Historical Question: How did economic, geographic, and social factors encourage the growth of slavery as an important part of the economy of the Southern colonies between 1607 and 1775?
Before the colonial period, no significant studies had been carried out to assess the economic impacts of slavery. Colonization of America saw an increase in this form of trade. It is important to note that America was occupied by the British. How did economic, geographic, and social factors encourage the growth of slavery as an important part of the economy of the Southern colonies between 1607 and 1775? To answer this question, one must have a good understanding of the evolution of this commerce.
After colonization, Britons first occupied the northern part of the continent before settling on the southern region. The need to occupy southern colonies came as a result of the successes that were recorded in the north, especially after the establishment of cash crop farming. The setting up of the plantations in the southern colonies led to the growth of slavery. The factors that led to the rise of this trade can be divided into three major categories. They include economic, geographic, and social elements.
A number of economic variables informed the rise of slave trade in the southern territories. To begin with, the British required a source of labor to operate the large plantations. Valuable crops, mainly corn and tobacco, were grown here. The farms required specialized attention and care throughout the season. At the time, there was little mechanization. It is noted that the plantations were labor intensive.
As a result, more slaves had to be brought into America to cater for the rising demand for workers. Through slavery, the colonial masters were able to produce with little or no pay for labor. The ‘triangle trade’ across the Atlantic Ocean also promoted this trade. Merchants from European countries bought slaves from African kings. They later shipped them to America. In the colonies, the slaves provided free labor in the farms.
Geographical considerations also supported the rise of slave trade. They included climate and topography. The summer season promoted the growth of cash crops. The soils of the lower regions were fertile. As a result of the high productivity, more and more plantations were set up. Slaves had to be sourced from Africa and the Caribbean to satisfy the demand for labor. The region also received adequate amounts of rainfall throughout the year.
The topology of the land was sloppy, providing proper drainage, which made the area suitable for cash crop farming. Increased agricultural activities translated to rise in the demand for slaves as a source of labor for the plantations. Outbreaks of diseases, such as malaria and smallpox, were common in the plantations. As a result, there was a need to provide a steady supply of slave.
A number of social factors also encouraged the growth of slavery in the southern colonies. Racism was one of biggest contributing elements. To this end, Blacks were regarded as lesser members of the human race compared to other individuals. As a result, the colonial masters did not hesitate to use blacks as slaves in the plantations. The conditions in the large-scale farms were very harsh. European workers were not willing to offer labor in such environments. Consequently, slaves had to be brought in from other regions to work in the plantations.
Bibliography
Price, Jacob. The Economic Growth of the Chesapeake and the European Market: 1697–1775. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Mancalla, Peter and Thomas Weiss. Was Economic Growth likely in Colonial British North America?. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Holland, Rupert. Historic Events of Colonial Days. New York: The Floating Press, 2013.
The 16th President of the United States of America thought that his foremost duty was to preserve the federation at all costs. Abraham Lincoln is often considered as the greatest of the Presidents of the U.S.A. From very humble beginnings he rose to be the Chief Executive of the Nation and fulfilled what he conceived to be his duty without any compromise. However, one could clearly discern in his first inaugural address a spirit of compromise and not confrontation. One would in fact be surprised that the question of slavery did not weigh in his mind as much the unity of the federation, despite the fact that his upbringing was undoubtedly “anti-slavery”.
First Inaugural Speech
Some salient features in the first inaugural speech make it very clear his intention to preserve and protect the Constitution rather than abolition of the slavery as the prime issue in the Civil War. He made it very clear that the perpetuation of the Union of the States would be his paramount concern. Moreover, he made reference to the fact that the union was older than the constitution and referred to the spirit of the Articles of the Constitution 1774 and Articles of Confederation of 1788. He stressed that he would ‘protect the union’ and exhorted the dissidents to ‘protect the great national fabric’.
In his characteristic manner, he made the following very clear: “One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.” It is of course, a surprise that he did not make slavery an issue in the inaugural address but that could be understood the context of weighty historical precedents.
Proclamation of Emancipation of Slavery
In 1863 Abraham Lincoln was forced to issue a proclamation of emancipation of slavery. Among other things, the proclamation stated : And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.” Analysts are of the opinion that the proclamation actually did not free many in the dissident states and only the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865 put an end legally to slavery. But the war and the second inaugural had already paved the way for abolition of slavery, though preservation of the federation was supreme concern.
Conclusion
However, where the President’s heart lay is clearly manifested in the Gettysburg address. That immortal speech dedicated to the memory of those who had sacrificed their lives in the war makes a pointed reference to the spirit of the fathers of the constitution who believed that the new nation had been
conceived and dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal”. That he had to find a golden mean between his personal conviction and the duties of the exalted office was obvious. But when the situation so altered, he lost no time in issuing proclamation to free the slaves, though for all practical purposes it would take more time to become the ground reality. But it is beyond doubt that he made it very clear that a nation could not continue half-free and half-slave.
References
Abraham Lincoln, The First Inaugural Address.
Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.
A Proclamation, By the President of the United States of America.
This paper aims to discuss the evolution of such social phenomenon as slavery in the United States. In particular, it is necessary to explain why it became associated primarily with black people. Secondly, we need to show how it changed with time passing and how slaves tried to cope with this experience.
Overall, it is possible for us to advance a thesis that the origins of black slavery should be sought in the economic development of American colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and especially the fact that it was based on agriculture.
First, we need to need say that the first colonizers, who settled in North America, were most engaged in the production and export of coffee, sugar, cotton, and tobacco as the climate and soil of those lands was perfectly suitable for these crops (Foner, 22). These activities required cheap labor force, and the easiest way to procure these workers was to bring slaves from Africa. One should bear in mind that slavery existed in Africa long before the arrival of Europeans.
More importantly, human trafficking was a common source of income for many people (Foner, 22). This is the key reason why slavery is now associated mostly with black people. It has to be admitted that there were also the so-called white slaves: they were mostly British or German people, who were forced to work for a planter, but they had a right to ransom themselves out slavery, whereas African people were not allowed to do that.
Some Indian Americans were also enslaved but such cases were not very widespread especially in comparison with the number of black slaves. The key reason is that Indians were perceived as a different race, but not an inferior one. Apart from that, European colonizers were reluctant to come into conflict with them as they could put up a violent resistance, whereas Black people did not have such an opportunity.
Secondly, one should not overlook racial and religious prejudices against African slaves, especially in the seventeenth century. They were regarded as subhuman individuals or at least someone, who was inferior to Europeans (Foner, 132). The very ideology of slavery was based on the premise that Africans were created to serve superior races, i.e. Europeans. Certainly, there were intellectuals, who objected to this standpoint, but they were not numerous at least at that time.
The abolitionist movement intensifies only in the early years of the nineteenth century when industrial revolution was already under way and there was no need so slave labor. Thus, political and social views of that period linked slavery with a particular race.
Having no civil rights, black slaves could not protect themselves from the cruelty of their owners. Therefore, they tried to work ways of shielding themselves against this injustice. There were two forms of such resistance: passive and active ones. As far as passive resistance was concerned, we need to say that African slaves found consolation in their language and culture (Foner, 143). For example, they spoke Gullah[1], and built houses that resembled their own homes in Africa.
However, the key issue is that they began to live in very small and secluded communities, to which slave-owners did not have access. Religion and especially Christianity also helped them to guard themselves against their oppressors. To a large extent, it gave them a spiritual comfort or the belief that in the afterlife there will be no suffering. Apart from that, it gave them hope that sometime they would manage to break free (Foner, 417).
It should be mentioned that life of urban and rural slaves was different. Those slaves, who lived in villages, were forced to work in very harsh working conditions; their work was based mostly on backbreaking physical labor. In contrast, urban slaves often worked as craftsmen who had to possess well-developed technical skills (Foner, 412). Again, we need to stress an idea that that industrial revolution made the slave labor less necessary.
For example, such inventions as spinning wheel or steam engine helped to reduce the number of workforce, needed for the same task. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the US cities became more industrialized and as a result, the living conditions of many slaves improved. Certainly, they had to give their wages to their holders but they acquired a higher degree of independence (Foner, 412). Overall, one can argue that the industrial revolution undermined the very institution of slavery.
When discussing passive resistance of African slaves, one should not overlook the works of such intellectuals as Olaudah Equiano, Ignatious Sancho or Frederick Douglass, all of whom we once slaves but managed to regain their freedom. The books and articles, written by these people emphasized the cruelty of slavery and it’s brutal nature (Foner, 428). They showed that African people have the same feelings, emotions and needs as Europeans do.
One should not assume that culture, language, and family were the only means of resistance to slavery; as in many cases it took more active forms. We can mention Turner’s rebellion that broke out in Virginia. In 1831, Nat Turner[2] and his followers revolted against their owners and killed more than sixty white people (Foner, 421). One can as well remember German Coast uprising that took place in 1811 and left two slave-owners dead.
