Pretty interesting video. A lot condensed into just ten minutes. Bit of an oversimplification at points, but it's a pretty compelling YouTube video and he backs up his factoids repeatedly with sources.
What are your thoughts?
That's some straight up #KONY2012 shit right there. Whenever a talking head tells you racism is motivated by evil, look for his agenda. FUN FACT - Martin Luther King was a martyr and a lion of the civil rights movement according to this video, but according to Howard Zinn, whose book your downloading of helps this video, Martin Luther King was an Uncle Tom, the safe "house negro" whose star was made to eclipse Malcolm X so that any civil rights reforms would be safe, nonviolent and meaningless. LOOK - there are a lot of facts in this video, and I'm not going to dispute them. People who aren't white get the shaft in the United States in depressing proportions. What's missed in these discussions is the fact that people who aren't the majority get the shaft in all countries and the United States, as the most multiracial melting pot country in the world, gets to grapple with them for everyone else. That "three caste" system wasn't invented as some evil plot to keep the Black Man Down. As even the narrator says, indentured servitude fucked a whole lot of people who were the exact same color as the people fucking them. What happened was the Enlightenment and reforms against the aristocracy in the Old World which meant fucking over the peasants got harder to do. It simply made it more economical to import slave labor from Africa. Not shown in this video - the fact that the slavers didn't wander into Africa and throw nets over brown people. They traded with Tribe A of brown people to secure Tribe A's help in enslaving Tribe B. The Triangle Trade was driven by craven, equal-opportunity monsters who would have bought anyone for bottom dollar, it's not like it was a race thing. If they could have gotten Dutchmen for Igbo prices, the south would be tall and pale. Check it out. Slavery is color-blind. Sure - once they're down, keep 'em down. And yeah - racists abound in the United States. But let's not conflate racial hatred and economic predation just because they're culturally universal. This is a depressing and complicated discussion that only starts to make sense when you gain a little cynicism and drawing causality where there is none does not lead to a better way.
Of course, the video is an oversimplification. It is hardly trying to be more than that. This is some guy's YouTube channel, not The Journal of Political Opinion, and while the guy is definitely pushing an opinion, he's hardly acting like he's Noam effing Chomsky. He's definitely not telling everyone watching this video to go out and buy his colorful propaganda to hang around your cities and to donate to his cause. The comparison is dishonest. It seems like everyone whose jimmies were rustled by this video had a particularly bad time with his simplified class notions of black people, poor whites, and masters. It's not that complicated of a simplification, and it's really just talk of class: Black people = Lower Class, riddled with minorities.
Poor whites = Middle Class, a more diverse group.
Masters = The Upper Class If you look at it this way, it's not that controversial. It's not like the guy thinks there's no Hispanics, Asians, etc in the country. I don't think it's meant to be literal or academic. Nowhere in his video does the guy say the "masters" come together at this hotel every last Tuesday in May to plot how to keep everyone down. It's pretty much the implied argument me and deanSolecki have already gone over. The upper classes act in their own interests, with more access to power centers and influential people, benefiting themselves and creating inequality. He brings up the consolidation of media and growing inequality to show how the upper classes have gotten more entrenched and powerful, nothing more. He does say that the powerful enacted Jim Crow with specific intentions, but, hey, the powerful in the South DID enact Jim Crow with specific intentions of keeping black people down and unequal. And his assertions about the "caste" system seem to be how society became organized so that black slaves were worse off than poor whites, hardly a controversial claim. He says the system benefited the "masters," not that they created it in their basements to harm black people specifically because they thought the color of their skin was icky. What does slavery committed by Africans have to do with anything? No one says slavery is inherently a racist institution, but slavery as it was practiced in the United States became a racist institution. That's the reality. And you can't deny there were feelings of supremacy against Africans. Look at White Man's Burden. Look at the colonization of Africa in general. Look at the arguments for slavery but slaveholding Southerners. What does the universality of societal prejudice against minorities have to do with anything? The reality is that the US has racial problems. Being the "melting pot" doesn't give the country a pass. It's quite ridiculous to even contend that it should be given one. Black people in this country are the minority so people should point out how they are disadvantaged. It doesn't matter if, hypothetically, they would be the oppressors in bizarro world where they are the majority. The reality is they aren't, and this is how it affects them. Jim Crow targeted black people because it promoted racist institutions. The War on Drugs disproportionately targets minorities because it's a racist institution. And it is. I never worried about police rolling through when I wanted weed. He's hardly focusing only on how problems affect the black community, as well. He talks about the indentured servitude of white people as you say, he talks about how there are more in prison than ever before, and he talks about how poverty affects the white people. His overall point was how "poor whites" and black people should ally and work for their interests against the upper classes. Also, I've never read A People's History, but if you're referring to this chapter, I'd say your characterization of what Zinn said was quite disingenuous. He never calls him an Uncle Tom or House Negroe. He does put forth the case that MLK was favored by the establishment, and that nonviolence worked only to a point. But that's a bout a thousand times more nuanced than what you said. The guy brought up a bunch of factoids in the middle of the video. You admit they're mostly correct. That's the most important part of the video.
