclamation of the year 1625 urged the banishing overseas of dangerous rogues (Irish Political Prisoners); kidnapping (of Irish) was common."(2)
Condon states that the first considerable emigration from Ireland to the southern latitudes of America was to Guiana in 1629.(3) Newton declares that Antigua and Montserrat were occupied as early as 1632 and that many emigrant Irish came out among the early planters and servants in these islands.(4) Dunn, in Sugar and Slaves, asserts that, in 1636, Ireland was already a prime source of supply for servants: as early as 1637, on Montserrat the Irish heavily outnumbered the English colonists, and 69 percent of Montserrat's white inhabitants were Irish.(5) Lenihan writes: in 1650 "25,000 Irishmen sold as slaves in Saint Kitt's and the adjoining islands, petitioned for a priest..."(6)
In 1641, Ireland's population was 1,466,000 and in 1652, 616,000. According to Sir William Petty, 850,000 were wasted by the sword, plague, famine, hardship and banishment during the Confederation War 1641-1652. At the end of the war, vast numbers of Irish men, women and children were forcibly transported to the American colonies by the English government.(7) These people were rounded up like cattle, and, as Prendergast reports on Thurloe's State Papers(8) (Pub. London, 1742), "In clearing the ground for the adventurers and soldiers (the English capitalists of that day)... To be transported to Barbados and the English plantations in America. It was a measure beneficial to Ireland, which was thus relieved of a population that might trouble the planters; it was a benefit to the people removed, which might thus be made English and Christians ... a great benefit to the West India sugar planters, who desired men and boys for their bondsmen, and the women and Irish girls... To solace them."(9)
J. Williams provides additional evidence of the attitude of the English government towards the Irish in an English law of June 26, 1657: "Those who fail to transplant themselves into Connaught (Ireland's Western Province) or (County) Clare within six months... Shall be attained of high treason... Are to be sent into America or some other parts beyond the seas..."(10) Those thus banished who return are to "suffer the pains of death as felons by virtue of this act, without benefit of Clergy."(11)
The following are but a few of the numerous references to those Irish transported against their will between 1651 and 1660......"
Read ON:[ http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT ]
Certainly, from an Irish Catholic perspective of the day, Utterly Improving would not exactly be the first thought that comes to mind now, would it?
Sure he does:
"While the United States (and the British colonies that preceded our independence) played no prominent role in creating the institution of slavery, or even in establishing the long-standing African slave trade pioneered by Arab, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and other merchants long before the settlement of English North America, Americans did contribute mightily to the spectacularly successful anti-slavery agitation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.