Naturally, each of these insurgencies was suppressed and those, who had been responsible for them, were executed. Nonetheless, they clearly illustrated an idea that slavery ownership could not remain unpunished and that a constantly suppressed person was rather likely to strike back. These revolts contributed to a shift in the public opinion: American society understood that slavery had to be abolished; otherwise it would lead to relentless feud between black and white people.
Attempts to escape from slavery were another form of active resistance. According to the rough estimations, at least one thousand people managed to reach the Northern states or even Canada (Foner, 419). This also greatly intensified the movement of abolitionism. On the whole, this active and passive resistance of African slaves culminated into the American Civil War which completely uprooted the institution of slavery.
As we can see, such phenomenon as black slavery came into existence due to several economic, political, religious and philosophical factors. Despite the fact that it was full abolished in 1865, it left an indelible trace in the memory of American people and the process of American Reconstruction that began after the Civil War, still goes on.
Works Cited
Foner Eric. Give Me Liberty! An American History. NY W.W. Norton & Company, 2008.
Footnotes
The language that combined dialects of several African languages along with English. The majority of white people could not understand it
A slave, who despite his social status, received good education
Slavery was one of the main grievances experienced by African-Americans. The institution of domestic slavery had an early origin in both the Northern and Southern Colonies. The earliest records of slavery in New England coincide with the Pequot War, 1637 when the captured Indians were enslaved. Negro slaves were shortly thereafter imported, the practice of trading the Indian for the blackamoor arising because the latter was better suited by nature for enslavement.
It would seem that this custom was given positive legal recognition first in the Body of Liberties enacted in 1641, a legal sanction that remained unrepealed throughout the Colonial period. When the New England Confederation was formed in 1643 to promote matters of common concern for the New England Colonies, one provision of the compact was for the rendition of bondservants. Throughout the seventeenth century, it is impossible to discern a public attitude for emancipation in New England. For women, slavery represented a double burden because of their color of skin and gender.
In slavery, African-American women could imbibe their divinely prescribed role and the concomitant virtue of self-sacrifice through commonsensical readings of the Bible. Philosophy prescribed a moral system in which one’s conscience determined all mental and moral judgments and served to guide the individual through life’s turmoils. Whereas While American women under this ideology might ostensibly serve as the purveyors of low-class, domestic morality and the virtuous saviors of a troubled nation, they nevertheless were closed out of a host of career and leadership opportunities as well political, legal, and economic rights.
Moreover, their own voices, feelings, and desires became their enemies, as women were precluded from expressing themselves freely. Given her refusal to follow these prescriptions, Beecher herself demonstrated the losses incurred by the feminine ideal she so vehemently advocated (Franklin and Moss 2000).
For African-American women, attacks on slavery were few and isolated and not in harmony with the prevailing sentiment of the times. There seemed to be no inconsistency between the Calvinistic theory of election and domestic slavery, nor any incongruity between a system of bondage and the Puritan practice in religious and governmental institutions. Puritan political views were strongly influenced by religion, but by the Old Testament religion; they patterned their institutions as prototypes of the Old Hebrew society, and the Law of Moses, with ultimate divine sanction, was their standard.
The doctrine of election in the realm of religion, moreover, was fundamentally out of harmony with a theory of social equality. Whatever views the Puritan advocate of the slave had were humanitarian, for the care of his soul and for the amelioration of his physical hardships, rather than equalitarian, for the absolving of his status (Kelly and Lewis, 2000). The seeds of the anti-slavery crusade were not indigenous to Puritanism, nor did the climate of New England nourish their growth, until shortly before the Revolution when the fertile thought of the American patriot was implanted with them to stimulate a rapid and luxuriant growth (Hill, 2006).
Two principal ideas militating in opposition to the work of the humanitarians; first, the belief that the Negro was a different species from man, that he was without a soul, and that Christianity offered no salvation for him; and secondly, the fear that administration of the sacraments to the slave would elevate him to the plane of the master and would absolve his status as a slave.
In the literature of the Colonial period may be found many pieces of evidence of the belief in the inferior capacity of the Negro, which idea made such an indelible impression on the collective mind of the slaveowners that it was not entirely removed even a century later when assaulted by the combined teachings of the churches in the South during the crest of the development of the religious theory of the unity of the races. Instead, this common belief of Negro incapacity was the Colonial heritage of the ethnological branch of the later pro-slavery thought, which developed the theory of the diversity of races and plurality of their origins (Mullane,1993).
Slavery joined the male-female, public-private binaries in part by espousing an active and public role for women. Rather than reinforce her call for a universal, self-sacrificing feminine identity through shaming tactics and an appeal to Common Sense reasoning.
Another feature of the pro-slavery argument appearing many times in the debates was the spread theory, that is, that it was necessary to extend and spread the institution into new territory so as to lighten its burden on the old slave communities. In order to understand the full significance of this theory, as a pro-slavery argument, it is pertinent to hold in mind a factor that was almost constant in the history of pro-slavery thought (Kelly and Lewis, 2000).
To the Southern mind, the institution of domestic slavery afforded the best relationship under which a superior and an inferior race could live together, provided that a proper ratio of those races was maintained. Intolerable evils would result in society if the proportion of the races became unbalanced. Women were relegated to any form of activity that occurs inside the newly privatized household of the emergent middle class; men, by contrast, are assigned to the competitive and chaotic public world of politics and capitalist enterprise (Kelly and Lewis, 2000).
In the course of the debate, the discussion shifted to the question of what form, if any, the plan of action should take. Many schemes were proposed, all of which were in the nature of colonization. There were those that would colonize beyond the Rockies and those that would establish the colony in Africa; there were those that would colonize through the medium of the federal government, the State government, or the Colonization Society, supplemented by funds from the State or nation.
The second form was gradualism, which shaded into various grades of opinion. They differed with the immediatists, taking the ground that abolition should be accomplished by degrees and steps. Instead of emphasizing the natural right of the slave, they recognized the property right of the master and the practical results of abolition to society (Mullane1993). Others believed that generations, and in some cases centuries, would be necessary to attain complete emancipation.
Whereas immediatism had practically no support within the South, gradualism, in some phases of its theory, had many advocates. Incidentally, an increased supply would reduce the price of slaves. This would enable the poorer classes to purchase them and become slaveowners. The result would be to do away with the undesirable economic conflict between hirelings and slave labor within the South. More slaves were needed in order to break up the concentration of ownership in a small group and diffuse it among a large number of potential masters. It was necessary for the large group of poor whites to share directly in the benefits of slavery in order for them to be brought fully to support the institution (Sanchez-Hucles, 1997).
The group of imperialists visualized the great contest of the ages ensuing between slave and free society. They believed that had the slave trade never been closed; slave society would have already won the contest in this hemisphere. They realized, moreover, that the contest would continue, even within the South, after Southern independence (Hine et al., 2007). Spratt pointed out after the dissolution of the Union that the causes that tended to defeat slavery still existed.
The slaves were still being drawn off to the west by high prices, and the border States, and even South Carolina, were being supplied with pauper labor and developing an element opposed to slavery. He, therefore, renewed his efforts to revive the trade when the South was in the formation of a slave republic (Smallwood and Elliot1997).
The defense of slavery always followed an attack. Thus during the first two decades of the nineteenth century, pro-slavery opinion was passive. Few persons in public life, or through private writings, rose to defend an institution that apparently remained securely surrounded by constitutional safeguards. The slaveholder, feeling that the question had been settled once for all in the compromises of the Federal Constitution, did not care to reopen the question and was content that no one else did so. On the few occasions in which the question was brought up in Congress, the Southern representatives denied jurisdiction in that body to act (Kelly and Lewis, 2000).
The first defenses that appeared, and there was an occasional one from the very earliest period, were apologetic. This may be explained on the ground that it was the easiest way to put aside the question. It must also be held in mind that, while there had always existed a strong faction that desired to perpetuate slavery, yet many lesser elements within the South looked to its final overthrow. These elements had to be brought in line with the perpetual before the apologetic attitude could be thrown off (Hine et al., 2007).
The discussion over the legal basis of slavery resolved into two broad questions. The first was a philosophical inquiry as to whether the institution conformed to the law of nature, and the second took on more of the character of a legalistic dispute as to whether there was a positive law sanction for the institution. From the genesis of the slavery controversy, both the antagonists and the proponents of slavery had appealed to the law of nature to support their opposite positions.
In American slavery history, the anti-slavery group argued, from the very beginning, that the institution was contrary to nature’s law; and at times, they appealed to nature as a higher law that overrode all man-made sanctions for slavery. Pro-slavery thinkers, therefore, were led to study the great writers on the law of nature and to set forth interpretations of it with which slavery might harmonize (Kelly and Lewis, 2000).