So lemme quote what the original poster said about this video: I'm almost positive that was you. So I gave you my thoughts. You asked for them. There they are. Nowhere did I jump down your throat. So before you continue down this path, kindly unrustle your jimmies, take a deep breath, and know that if you double down with me, it's gonna get ugly. I'm empirically better at being an Internet Dickhead than you will ever be and I'm opting not to be. Pulse below 90? Angry sweat on your top lip wiped? Okay. You're basically making the same argument as the video - economic oppression and racial oppression are linked. THEY'RE NOT. That's my argument ("But let's not conflate racial hatred and economic predation just because they're culturally universal"). Further, my argument is that conflating the two diminishes the understanding of both, which helps to perpetuate them. What does slavery committed by Africans have to do with anything? It illustrates that racism is universal. Igbos hate Yorubas, Jews hate Arabs, Serbs hate Croats and tribalism drives cultures. It also illustrates that there's an economic basis to slavery and oppression. Am I denying "there were feelings of supremacy against Africans"? Hardly. I'm saying every culture on earth feels morally, intellectually and superior to every other culture on earth. I know it's easier to win the argument you want, rather than the argument you have, but meet me in the middle here. By the way - if you're going to claim what I say is untrue, you should probably make sure that your reference is accurate. Page 458, yo. I did it as an audiobook or I'd type it all out for you. So I'll repeat myself: Your video draws useless parallels between economic oppression and racial oppression. These parallels obscure the real reasons for oppression and suggest that there are simple solutions. There are not. The more we look for causality, the less simplicity we should find and when some talking head on Youtube tries to condense it all down to ten minutes, you should doubt his motives. And I'll leave you with this: Read my words: "What's missed in these discussions is the fact that people who aren't the majority get the shaft in all countries and the United States, as the most multiracial melting pot country in the world, gets to grapple with them for everyone else." I'm saying the US gets the opposite of a pass. it's a pretty compelling YouTube video and he backs up his factoids repeatedly with sources.
What are your thoughts?
"Zinn basically declares the high-water mark of the civil rights movement to be Martin Luther Kings sell out moment. He quotes nothing of King’s I have a Dream speech, but gives a full page quote to Malcolm X, part of which reads
“This is what they (the establishment) did with the March on Washington. They joined it… became part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost it’s militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all…
Not, it was a sellout. It was a takeover.. The controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn’t make, and then told them to get out of town by sundown…” (458)
The reality is that the US has racial problems. Being the "melting pot" doesn't give the country a pass. It's quite ridiculous to even contend that it should be given one.