To meet the attack from the natural rights interpretation of natural law, the defenders of slavery divided into two schools; the first attempted to reconcile slavery and natural rights, whereas the second discarded natural rights entirely. In order to accomplish a reconciliation of the two,
In gender relations, moral values and traditions played a crucial role. The moral rationale of slavery made up a distinct division of the philosophy of the slaveholder. From the beginning of the controversy, the principle of right and wrong involved in the slavery relationship was fundamental in both anti-slavery and pro-slavery thought. When the relation was first attacked as a moral evil, the reaction of the slaveholder was objective. Kelly and Lewis (2000) observed actual conditions and replied that it could not be evil when so much good resulted to the parties.
Thus the first stage in the moral justification was the argument of the realist in answer to the idealist who would judge all human relations by a set of abstract principles. When the attack advanced to the position that the relationship of master and slave was a sin per se, everywhere and under all conditions, then he began to construct a moral philosophy under which slavery could be authoritatively supported. Ultimately pro-slavery thought in the field of ethics led to the statement of a rational system under which slavery was brought into conformity with the moral foundation of the universe. For an authoritative code of morality that would govern all human relations, the slaveholder went to the Bible, where divine revelation contributed the basic element in preparing the moral defense (Kelly and Lewis, 2000).
In sum, the classified rights under the law of nature into those that are inalienable, such as that of self-defense, those that may be voluntarily surrendered, and those that may be forfeited by crime, captivity in war, or debt. With the weight of these authorities, the Southern slaveholder united the facts he had derived from history. Slavery had existed in all ages and at all times in some form. It owed its being, therefore, to universal custom, the common consent of mankind.
Based upon the common law of nations, that is, upon universal custom and usage, the institution had received the sanction of the legal codes and judicial decisions, or of the municipal law, of individual nations. The significance of this decision can readily be seen as destroying the authority of the master beyond the limits of his own State and as giving the institution a standing dependent solely upon local lawThen; the emancipationists argued that the rules of property, such as the laws of descent and of primogeniture were determined by statute and might be repealed at any time. An abrogation of the rules of descent would be tantamount to declaring it property no longer, for the value of the female slaves depended upon the value of the offspring.
References
Franklin, J.H. Moss, A. A. (2000). From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans. Knopf; 8 Sub edition.
Hill, S. A. (2006). Marriage among African American Women: A Gender Perspective Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37 (1), 565.
Hine, D. C. Hine, W. C. Harrold, S. (2007). African American Odyssey, The Combined Volume.Prentice-Hall; 4 edition.
Kelly, D.S., Lewis, E. (2000). To Make our world Anew: A history of African Americans to 1880. Oxford University Press, USA.
Mullane, D. (1993). Crossing The Danger Water: Three hundred years of African American. Anchor; 1st Anchor Books Ed edition.
Sanchez-Hucles, J. V. (1997). Jeopardy Not Bonus Status for African American Women in the Work Force: Why Does the Myth of Advantage Persist? American Journal of Community Psychology, 25 (1), 338.
Smallwood, A.D. Elliot, J. M. (1997). The Atlas of African-American History and Politics: From the Slave Trade to Modern Times. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
The American Revolution had a remarkable impact on slavery and women in the United States. Although slave trade and its associated activities continued to flourish in the south, continued protests by northern abolitionists instigated a campaign against detainment and oppression of captives.
This situation led to liberation of more slaves from the constraints of slave masters in the south. The American Revolution ushered a new phase of feminist reformists who advocated for women’s rights. After independence, many slavery abolitionists and women rights activists brought about a transformed society. This research paper analyses the impact of the American Revolution on slavery and women.
Impact of Revolution on Slavery
The American Revolution remarkably brought about significant changes to the institution of slavery. Firstly, it played a great role in ending captivity in North America. According to Marsh (2004), slave owners in Northern America were willing to free their slaves after the revolution.
In addition, they agitated for the abolishment of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. They considered slaves as beings who deserved dignified treatment as humans. However, the freeing of slaves in the north did not guarantee them freedom from slavery (Marsh, 2004).
The southern economy was rapidly flourishing due to large cash crop plantations that demanded more laborers. Therefore, freed slaves from the north were sold to the southerners to work in the plantations. However, anti-slavery activists from the north together with some of the unrestrained detainees initiated an ‘underground railroad’ revolution that freed captives who were working in the southern plantations (Marsh, 2004).
The idea of ending servitude was first initiated in Britain before it spread to other parts of the world such as Northern America. Many activists and feminists supported its abolishment. In his speech “No Compromise with the Evil of Slavery” in 1854, William Garrison regarded slavery as an insensitive treatment of fellow humans and was against the Law of God. He sharply condemned slavery and advocated for its immediate abolishment (Marsh, 2004).
After his speech, many other activists and abolitionists ascended to fight for the rights of blacks and women. Freed slaves and other opponents of the slave trade in the north agitated for release and freedom of slaves in the south. This situation led to freeing of between 40,000 to 100,000 slaves in the 1830s (Marsh, 2004).
Furthermore, the American Revolution led relocation of slaves to new lands. During the upheaval, slaves were engaged in real fighting (Schweninger, 2014). Both slaves and blacks sided with the British and continentals. The British promised them liberty and land.
As a result, some freed slaves were relocated to new lands in Sierra Leone, Canada, England, and Australia. About one-eighth of those who fled their masters were women. Most women together with their children, were forced to leave their husbands (who were in were fighting the colonies) behind as they sought liberation. However, relocation of the slaves did not guarantee them better lives.
The American Revolution was not an easy time for the slave. According to Schweninger (2014), many slaves died during the revolutionary war. Indentured servants and slaves were promised freedom. Slaves who were owned by rebels sided with the British and opposed their masters. However, those who were owned by the loyalists supported their masters (Schweninger, 2014). Rebelling slaves underwent untold suffering. They lacked food and were highly vulnerable to diseases owing to meagre healthiness.
As a result, many of them succumbed to death because they contracted diseases that had limited prevention and treatment at the time. Indeed, diseases caused more deaths than warfront wounds. Moreover, the revolution caused an influx of criminals in prisons.
Earlier, criminals were transported to colonies where they worked as servants. However, this privilege ended when the British lost control of its colonies to the Americans. Therefore, all criminals were sentenced to prisons. This turn of events led to massive congestion in the American prisons (Schweninger, 2014).
Impact of Revolution on Women
According to Lewis and Lewis (2011), the American Revolution had remarkable effects on women. During the revolution, women played a range of roles that were mostly domestic chores. The Homespun movement that engaged women in weaving to supply their families with clothes and blankets evidenced this situation.
In addition, they kept their homes safe for public services such as provision of housing to American soldiers during the revolution war. Furthermore, the situation forced some women to participate as soldiers to reinforce the warfare (Lewis & Lewis, 2011).
Moreover, other women participated in politics and activist activities. Earlier, Women were not allowed to take part in politics and other economic matters. However, the American Revolution ushered new rules that permitted women to participate in public matters. Although most women were adamant to join public institutions, a few of them chose to become political figures (Grasso, 2008).
However, after the revolution, more women gradually featured in the public domain either as activists or as politicians. In a bid to reform the society, these women formed organizations that advocated for transformation of the American society. These organizations instilled good morals, values, and virtuous ideas in children.
Political changes that took place after the revolution triggered various feminist reform agendas and social movements. Inequality and gender discrimination forced women to demand participation in public affairs such as voting and involvement in state decisions. However, they faced many challenges. Many were unemployed and were not able to undertake public responsibilities (Grasso, 2008).
Many feminists and abolitionists propagated activism in an attempt to defend women rights after the revolutionary war. After independence, they further fought for abolishment of slavery and establishment of gender, social, and racial equality amongst the blacks and whites.
In 1848, Fredric Douglass (a prominent opponent of slave trade and bondage activities) led a group of feminists and abolitionists during the Seneca Falls convention to address the rights of women to vote and participate in government affairs. Together with other activists, he supported the idea of allowing blacks to vote (Greene & Pole, 2003).
Feminist agendas and social movements that took place after the revolution promoted the status of women rights in America. This state of affairs was triggered by political, cultural, social, economic, and intellectual changes that were dramatically changing the American community. As a result, the womenfolk demanded voting rights and participation in public goings-on, a situation that led to endorsement of women rights in 1837.
In addition, the launch of the American Female Moral Association (AFMA) in the 1830s led to enactment of women’s rights regulation over the control of their bodies. It opposed sexual double standards that were prevalent during the slavery period. Other transformations that took place included campaigns for women’s right to access higher education. Fuelled by abolitionists and feminists, they stepped forward to defend their rights to learn in both private and public schools (Sklar, 2002).
According to Sklar (2002), the revolution overthrew the ruling monarchs. This situation raised the middle class to power. However, the blacks were not allowed to vote or take part in government affairs. Furthermore, black women underwent dreadful experiences such as poor health, pain, and unsolved deaths during prenatal periods.
Infant mortality was high because of meagre fitness. Although, women slaves who gave births were allowed to take care of their children up to weaning, their plight was overriding during this period. Nonetheless, the rise of abolitionists and feminists (after independence) significantly improved the statuses of women (Greene & Pole, 2003).
Conclusion
The American Revolution significantly led to the rise of abolitionists and activists who fought against slave trade and suffrage of women. However, the revolutionary war had dreadful effects on slaves. Enslaved women underwent suffering and dreadful experiences. Although the rebellion movements led to freeing to slaves, the phenomenon did not better the situation of women. Due to poor health, many women perished during prenatal periods while infants succumbed to diseases that were incurable at the time.
Nonetheless, continued fight for the rights bore fruits at the end, as many slaves in the Americas were liberated from the constraints of the ruthless masters. This situation led to the rise of revolutionists who fought for the representation of blacks and rights of women. Constitutional amendments that were endorsed later guaranteed liberty and equality amongst women. Therefore, the American Revolution was the advent of successive benefits that were enjoyed by the freed slaves, especially women.
Reference List
Grasso, C. (2008). Deist Monster on Religious Common Sense in the Wake of the American Revolution. The Journal of American History, 95(1), 17-42.
Greene, J., & Pole, J. (2003). The Impact of the Revolution on the Role, Status, and Experience of Women. Web.
Lewis, J., & Lewis, C. (2011). Women and Slavery in America: A Documentary History. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press.
Marsh, B. (2004). Women and the American Revolution in Georgia. Georgia Historical Quarterly, 88(2), 157-78.
Schweninger, L. (2014). Freedom Suits, African American Women, and the Genealogy of Slavery. William & Mary Quarterly, 71(1), 35-62.
Sklar, K. (2002). From Wollstonecraft to Mill: What British and European Ideas and Social Movements Influenced the Emergence of Feminism in the Atlantic World, 1792-1869? Journal Universal, 4(8), 276.
Slavery and Freedom: What, according to Morgan, is the central paradox of American history?
A paradox is a declaration that seems as if it disagrees with itself and yet it might be factual.
In the article, Edmund S. Morgan argues that from the 17th to 19th century America witnessed the rise of liberty and equality as slavery increased. The fact that the above conflicting developments occurred simultaneously for such a period is what Morgan refers to as the central paradox of American history (Morgan 6).
A hypocrite is an individual who behaves in disagreement with his or her affirmed ideas or feelings.
Morgan argues that the American founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington were hypocrites (Morgan 6). He argues that these founders were the champions of freedom and liberty in America. According to Morgan, these leaders are hypocrites because despite their fight for justice and equality they were all slaveholders.
The article asserts that throughout his entire adulthood Thomas Jefferson hated debt. These feelings made him have a passionate aversion to debt. He felt so because he believed that debt limited individual’s freedom of action. Similarly, he believed that debt undermined the capacity of a nation to exist as a republic.
Jefferson believed that the landless laborers posed a threat to the nation because they were not independent. Jefferson believed that a citizen could only be independent if he or she owned land. According to him, landless laborers were subject to changes in the market prices, and if their work was at risk they had no land to turn to for income. Because landless laborers were not independent, Jefferson believed that landless laborers could be easily be used as tools to overturn the liberties of a nation.
Jefferson believed that the landless laborers posed a risk to the republic influenced his concerns about emancipation. Jefferson contemplated emancipating his slaves because he believed that free men with no land were going to be a threat to national security. He postulated that free, idle, and hungry individuals were going to steal from the rich.
Hakluyt believed that the world was supposed to be ruled by the Englishmen. He believed that if Englishmen ruled over the world, they would be able to extend the effects of free governance to the less fortunate individuals in the new world. His visions were not only limited to improving the living conditions of the English poor but also aimed at improving the living conditions of the natives of the lands the Englishmen would settle.
Hakluyt’s vision enabled the Englishmen to go and settle in the new world. Before the Englishmen settled in the new world, England was faced with enormous social problems. As such, the population had increased significantly has the resources to support them reduced. Because of this, the English poor used to wander aimlessly searching for jobs. During the 16th century, these individuals were sent to the new world to work as laborers. Given the fact that England’s job opportunities could not satisfy the increase in population and labor force, Hakluyt’s vision addressed the problem of the idle poor in England.
In the 1670s, social problems increased in Virginia. Legal and economic pressures were tightened to keep more men in service. Despite these, the population of freemen rose. As their number increased, the government of the time felt threatened. The government was so determined to reduce the civil influence of freemen that they limited voting to landholders and householders. Virginia was an unstable place because almost all the freemen and without land were harmed. Since they were harmed, they could gang up against the landholders leading to a civil war.
Freemen revolted against the landed elite during Bacon’s Rebellion because Governor William Berkeley imposed undeserved duty, failed to improve their economic conditions, and failed to protect them from being attacked by the natives. Freemen rebelled against the landed elite because they were connected and were involved in the running of the government blamed for the unjust mistreatment of the freemen.
After Bacon’s Rebellion, the colonial authorities acknowledged that the increasing number of white freemen was a threat to the landed elite (Morgan 22). To reduce the risk caused by the number of increased freemen, slavery replaced servitude. Coordination of slave labor created order in Virginia. African born slaves would cause less trouble compared to white freemen. As such, Africans could not claim equal rights compared to the white freemen and provided a cheap source of labor (Tindall & David 78).
In the article, Professor Morgan asserts that for a very long time the landowners tried in vain to deny equal rights and civil liberties to the white freemen. With the increased number of black slaves, freemen became less intimidating. In the subsequent years, colonial authorities came up with a strict slave code and that limited slaves from exercising their civil liberties as the whites (Gates 67). As times passed, white freemen were able to vote and become slaveholders.
Works Cited
Gates, Henry Louis. Life upon these shores: looking at African American history, 1513 2008. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011. Print.
Morgan, Edmund. “Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox,” The Journal of The American Paradox,” The Journal of American History 1.59 (1972): 5-29. Print.
Tindall, George Brown, and David E. Shi. America: a narrative history. 9th ed. New York: Norton, 2012. Print.
There have been varied arguments and debates about the causes that led to the abolition of slavery. A number of historians have attributed abolition of slavery to agitations by abolition movement, moral, political and economic reasons and others, completely or deliberately underestimating the spirited resistance from the slaves themselves (Marshal, 2001). Clearly, they might have underestimated slave resistance either deliberately due to bias or out of ignorance. The truth is that resistance against slavery by slaves themselves played a significant role that caused abolition of slavery throughout the world. In this paper I will discuss the need to understand slave resistance as a cause to abolition of slavery, slave resistance tactics in British colonial America, and Brazil.
Historically, slave resistance has always been used to relate specific reactions of slaves such as outright rebellions. It also included the most secretive of private thoughts of slaves. To understand how important slave resistances as a cause to slavery abolition, I will look at how the slave traders, owners, and masters looked at the potential threats and possibilities of slave resistance. In reality, the perpetrators of slavery tended to view their slaves either with fear or deep rooted suspicion. This was particularly evident throughout the history of slaves in the Americas, and across the historical geography of slavery, from the time the slaves were seized from Africa through to the life they were subjected to in transit, on to the remotest of American frontier settlements (Kloopenberg, 1998). When I look at the social history of the lives of most of the people in slavery, in itself, is a study of resistance. Slaves were at all times in constant struggle against violent challenges at work, public or private. The institution of slavery as practiced in that era was violent and cruel particularly in Americas. This institution was conceived in violence, in the African interior where they were seized, far from the view of Europeans on the coast. In the enforced migration, it was continued in violence, by land and then especially by water and it heaped more violence on the slaves at landfall, at the resale in the Americas and finally at the point of resettlement (Miers, 1999).
These acts of personal violence were institutionalized that the perpetrators of slavery assumed that without violence Atlantic slavery would not function. Majority of the slaves were abducted from African interior through act violence (Miers, 1999). The manner they were transported was managed by the realities and potential threats of violence. Certainly, while on plantations, planters subjected them to physical violence. No planter would have hoped to work with his slaves without the ultimate penalty of physical punishment. Similarly, looking at the legal and penal systems adopted by slave colonies, they made severe use of violence in the maintenance of the system. Moreover, the slaves themselves understood that they were living in a violent culture. The slave prepared most of their folklores and parental advice throughout slave societies for their enslaved off springs (Price, 1996). These were aimed at warning their young against the dangers of slave life, and how to avoid them. Slaves viewed life under slavery as brutal and dangerous, and thereby responded accordingly. However, it is wrong to think of slave resistance in physical terms only. Physical resistance such as rebellion and destructiveness’ though the most obvious, is only one element in a complex spectrum of slave resistance. Given the levels of endemic to American slavery, it seems remarkable that slaves rarely overthrew the system. Slave owners on their part thought of the worst of their slaves, fearing resistance, planning for it, and devising local and society wide regulations to prevent, curb, or punish it (Miers, 1999).