There was nothing in my comment to insinuate anger save maybe using the phrase "effing" as well as calling your comparison to KONY2012 "dishonest" (which it was) and your critique of Zinn "disingenuous" (which it also was). I'll start with Zinn since I just reiterated myself. The critique, again, is disingenuous. Yes, Zinn included a Malcolm X quote critical of the the March on Washington, and yes, he did note that the March was embraced by Washington as a "friendly assemblage." However, he did not "belittles Martin Luther Kings I Have a Dream speech" or claim "his star was made to eclipse Malcolm X's." From his book, freely available on the Internet And he incorporated X's words to show how they "probably closer to the mood of the black community" after "as if in deliberate contempt for its [the march's] moderation, a bomb exploded in the basement of a black church in Birmingham and four girls attending a Sunday school class were killed." X's full quote: It was the grass roots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D.C. to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in ... these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off," Kennedy said. "Look you all are letting this thing go too far." And Old Tom said, "Boss, I can't stop it because I didn't start it." I'm telling you what they said. They said, "I'm not even in it, much less at the head of it." They said, "These Negroes are doing things on their own. They're running ahead of us." And that old shrewd fox, he said, "If you all aren't in it, I'll put you in it. I'll put you at the head of it. I'll endorse it. I'll welcome it. I'll help it. I'll join it." This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it... became part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. . . No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. ... They controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make, and then told them to get out of town by sundown.... The point is that the march held back on the angrier rhetoric, and that Washington elites were more inclined to support the toned-down rhetoric and non-violence of King's movement. The example of John Lewis illustrates this. His quotes X, but in doing so, he's only showing what was X's opinion of the march. Should he leave out X's opinion to instead pay fealty to the mainstream narrative on the march? Should he include all the I Have A Dream speech though most know it already? What would be the point in writing this book then? Zinn does look at those who who were more critical of nonviolence and gives them voice (That's pretty much the point of his book), but he never fails to mention that "King's stress on love and nonviolence was powerfully effective in building a sympathetic following throughout the nation, among whites as well as blacks. " Secondly, I again don't think saying that "prejudice is a universal part of humanity" adds anything to any discussion. It's a tautology. People are racist because people are racist. Repeating it doesn't serve to enlighten anyone about the conditions facing actual minorities in actual places around the world. It has nothing to do with the discrimination and inequality faced by minority races in the United States, today except to say "hey, we're not the only ones who do it." That's hardly an argument. To your point that economic oppression and racial oppression are not linked, I cannot help but vehemently disagree. I support the concept of intersectionality, and I do not think you can look at racial oppression without also looking at economic oppression. In fact, your initial comment seems to agree as you point to the "economic basic of slavery and oppression." What was slavery but a severe form of economic inequality? This video did not make the claim that slavery was inherently a racist institution used be whites against minorities, nor did anyone else. It only showed how slavery developed into a racist institution and how more racist institutions (Jim Crow, War on Drugs) developed from there. Racism and economic inequality are definitely linked. In how black names get called back less. How a racial wealth gap exists and how minorities are disproportionately affected by economic downturns. How bias exists in a number of ways that affect minorities and how a history of discrimination and inequality hurts the economics of minorities. In fact, economists have looked at this for a long time. EDIT: I read the Chapter. It's on the Internet. I linked to it in both my comments. Since that is the only chapter that has anything to do with what we're talking about, that's all I'd have needed to read to discuss it with you. You having "read the book" doesn't dismiss my criticisms of your reading, since I have read the same part we are referring to. I will, again, reiterate that I made no claims that "white masters" conspire together to keep blacks down because they don't like black people. And that I do not believe this video did either. What I did claim is that the upper class is mostly white and there are institutional problems that disproportionately affect black people and other minorities. Institutional racism is a thing and it does benefit the mostly white elites that hold most the political, economic, and social power. From my original reply. He does say that the powerful enacted Jim Crow with specific intentions, but, hey, the powerful in the South DID enact Jim Crow with specific intentions of keeping black people down and unequal. And his assertions about the "caste" system seem to be how society became organized so that black slaves were worse off than poor whites, hardly a controversial claim. He says the system benefited the "masters," not that they created it in their basements to harm black people specifically because they thought the color of their skin was icky. Your "broad point" again had little to nothing to do with the discussion. Slavery is not a racist institution inherently. But, again, slavery as practiced in the US in the 18th, 19th Century was a racist institution and it bred new ones, including Jim Crow and the War on Drugs. Interpersonal racism does not matter here. A non-racist slaveholder does not make the institution of slavery no longer institutionally racist when it continues to be applied disproportionately to black people. Same as the other two. Kind of an abuse of the mute function. You could have just stopped replying. You're the one getting defensive here and before. I can call something disingenuous and dishonest without malice. Whatever helps you sleep. Congratulations, you're now joined with Grendel in the illustrious club of People Who Have Muted Me.Martin Luther King's speech there thrilled 200,000 black and white Americans-"I have a dream..." It was magnificent oratory, but without the anger that many blacks felt. When John Lewis, a young Alabama-born SNCC leader, much arrested, much beaten, tried to introduce a stronger note of outrage at the meeting, he was censored by the leaders of the march, who insisted he omit certain sentences critical of the national government and urging militant action.
The Negroes were out there in the streets. They were talking about how they were going to march on Washington.... That they were going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt, not let the government proceed. They even said they were going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and not let any airplanes land. I'm telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution.