Resistance against slavery began in British North America in the 17th century immediately the slaves arrived in Chesapeake (Mason, 2006). The reason for resistance was that slaves wanted to attain some degree of freedom from institutions which looked upon them as property. Slavery at that time was all about forced labor and the enslaved struggled to redefine the terms of their work. Therefore most resistance by slaves was seen in the work place. Customary rights of production emerged from the fields of production as years passed by. The work routines, distribution of rations, and other general rules were dictated by these customs. Most slaves expressed their resistance for instance, through, production sabotage, breaking tools of work, feigning illnesses, or slowing works (Morgan, 2000). This especially happened in instances when the slave masters increased workloads, offered inadequate food rations to slaves, or administered severe punishments. The slaves would hit backs to enable slave masters negotiate the terms of their daily routines. There was nothing the slave masters could do to stop the slaves without enhancing widespread production breaks. Therefore, they had to ensure that slaves were contented for them to work harder and increase efficiency. They also resisted against oppression through deliberate acts of theft from their masters (Heuman, 2003).
To demonstrate the significance of slave resistance as a possible cause to slavery abolition is the fear that gripped the slaveholders in August 30, 1800 in Virginia. The fear had spread to the majority of slaveholders within days in this State. Within weeks, the fear had spread to other slave owners as far as west and south of the Mississippi territory (Heuman, 2003). They were cautioning each other to be aware of the suspicious behavior on the part their slaves. This was occasioned by the fear had of Gabriel Prosser who had planned to lead slaves in Virginia in a revolt against slavery. Slaveholders were dreadful of the thoughts of what would have happened if Prosser would have succeeded in his plans. Gabriel Prosser and his family distasted slavery and hated slaveholders. They were born in slavery and they declared themselves fit for freedom. Prosser together with his family plotted to lead the slaves of Richmond area in a revolt against the city. Their plan was to seize the weapons, once armed with weapons take Richmond area and other cities within Virginia. Once successful, they planned to declare the city a free state, a homeland for those unfit for slavery (Kelley, 2005).
Prosser’s plans did not come to fruition as a terrible storm swept out the bridges and roads thus scuttling the execution of his plans. This occurred on the night of the planned attack on Richmond. Therefore, he had to postpone his rebellion. The delay gave someone time to betray him and expose his plans. All those who had conspired in the plan were arrested, tried and executed. Gabriel Prosser became one of the first people to struggle in the name of freedom in the nineteenth century. He brought about the theme of the fight against slavery for African Americans. He also entrenched in African Americans the struggle to be free citizens and resistance despite incredible odds to maintain human dignity in the face of overwhelming inhumanity. Those odds increased when cotton became the principal export crop in America. Short staple cotton was in demand throughout the world, especially in England where textile manufacturers never seemed to be getting enough. Within a short period the crop became the principle cash crop in the south of the country. This conspired against the slaves, together with the coming of the cotton gin, advent of fertile soil, and world demand for cotton. Once this happened, all slaves who might have been set free by debt and conscious ridden Chesapeake planters were instead sold to the planters in cotton growing states in the south. These seemed to seal the fate of slaves and slavery. It seems Gabriel Prosser had prophesized about this. The slaves had no other option other than choking in slavery. But Prosser’s spirit of struggle enabled slaves to practice resistance in various forms for freedom. As I discussed earlier, some of the forms they applied were direct and overt claims of freedom through flights. They also put up their spirited resistance through armed rebellions. In between 1691 and 1865 for instance, slave revolts had been reported in the cities of New York in 1712, South Carolina 1739, New Orleans in1811, and Virginia in 1865. The slaves had commandeered arsenals, burned and looted property. They even killed their masters and other whites. However, none of these rebellions was successful to bring about their freedom. This enhanced the quest for abolition of slavery (Kelley, 2005).
In the history of slavery, Brazil is known to have had the largest population of freed slaves prior to abolition. This population of freed slaves in collaboration with the enslaved population played a significant role in ending slavery in Brazil. In the second half of the nineteenth century there emerged a strong abolitionist movement in Brazil. Although it was belated, the abolitionist movement throughout the 1880s established a slavery press, anti slavery societies, championed provincial liberation of slaves, passed deterrence’s on internal slave trade, created underground railroads and save havens for slaves running away from slavery (Garden, 2006). These activities by abolitionist movements had a significant impact in the eventual abolition of slavery in Brazil. Most important was the participation of slaves themselves in the resistance. Their active resistance had a compelling effect upon the organization of slavery in Brazil. It also had a compelling effect upon the manner in which slaves were freed, and the way new forms of labor coercion, following slavery were designed. From 1880s before the final decree of abolishing slavery in Brazil was made, thousands of slaves had already abandoned plantations. The exodus for these run away slaves completely overwhelmed the Brazilian army. They Brazilian army had to request relief from the task to capture and return the run away slaves. The exodus forced slaveholders in most plantations to free their remaining slaves by 1886 (Baronov, 2003).
The efforts of slaves to free themselves were greatly assisted by direct actions of the freed slave population. In 1886 slaves staged a wave of revolts that shut down the city of Santos that forced the municipality to declare the city a free city. Many of the free slaves in the last half of 1880s refused to transport slaves and instead colluded to assist in the transportation of run away slaves. Judging from the way slaveholders particularly the planters’ class responded to slave rebellions, it is right to conclude that slave resistance was an important cause to abolition of slavery. Without slave resistance, their would have been little need for slaveholders to bother with a drawn out, long term strategy to devise punitive, post slavery working conditions, and such for violent mass of slaves who stood in opposition of these plans (Andrew, 1991). Thus, while contending forces within the planters’ class developed a gradualist abolition strategy, a parallel struggle from below was being waged by the slaves in the form of disruption and open rebellion (Blackburn, 1988). The development of these forms of slave protests and rebellion led to the final process of transition that was marked by turbulence and fear. This happened especially due to the state of desperation the slaves had against the brutal oppression they were subjected to. They were willing to risk everything including their lives to achieve their freedom (Garden, 2006). The slaves adopted frequent strategies of sabotage. This forced planters to shift the preference of immigrant labor to slave labor because the propensity of slaves to destroy machinery. In view of these therefore, it is clear that slave resistance to the conditions of slavery led to the abolition of slavery. Principally, abolition resulted from the pressure assisted closely by abolitionists (Grint, 2001). They abandoned plantations, caused a lot of disorder within labor, and created an unsustainable environment in the Brazilian countryside. Thus by the time Brazil enacted the golden the law of abolition of slavery, the resistance and exodus of slaves had made slavery in that country an institution crumbling from within and the law of emancipation itself a virtual after thought (Baronov, 2003).
In conclusion, the importance of slave resistance as a cause of abolition of slavery can never be underestimated. As discussed in this essay, the slaveholders were always not comfortably with their own slaves. They were always fearful of possible rebellions because as human beings they needed to be treated humanly.
References
Andrew, G, 1991, Blacks and Whites in Sao Paolo Brazil, 1888-1988, Wiscosin, Wiscosin Press.
Baronov, D, 2003, Abolition of Slavery in Brazil, The Liberation of Africans Through the Emancipation of Capital, West Port, Connecticut, Greenwood Publishing.
Blackburn, R, 1988, The overthrow of Colonial Slavery, Verso Publishers.
Heuman, G, Walvin, J, 2003, The Slavery Reader, New York, Routledge Publishers.
Garden, D, 2006, From Slavery to Freedom in Brazil, New Mexico, University of New Mexico Press.
Gellman, D, 2006, Emancipating New York, New York, LSU Press.
Grint, K, 2001, The Art of Leadership, New York, Oxford University Press.
Kelley,R, Lewis,E, 2005, To Make Our World Anew, A History of African Americans, New York, Oxford University Press.
Kloopenberg, J, Wightman, 1998, A Companion to American Thought, Blackwell publishing.
Marshal, P, 2001, The Cambridge Illustrated, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Mason, M, 2006, Slavery and Politics in Early American Republic, North Carolina, UNC Press.
Miers, S, Klein, M, 1999, Slavery and Colonial Rule in Africa, New York, Routledge.
Morgan, K, 2000, Slavery and Servitude in North America, 1606-1800.
Coates and Frum’s articles demonstrate that a fair deal has not been provided to African Americans throughout the United States history, raising questions on whether they should be compensated. The disadvantages were experienced from the period the blacks were treated as slaves and subjected to working on the farms of the whites. However, the Black Americans have been able to pass through the hindrance of the case by claiming various possibilities, rights, and more dignity. However, the process has been painful and slow because not everyone supports the hardships they have encountered in the past. Relatively, they have been subjected to violence, discrimination, and racism that has originated from the whites who felt they were superior to the blacks.
Now that the nation has decided to associate itself with the negative virtue prevailing within their society, numerous questions have been raised on whether the blacks should be repatriated, with everyone providing their opinion on the matter. The concept calls for a specific amount of money to be used in paying the descendants of slaves by the U.S., but the dilemma is that it has to come from the taxpayers who are citizens of the same country. Therefore, the purpose of my argumentative essay is to support Coates’ ideology of reparation since it is stronger than Frum’s refusal on the same case since Coates tries to provide better reasons as to why the individuals should be compensated. At the same time, Frum is more focused on the self-interests of the whites.
Summary of Coates’ Argument
In his article “The Case for Reparations,” Coates provides some practical concepts on why compensation should be paid to the African Americans but fails to give an appropriate strategy for performing the act. However, he argues that the comprehension of compensations requires a significant subject in position regarding racial issues across the united states. Most individuals feel that his ideologies are only based on acquiring taxpayers’ money to be used in paying the descendants of slaves, not knowing that it is a step ahead towards protecting the good heritage of the nation. Coates tries to get the attention of his audience by explaining to them the importance of understanding the benefits of the impact the slaves faced during the regime of white supremacy. There is no guarantee that the discussion will lead to the reimbursements of blacks. Still, it is worth talking about and knowing its facts (Brooks 35). He claims that most Americans enjoy the benefits of the nation being great but forgetting the history that oppressed the blacks is why the nation is believed to be very great.
In the global phase, the U.S. is considered one of the most successful nations because of its governance and democratic standards that the citizens are accorded. The author believes that all the morals were generated from the harsh life that the slaves lived in the past days. He claims that in 1840, more than 59 percent of America’s exports were because of the strenuous efforts that the slaves gave for free (Andersen 12). A study by historians from Yale proved that in the past, slaves were considered more of an asset than being humans facilitating the reason why the whites who came from the south fought so hard to avoid the abolishment of slavery, proving that they were the central column of achievement.
In addition, Coates claims that the poor living nature of most African blacks in the United States can be directly traced to laws of racism that are still prevailing in the country. It is also clear that the blacks who were under the segregation of Jim Crow and slavery did not have the opportunity to realize the American’s dreams of meritocratic self-determination and prosperity because they were put under extreme darkness of truth (Ta-Nehisi 6). During the Jim Crow era, both political and education privileges were denied to black society. The properties they possessed could be grabbed from them, and the enacted laws could not protect them. Still, when the same scenario could happen to the whites, they had all the rights to be protected by the land laws. Besides, the aspects linked to the development of the middle class during the 20th century, such as new deals, G.I. bills, homeownership, and education, were not provided to the African American population.
The author illustrates Clyde Ross, who escaped from Mississippi to try to find a job in Chicago. The man is perceived to be very hardworking since he is determined to work and get the money that will help raise his family and remain with some savings to help him achieve his dream of owning a home. However, during his time, it was only possible for a black man to purchase a property in Chicago if he engaged himself in predatory contracts, consisting of inflated charges by the vendor for restricted protection (Ta-Nehisi 4). The passion for saving made Clyde take three occupations at the cost of his family’s time. His spouse also had to work with the Marshall Field to help in making ends meet while some of the children had to be educated in private institutions.
Despite all the effort and time, the wages that Ross could have earned and saved all went to make the white investors wealthier. However, he had to accept it since it was a norm during his time that any property owner knew that for them to be successful in America, the white community had to rip from them. The ideologies that African Americans had fixed in their mindset contributed to the consequences of oppression that they were facing. Their perception facilitated the implementation of policies that even legalized burglary for the black community. The penalties echoed beyond members of a family who were ripped off to civilization that spots the spectacles.
Despite all the adverse events that the past created for the blacks, the author’s article played a significant role in changing their state of living in the United States. The modifications that were implemented were seen after six years of his publication when it generated an intense debate that has seen numerous publishers differ with his concept. Furthermore, a bill is also before Congress for a serious debate on whether the united states should pay reparations to the saves or not (Bedau et al. 51). Another argument of Coates that has facilitated a strong debate is that he claims whites in the modern society continue benefitting from the exploitations that they carried out on the ancestors of the slaves; hence they are liable to be compensated. More so, if the black ancestors initiated the prosperity of Americans, then it is evident that the distribution of benefits in the country is not fair since the black community is seen straining towards getting an equal share that the whites are receiving.
His article has also led to a robust debate from scholars and black leaders who have been pushing for the reparations to the society of their race and equal administration of laws and freedom given to the white states. They have argued for a long period with phrases such as libertarianism when trying to convince Congress to pass the bill of compensation (Frum, 4). They say that the idea of reparations is valid to the blacks because of the oppression their ancestors experienced during the slavery era. Coates believes that his article will bear success when Congress realizes who should be entitled to the reparations and the strategy deployed towards all the beneficiaries get the compensation that the authorities will decide.
Summary of Frum’s Rebuttal
On the other hand, David Frum, a conservative political commentator, and an American journalist scripted a rebuttal of the concept portrayed by Coates. After acquiring knowledge of David’s essay’s ideologies, it is clear to any individual that the argument he is providing is very insightful and practical against a compensation settlement since it demonstrates a detailed comparison of how people in the society deal with racial factors (Brophy 41). From his viewpoint, compensation is believed to be taking the wrong path if the debate is based on the events in America’s history and race mindset. He accredits the provision of the same argument to be extended equally so that every citizen should benefit from it instead of only believing that one section of society played a bigger role than others in building the nation’s success.
Frum also supports a weird opposition to creating any developments in perspective. He cautioned that any damages program implemented to pay the descendants of slavery would eventually be expanded to other groups, creating another brand of inequality. He questions if the reparation will be performed on a targeted community, whether they will receive similar compensation per family or person, and how the program will measure the amount of compensation that is being given out to the beneficiaries (Frum 6). he argued that if the bill is passed. Reparations are delivered collectively and communally; differences in political impact, power, and wealth with the black Americans will be more imperative.
However, according to Posner and Vermeule, the government should focus on the various means of initiating the program without comprising the right of equality of all citizens (12). He suggests the payment of cash over a specified period since he believes it is necessary for self-enhancement. Besides, Frum states such methods will only raise more claims since it is only focused on African Americans asking that if the group is paid for subjugation and slavery, what about the different impacts faced by other groups such as Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Mexican American, Mexican Americans, and Native Americans (Andersen 21)? Moreover, he claims that if black Americans are entitled to some amount of money, then other groups should be considered for reparations.
Besides, Frum also objects to the program’s significance since he believes that there is no proper strategy that will ensure fairness for the people who need to be compensated since the level of suffering by their ancestors is not the same. Alternatively, he believes the debate will not be successful because it is hard to trace back the suffering of the past to the people of the present day since it is more than two centuries after the circumstance occurred (Horowitz 14). And suppose the government decides to admit to the program. In that case, there will be an imbalance of expenditure in the country because a certain group of people will have more money to spend than others resulting in inflation in the economy.
He summarizes the article by demonstrating that if reparations should be carried out, everyone should be entitled to benefit from it and not just a specific community. If the government is to carry out the process formally, then various questions need to be taken into account, such as who requires to benefit from the program and where the money to make payments will come from (Bedau et al. 33). furthermore, he claims that anyone who is advocating the debate of reparations has to be sure of certain things, or else they postpone the argument until they are certain.
An Argument for the Stronger Position
Based on the two articles, I believe Coates provides the strongest reasoning. Based on the evidence provided by (Harris et al. 17), any establishment founded on the past in the history of the united states is connected to the virtues of racism. Properties considered to have the best circumstances, such as land and public institutions, were confiscated from individuals of color. Coates’s argument brings his ideologies from the wall street situation, which the Tutsi group initially inhabited. However, the racist groups decided to displace them, for they had all the legal support provided to them by the existing authority even to build numerous public institutions.
I also believe his argument is stronger since it is ironic that the properties confiscated from the African Americans are of great value to the whites more than it is to the blacks. The concept led him to state the injury gap triggered by people of color’s extermination and their properties snatched from them by the white community. Hence, the descendants of black slaves deserve reimbursement to bridge the space between the poor and the rich. Paying African Americans for the pain their ancestors went through is very significant in connecting the accomplishment gap.
Furthermore, according to Michael and Yaquinto, 29, reparation will play a major role in narrowing the gap between the individuals who are considered middle and low-class inhabitants of the U.S. The African blacks are more underprivileged in various ways, such as job seeking, ownership of properties, rights to equal legal judgments, and police brutality that is still happening in modern society. I believe reparation will help improve their lives from the poverty line that is still subjecting them to so much oppression.