Nowhere in his video does the guy say the "masters" come together at this hotel every last Tuesday in May to plot how to keep everyone down. It's pretty much the implied argument me and deanSolecki have already gone over. The upper classes act in their own interests, with more access to power centers and influential people, benefiting themselves and creating inequality. He brings up the consolidation of media and growing inequality to show how the upper classes have gotten more entrenched and powerful, nothing more.
Okay, so you can claim not to be outraged and insulted, but you can "vehemently disagree." And I can point out that discussing things calmly will get you further, and you can double down and call my words disingenuous again. And you can ignore that I read the book and you didn't, and spend an hour piecing together a case out of internet quotes... but ignore my broad point, which is "people are racist, people are opportunist, but opportunism isn't driven by racism" by saying Support it all you want. Twelve links that say "blacks have it rough" doesn't say "blacks have it rough because the 'white masters' set out to keep them down." But honestly? If this is you having a civil discourse, we don't need to do it anymore.I support the concept of intersectionality, and I do not think you can look at racial oppression without also looking at economic oppression.
He's just mad you won the argument. It's the classic "trail off into mumbling about thanks for the spirited discussion, that's what makes america great" conversational exit that mean you'll never hear from him again.
I think it was really well produced, and it was meant to provoke an emotional response. A lot of times the idea of "provoking an emotional response" is linked with falsehoods, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. The idea of "masters" is maybe a little underdeveloped. Generally speaking there probably aren't a lot of Koch Brothers in the Master class. For the most part I would imagine there are a lot of entitled people working to secure their own interests in different domains, that have the means to do so, and the collection of those efforts expresses itself as massive inequality. I would doubt there is a "Master's narrative" that is actively trying to keep poor people down, so much as there are a lot of rich people working in isolation to achieve the same end, without perhaps intending to, explicitly. That isn't to say that they don't know what they are doing is "wrong," but most likely they think of what they are doing as "not entirely right" or some such thing. Or else they've become so entitled that they think that they've "earned" what they have and they're simply "playing the game by the rules," even if that means changing the rules to ensure that they win. The idea I'm reaching for is that the Master class doesn't view itself as the problem, and certainly doesn't view itself as actively trying to do injury to the poor, even though that is exactly what they are doing. That's to say, it isn't a widely understood conspiracy to keep the poor down, but instead a lot of disconnected powers working toward particular goals that has the aggregate outcome of massive inequality. Still, an interesting and thought provoking video.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It feels like it's an eventuality in a class-based society. The upper classes will act in their own interests, they will have more access to power centers and other powerful people thanks to their wealth and position, and they will thus have more power and influence in shaping society for their benefit, breeding inherent inequality. The concept of meritocracy fosters the notion that those with success have earned it, but society is more complex than that. Hierarchical norms like class allow corruption and nepotism to breed so the most able are not necessarily the most successful. And of course, inequality causes disparities in opportunity and resources available to those who are less well-off. Addressing this, to me, requires educating the middle and lower classes as well as urging the privileged to shrug off the elitism that makes them believe they "deserve" to have their material desires met more than others because they are "better."For the most part I would imagine there are a lot of entitled people working to secure their own interests in different domains, that have the means to do so, and the collection of those efforts expresses itself as massive inequality.
It's an interesting video and hits on the point of internal division pretty squarely. Whenever I see these kinds of things, my next thought is always about what I can actually do. I know I can't fix the system, but these high level overviews only ever take a bird's eye view of a massive problem and leave it at that. I, as an individual, know I won't be making massive changes, that's not what I'm called to do, but I also end up feeling pretty powerless in the face of everything. It's an interesting new feeling for me, I'm still trying to work it out.
If you think about it, if you start a company, become a billionaire, and decide to solve inequality, you'll still be pretty powerless. You'll have a lot more power than us peons, but a lot more than next to nothing can still be next to nothing. I guess the question is, how do social movements take place, and what does being active within a social movement look like? That is kind of a tough conceptual problem. What caused the french revolution? It was both external and internal political forces that brought it about, and there were a lot of both. There was also a lot going on socially. The number of things that came together just so, that allowed the french revolution to happen are arguably beyond the intentions of anyone. Social movements happen because circumstances allow them to happen, but people and culture play some role in that. I think the best we can do, if we're upset about inequality, is try to leverage whatever power we have to alleviate it where it comes in contact with us; that is probably what being part of a social movement looks like on the individual level. How do we know a social movement is even happening? We might not know until it has already taken place. It isn't particularly grand, but I think it is hard to conceive of it any other way. A social movement is a lot of little things happening together; all you can do is make sure you're contributing your part, doing your little things, and hope that everyone else does, too.