Moreover, slavery did not end with slavery since it is still manifested in other means in the current society. Therefore, it is clear that the white community receives more privileges compared to African Americans. Thus, reparation will play a significant duty in ensuring racial disparities are eliminated in the country since it will be a symbol of apology, facilitating unity. The author also states that the program will not be fair to some people since not everyone is poor, and it will just be an addition to the wealth they have, creating the possibility of inflation if the reimbursement is conducted through cash mode. He gives an example of prominent celebrities such as Herman, Beyoncé, and Oprah.
Cultural, Political, And Economic Context of Reparation
However, my take on Coates’s reparation may seem unsatisfactory to some individuals who might feel that I am wrong in a cultural, political, and economic context. From a political perspective, for instance, when President Barrack Obama was a presidential candidate, he rejected reparations despite him being from the black lineage by stating the political evidence of providing them with the compensation do not exist. Still, it is being advocated with an unpractical objective (Michael and Yaquinto 36). further arguments have also been noted, especially from the Republicans who believe that paying African Americans for their ancestors’ suffering is setting a price on them, which transforms into being an insult. They also believe that if the court ruled in favor of the black community, it would have a great consequence of dividing the country and generating challenges to make political coalitions needed to solve the problems the African Americans are going through today.
Another group rejects the subject in a cultural context since they believe it is only aimed at dividing the country within racial boundaries; by focusing on past injustice and talking about the previous events, blacks distance themselves from others by seeing themselves as the only people who deserve payment from the government (Brooks 53). The group rejecting the reparation for blacks claims that they fail to progress economically and in education because they have only concentrated on receiving compensation. Yet, they are not the only people whose ancestors were subjected to the slavery era. In addition, it is so unfortunate that the courts and Congress have also taken part in promoting the debate instead of focusing on the future goals of America that will include everyone and not just a specific group of citizens.
The final argument is in an economic context where the group debate that African Americans should not be compensated since the claim is only founded on enriching the community. This will be very wrong since there is still a group of white individuals who are also poor. They claim that the case should not only aim at the wealth of Africans. Economists believe that the action will be performed at the cost of taxpayers’ funds, which will make some sense of injustice to improve the country’s economy (Andersen 12). besides, most Black Americans living in the united states are not descendants of slaves since some are just immigrants from other countries, but the debate also includes them in the program, which will be unfair.
Recommendations
It is unfortunate that some groups still feel that it will be unfair to compensate blacks for their ancestors’ hardships in making the united states a great nation. The question at hand should be how, who, and when needs to be compensated. Therefore, in my recommendation, the government should find better strategies for ensuring the right people are entitled to receive the program’s benefits. More education should be given to the population that opposes the reparation programs by educating them that the program is not necessarily a means of making the blacks rich but apologizing for what their ancestors underwent. Moreover, I also believe for the program to be successful. Americans need first to address racial discrimination that is still in existence because it is part of the major barrier limiting the implementation of reparations. On the concerns of who should make payments, the united states congress can pass a bill that will see the people who benefited most from the actions of slavery to make a voluntary payment in terms of an added tax into a separate treasury account.
Conclusion
In summary, for America to completely accept the injuries of the past, an essential transformation must be performed in all establishments. Coates believes that most Americans have not yet realized that the nation becoming great today is because of history. At the same time, his opposer Frum says America is great today because of everyone’s effort in building the nation. Despite equal rights for both the whites and blacks today, it will be unfair not to compensate the African Americans who were never given the same privileges in the past, such as the right to owning properties and the right to equal distribution of the country’s resources. Therefore, if the country will decide to ignore history and act as if everything is normal, reparation will still follow future governments until they decide on the best way to solve the matter. Lastly, in as much there is difficulty in compensating the black, it will play a significant role in ensuring that the country has accepted its mistakes, thus protecting its status and heritage.
Bedau, Hugo, et al. Reparations for Slavery: A Reader. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
Brooks, Roy L. Atonement and forgiveness: A new model for black reparations. Univ of California Press, 2004.
Brophy, Alfred L. “The Cultural War over Reparations for Slavery.” DePaul L. Rev. 53 (2003): 1181.
Frum, David. “The impossibility of reparations.” The Atlantic, 2014. Web.
Harris, Leslie Maria, James T. Campbell, and Alfred L. Brophy, editors. Slavery and the University: Histories and legacies. University of Georgia Press, 2019.
Horowitz, David. Uncivil wars: The Controversy over Reparations for Slavery. Encounter Books, 2002.
Martin, Michael T., and Marilyn Yaquinto, editors. Redress for Historical Injustices in the United States: On Reparations for Slavery, Jim Crow, and their legacies. Duke University Press, 2020.
Posner, Eric A., and Adrian Vermeule. “Reparations for Slavery and Other Historical Injustices.” Colum. L. Rev. 103 (2003): 689.
Ta-Nehisi, Coates. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic, 2014. Web.
The western expansion refers to the process whereby the Americans moved away from their original 13 colonies in the 1800s, towards the west which was encouraged by explorers like Lewis and Clarke. These explore braved nature and hostile American natives in order to explore the lands at the west. They were later followed by the settlers. The American colonists took one and a half-century to expanding colonists took fifty years to push their expansion up to the Mississippi River, (Counter.E.M, 1926).
The Americans were inspired by a notion that they had a manifest destiny which promoted their belief that it was their destiny to stretch across the American continent. Another reason for the expansion was the American’s search for cheap land, with the Texas edge of settlement being pushed by the year 1850. The expansion further extended to the Southwest and the Pacific Northwest. The ‘Manifest Destiny’ as a belief discouraged United States expansion from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean.
In the 1840s the Western United States (Texas, Oregon territory, and Mexican Cession ) was proposed to be annexed. The expansion era is also referred to as the “Age of Manifest Destiny”, from the end of the War of 1813 era to the beginning of the American Civil war. States that were first acquired by the Americans during the expansion include; Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio between 1791and 1803. After the 1812 war, expansion resulted in the statehood of Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Maine, and Missouri.
The expansion involved laying of siege, drafting of Acts to make expansion easier (for example Dawes Severalty Act), Impresarios, Overland trails, and building of trail roads. The Western expansion, in turn, affected social reforms and slavery in America. In this paper, the influences of western expansion on social reforms (women reforms) and slavery will be discussed.
Discussion
Social Reforms
Social reforms refer to the process that involves a gradual change in certain aspects of society. A society always holds particular views or opinions. However, these opinions may be challenged and changes advocated about them in society. The changes are undertaken through a gradual process that can also be referred to as social reforms. From the colonial era, both unmarried women and men enjoyed equal legal rights though the same law advocated for early marriage in women.
The social injustices to women before the Western expansion were many and very discriminatory. After early marriage, women lost the equal rights with men that they previously enjoyed before marriage. In addition, women were not allowed to vote during elections and their education rights were undermined by limitations to only reading, writing, music, needlework, and dancing. The western expansion brought with it social reforms to stop the above-mentioned injustices against women.
Social reforms made many women realize their unequal position in society during the Western expansion. Women were prohibited from speaking in any public place before the expansion. During the expansion, a Scottish lecturer and journalist Frances Wright visited America in the 1820s. This started off the social reforms in America with Wright speaking out about the social injustices against women.
This encouraged women to speak out about the injustices in their society. Wright further shocked her audiences by her views that not only advocated for women’s rights but also encouraged women to seek information on birth control and divorce issues. Wright’s public views made women realize that their rights are denied and they should take measures to fight for their rights.
Women by the 1840s drew up a declaration to demand equal rights to those of the men. American women formed a group that would forge the women’s rights movement led by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. A women’s rights convention was organized at Seneca Falls in New York. This was the first women’s convention in the world. Delegates who attended the convention drafted a declaration, which demanded equality through the law. They demanded rights included the women’s right to vote.
Women were able to get equal opportunities in education with men. Initially, women were only allowed to learn how to read and write in addition to music, dancing, and needlework. While men were offered a chance to learn up to the higher levels of education, women were limited to only reading and writing. It was difficult for women to give their opinion on professional matters, unlike the men. With the Western expansion, women were able to fight for their rights to be educated and even secure professional employment later.
With an equal opportunity to education, women consequently demanded an equal opportunity to employment. When women were denied a chance to advance in education their employment was compromised too. With a good opportunity to get educated, women gained professional skills and knowledge that enabled them to secure professional employment.
Before the Western expansion, women had no right to own property in their own name. In 1848 Ernestine Rose pushed for the passing of a law in New York, which allowed married women to own their property under their name. The law referred to as the married women’s property Act led other state legislatures in enacting similar laws in their states. Women through these reforms were able to own property even though they were married.
Before the expansion women played no role in the election of the leaders. However in 1859 teamwork by Elizabeth Cady, Ernestine Rose and Susan B. founded the National woman Suffrage Association (NWSA). This movement was very instrumental in advocating for a constitutional amendment that would allow women to vote. The amendments to the constitution gave women an equal right to vote just like men. The Western expansion in the US played an important role in the social changes that prevented undermining of women’s rights and empowered them in the later years.
Slavery
A slave refers to a person who is denied his or her personal freedom and is compelled to work without pay. Slaves are held against their will and are either captured or purchased to work without leaving or receiving compensation for their labor,( James O.H et al.2005 ). A social-economic system that allows the use of slaves for labor is known as slavery.
The western expansion resulted in the settlement of the Americans to the West region. Agriculture in the already acquired lands demanded labor in the farms. Within the United States boundaries, slavery for life was legal from 1554 to 1865 (James O.H. et al 2005). In most cases, the whites held the black slaves though some native Americans and few blacks also held black slaves. Slaves were used in agriculture, with the majority of slaves being held in the Southern United States. According to a US census in 1860, 15 states that had legalized slavery held almost four million slaves. While slavery in the Northwest Territory was banned in 1787 through the Northwest ordinance, slavery continued in the South.
Western expansion contributed very greatly to the growth of the slavery system. Expansion by Americans led to the establishment of huge agricultural farms. The southern region of America encouraged slavery and fought against any measures that would end it. Slave labor as an economic factor made slavery very profitable in running the agricultural farms.
Earlier growth of the cotton industry and new inventions led to the Industrial Revolution that increased the demand for raw cotton. Consequently, new lands were opened through the expansion process after 1812 greatly extending land available for cotton cultivation. The owners of these agricultural lands increased the number of slaves in their farms while new farms brought in the slaves to provide labor.
Sugarcane production required intensive labor, which demanded labor that was easily provided by slaves. Slavery extension in the South continued with the rich hot lands of southeastern Louisiana providing ideal sugar cane profits. Tobacco growers took slaves with them after they moved to the west.
Slavery in agriculture from settlements in the west as a result of expansion in the 18th and 19th centuries caused Industrial Revolution. The establishment of industries encouraged high demands for raw materials. Cheap labor from slaves increased profits that saw further increase of industries to welcome industrial Revolution in the US.
Western expansion in the U.S caused the deaths of so many slaves. The slave owners and the overseers were authorized to whip and brutalize both the compliant and non-compliant slaves. Slaves were exposed to very hard work and only provided with inadequate and poor nutritional food. Furthermore, the agricultural plantations were located in mosquito-prone areas which resulted in many slaves’ death from malaria. The death toll of the slaves rose so much that the plantation owners opted to rent out slaves rather than own them,(Otton.. H.O,2004). The expansion was very influential in promoting slavery in addition to causing their deaths. The slavery system of owning slaves was also changed to the system of renting them to combat the high death rates of the slaves.
The expansion to the west by the Americans saw the rebellion by the slaves in the plantation farms. The slaves were normally treated very brutally by the farm owners which compelled the slaves to fight back. As owners switched to brutal methods of punishing slaves(trading their relatives for profit, punishment, or as payment to debts), slaves retaliated by killing the owners, burning their barns, killing their horses, and staging work slowdowns. The slave’s resistance later raised concerns for this system which later saved them from this brutal system (Blassingame. J.W,1977).
The slavery that was practiced during the 18th and 19th century, contributed greatly to the illiteracy of slaves even after the reconstruction when slavery was abolished. After Nat Turner’s rebellion, laws were put into place that prohibited the education of black slaves, free blacks, and children of blacks and whites. When slavery was abolished, illiteracy was identified as a major challenge for people seeking to join free enterprise and support themselves during reconstruction.
On the other hand, western expansion in the Northern region encouraged the banning of the slavery system. The Northwest Territory of the US banned the use of slaves to provide labor. Though the South continued with the slavery system, the banning of slavery through the Northwest ordinance reduced the number of slaves forced to work on farms.
At the beginning of the 19th century, slavery became an issue of national concern. In the 1850s slavery system in newly found agricultural lands failed to be banned by the political leaders in the US. Eleven states left the US union and proclaimed themselves an independent nation after 1860. this was after the election of Abraham Lincoln as US president. These states included; South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. The Confederate later surrendered after the American civil war. Slavery was finally abolished in Dec 1865 through a congress ratified 13th amendment to the US constitution. Though the Western expansion had led to the growth of the slavery system in the US it finally led to the abolishment of the same system.
Works Cited
Blassingame.J.W,1977.Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, Interviews and Autobiographies. Louisiana State University Press. Louisiana.
Coutner.E.M,1926.The Civil War and Readjustment in Kentucky.pp.268-270.
James O.H and Loise.E.H.2005.Slavery and the Making of America.New York: Oxford University Press,p.7.
Otton.. H.O,2004.Historians and the extent of Slave Ownership in the Southern United States. Civil War History.
The Struggle for Equality: Abolitionists and the Negro in the Civil War and Reconstruction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964.
Throughout its conscious existence, humanity has sought to expand its borders, explore new places, and conquer distant horizons. Great Britain is a great maritime state, and it has significantly succeeded as a pioneer. British colonies were established in many places around the world, thousands of miles away from British shores. They also appeared in North America when a new Stuart dynasty came to power in Great Britain. Unfortunately, the concept of slavery and the slave trade is inextricably linked with the process of colonization.
The history of the colonial rule of Great Britain begins in 1607 when the Puritans – part of the first colonists – were fleeing from persecution. Protestants also left France and Holland for the New World, hoping to find a safe place to live and preach their views. Peasants, poor people seeking a better life, and criminals fit for hard work also left for the New World. In 1607, the first permanent English settlement was founded on the territory of future Virginia. The first few years were extremely difficult for the colonists, and many died of hunger. However, in 1612, it was possible to grow “Virginia tobacco,” which improved the situation for the better.
The settlement in the city of New Plymouth was founded by the second, and it laid the foundation for the colonies of New England. The colonists ‘ society consisted of various groups of the population: ordinary farmers, entrepreneurs, hired workers, landowners, and slaves. There was a desperate shortage of labor, so it was imported to North America. Slavery in North America began in 1619 when the first cargo of slaves arrived in Jamestown on a Dutch ship. However, initially, there were few slaves in North America, and their status was not fully defined.
Before the appearance of black slaves, there were white slaves – obligated servants. Traveling across the ocean was difficult, so many slaves died from hunger, disease, or shipwrecks. When the ships arrived on the American mainland, there might not be any buyers in the harbor, so white slaves, chained to each other, went to villages and cities searching for buyers. Moreover, the situation of white slaves was often no better than that of black ones. The owner possessed them temporarily and therefore was utterly uninterested in preserving their lives when the contract expired. People were subjected to the most severe punishments for trying to escape, up to the death penalty. Thus, the skin color did not particularly affect the position of a person if he was a slave.
Initially, slaves received freedom as a reward for good work, exemplary behavior, and conversion to Christianity. However, in the southern colonies, significant local land ownership was formed, which focused on producing raw materials and food, so the situation of the blacks changed considerably. Turning them into hereditary slaves began, which was also dictated by an acute shortage of labor. For the most part, slaves were used on large tobacco and rice plantations, where their work was more productive. Each colony had its legislation concerning slaves, which established specific rules for them. Thus, the slave finally turned into a talking tool and the property of their master, gradually losing the few rights and freedoms that he had.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that there was also certain freedom against the background of slavery. Great Britain has always tried to establish complete economic control over the colonies in North America. Great Britain bought all the industrial goods produced in the settlements to achieve this, and in return, the colonies received raw materials and agricultural goods. It becomes clear that Great Britain was not interested in the fact that the English colonies traded with anyone other than the mother country. Great Britain did not want the industry to develop in the English colonies. Nevertheless, despite the efforts of Great Britain, the English colonies achieved great success in the industry, especially in shipbuilding.
Despite the strict religious discipline, New England became the cradle of the developing self-consciousness of Americans, an original cultural and political tradition. The first printing houses were created, so it was in New England that the ideas of the American Enlightenment were born. Moreover, in New England, the absence of feudal nobility and large land ownership opened the way to free enterprise early. The political life of these colonies developed its tradition of self-government, which Great Britain could not freely control.
Thus, despite slave labor, there were also phenomena in the society of the British colonies that ensured people’s independence from the mother country. The weakening of the social foundations of the colonial regime was also facilitated by the periodic uprisings of certain groups of the population. Merchants, farmers, small merchants in provincial towns, white and black slaves often spoke out against both direct oppressors and the tightening of the fiscal policy of Great Britain. Thus, the short-sighted policy of oppression pursued by England was fraught with aggravation of social conflicts. Leaving the custody of the metropolis was presented to the local American elite as a condition for social stability, neutralization of mass discontent.