I am one of 2 white people in my immediate family. It's an adoptive family. My siblings are various shades of brown. I have seen the difference color makes. I am no tumblerina but it is pretty obvious there is a difference when you you see it up close and experience it on a personal level. I am glad I am not black. My black bro has never been given a fair shake and is discriminated against all the time despite being a great dude.. I feel glad that my nephew is a light skinned black man, as I feel that gives him a better chance of being accepted. Ugh.
This video says nothing of the poor planning and structure of the "war on poverty" and the horrible structure of the welfare system as a whole which pigeonholes the poor into lives that tend to "keep them there". The "system" is engineered to "keep them" down is biased and un-objective. There are so many instances of all races that started poor and succeeded. I still like the John Mackey pieces on Capitalism. Is racism present - yes? I would propose racism exists in all races like black on black racism which surfaces its ugly head by those who say, "You acting white!" when a black minority tries to break out of the mold. The piece has its perspective, but far from the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" for sure. The US has had its drawbacks, faults, and injustices in the past (and now), but, overall, has promoted more people of all races than any other country around (shall I say Saudi Arabia - neither white or black). In short, this piece is biased!
Two points that it would really helped to flesh it out more, was the creation of the constitution, and the rein of redeemer politicians in the postwar south. This is excerpts from my homework in the American History class, I got an 105% in this spring. So the master's really did have a secret meeting were they took rights away from people, and it was called the constitutional convention. The right protected by the constitution itself was private property. When Samuel Adams condemned the Shays rebellion and told them to obey the law, you could see his true colors. He had drummed up these men to oppose the British with promises of democracy and freedom. After the war the amount of land required to vote was raised in Massachusetts. When the smaller farmers needed more currency in order to pay their mortgages, they had no concerned representation in congress. The courts then foreclosed on soldiers, they had yet to pay for years of service in the revolution. The continental congress was a counter revolution by the wealthy, carried out in secret. They sweltered in the heat, rather than let the public even hear the discussions. The agreement they hammered out was not between the varied interest of the diverse colonies, but between wealthy merchants in the north and plantation owners in the south. Like the later Jim Crow the system of checks and balances designed by Madison, stopped mojoritairianism or census voting. Decentralized governments worked just as well at dampening the rule by majority. The constitution stripped the land holding voters of participation in every vote election, except that of the House of Representatives. They were instantly reduced back to just to the House of Commons. "The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore the first class a distinct permanent share of the government."
The governments that later resulted from these scare tactics, were called Redeemer. They ran states at a profit, by renting out the labor of chain gangs, and not investing in public institutions, like hospitals and schools. The children of the wealthy attended private schools, and most of the poor people in the south were less educated than the north. Education and illiteracy are important, to this debate. Overall this was a great video, thanks for sharing.
Presidential elections to this day are carried out by the electoral college, and the Senate was not elected by the popular vote until the Progressive Era, more than a hundred years later. I think the country was made stronger by the uniting the thirteen colonies, but I think Thomas Jefferson had he participated, could have helped the interests of the common people. There was no fair representation of the common people.
-Alexander Hamilton
Solid post. You might also enjoy this quote from James "Father of the Constitution" Madison during constitutional debates:Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
This quote, in itself, is lifted out of the total debate on the balance of power between branches, and the "tyranny of the majority" so often riddled throughout the entire "Federalist Papers". In other words, through malice, the seemingly "underprivileged" would outweigh any voice of the landowner or "perceptively privileged”. It has little to do with protecting the "power of the privileged" per se. The whole debate, should you have ever have read them all (and certainly our biased professors don't teach it "en masse" to our detriment), has to do with protecting all interests. It borrows from the abuses of Grecian "democracy" and the absolute brutality of the "French Revolution”. The debate also focused on the abuses of monarchies. All of these systems were observable at the time of the debates for our Constitution. So, if you are going to use "quotes", for Pete's sake use them in context of the whole. This is how we get "religious cults" who take a scripture out of context and make it a doctrine and hoodwink ignorant (notice I did not say stupid) people.
Sorry OP of this one, I did quote them better in the actual paper. I pasted it over, and could have formatted it better. The point is the people who (mis?)lead the revolution, like Samual Adams, had tons of rhetoric about freedom. They then proceeded to seize 5/6th of the government. The Senate was elected by state representatives until the 17th amendment in 1913. Only white males with considerable land, were allowed to vote. The 3/5ths comprimise gave slave owner's a pretty hefty sway congress. Just resummerised, you probably know this stuff.
That is exactly why we have the amendment process and not judicial caveat or executive "privilege”. The amendment process works. While you may have "pasted" it from your "source", it is still part of a larger argument on the "tyranny of the majority" in the Federalist papers and is still "out of context". The argument is not solely to protect rich landowners and their interests. Perhaps you should read (unless you have already) Gustave le Bon's "A Study of the Popular Mind" about the "Tyranny of the Majority" and their mindless mob behavior after the initial part of the French Revolution; it may be enlightening to you. This is what the statement is about. This is what James Madison was referring to and wanting to make sure that the Constitution had protection for everyone. You have taken it entirely out of context and I really don't care where you "pasted" it from! It is an inaccurate description of the whole context of the discussions at the time! You are twisting it to fit your "world view" and it is short on truth and context! We use the Greeks as an example of “democracy”, but their system or style of Democracy failed! Yes, we, as a county, had our faults, and there are mechanisms to resolve those "faults". Know any perfect people or systems there bud? I don't think so. So far, the USA has created more opportunity for more diverse people than any other country in history - period - unless you think Saudi Arabia has? Maybe it is the old USSR, or Cuba, or Sudan, or Russia (in its current or past state!)? Everyone uses Sweden (which is cracking down on its Socialist systems and policies on immigration) or Finland (which could not survive without the European or US markets to sell their goods). Have you ever done any studies on the Black leaders of the early Revolution? How about this guy: Wentworth Cheswell? Or perhaps, before you fault all the “Founding Fathers” as do many current historians (which is a total misrepresentation of the truth like the insinuation taught in many of our schools that, “all the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Deists” (which is total bunk – only 1 was – Benjamin Franklin), you should look at this stuff: Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained: I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule ["do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12]. 1. Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began: Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. 2. The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy: He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade]. 3. Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . . . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. 4. Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the "hell-hound of abolition" for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained: The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 5. While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, 6. Not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery. 7. Yet, despite the support for slavery in those States, the clear majority of the Founders opposed this evil. For instance, when some of the southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, responded: [E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. 8. Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, "[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave." 9. Notice a few additional examples of the strong anti-slavery sentiments held by great numbers of the Founders: [N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 10. John Adams, Signer of the Declaration, one of only two signers of the Bill of Rights, U. S. President But to the eye of reason, what can be more clear than that all men have an equal right to happiness? Nature made no other distinction than that of higher or lower degrees of power of mind and body. . . . Were the talents and virtues which Heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges? . . . No! In the judgment of heaven there is no other superiority among men than a superiority of wisdom and virtue. 11. Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, “Father of the American Revolution” [W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 12 Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]. 13. John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of Pennsylvania I am glad to hear that the disposition against keeping negroes grows more general in North America. Several pieces have been lately printed here against the practice, and I hope in time it will be taken into consideration and suppressed by the legislature. 14. Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. . . . [We] earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery – that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage and who . . . are groaning in servile subjection. 15. Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part. 16. John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Original Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. 17. Thomas Jefferson Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty. 18. Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress; Signer of the Declaration I have seen it observed by a great writer that Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us, who profess the same religion practice its precepts, and by agreeing to this duty convince the world that we know and practice our truest interests, and that we pay a proper regard to the dictates of justice and humanity! 19. Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, Framer of the Bill of Rights I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my life time, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out. . . . For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event. . William Livingston, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of New Jersey [I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 21. Luther Martin, Delegate at Constitution Convention As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]. 22. George Mason, Delegate at Constitutional Convention Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind. 23. Joseph Reed, Revolutionary Officer; Governor of Pennsylvania Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 24. Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration The commerce in African slaves has breathed its last in Pennsylvania. I shall send you a copy of our late law respecting that trade as soon as it is published. I am encouraged by the success that has finally attended the exertions of the friends of universal freedom and justice. 25. Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration, Founder of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, President of the National Abolition Movement Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]–Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 26. Noah Webster, Responsible for Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all. 27. James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice [I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power. 28. John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration For many of the Founders, their feelings against slavery went beyond words. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first anti-slavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. In fact, when signer of the Constitution William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering: