Slavery: Old News or Relevant History?

I hope that you all found today's activity on slavery informative and eye-opening. But does it really matter that we study stuff like this? Some would question whether or not it is wise to dig up this awful part on our nation's history. Why not put it out of our minds and just move forward? I suppose we can ask that question about all of history. That would not be good news for a history teacher!

We've discussed how Southern plantation owners may have justified their involvement in the institution of slavery. A good case can be made that without slavery the economy of the Southern colonies - and later the Southern United States - would have crumbled. Howard Dodson, writing about the importance of slavery to the cotton trade in 1800s America, says "the slavery system in the United States was a national system that touched the very core of its economic and political life." He goes on to describe how the institution of slavery was interwoven into virtually every part of the U.S. economy at the time:

Each plantation economy was part of a larger national and international political economy. The cotton plantation economy, for instance, is generally seen as part of the regional economy of the American South. By the 1830s, "cotton was king" indeed in the South. It was also king in the United States, which was competing for economic leadership in the global political economy. Plantation-grown cotton was the foundation of the antebellum southern economy.

But the American financial and shipping industries were also dependent on slave-produced cotton. So was the British textile industry. Cotton was not shipped directly to Europe from the South. Rather, it was shipped to New York and then transshipped to England and other centers of cotton manufacturing in the United States and Europe.

As the cotton plantation economy expanded throughout the southern region, banks and financial houses in New York supplied the loan capital and/or investment capital to purchase land and slaves.

Recruited as an inexpensive source of labor, enslaved Africans in the United States also became important economic and political capital in the American political economy. Enslaved Africans were legally a form of property—a commodity. Individually and collectively, they were frequently used as collateral in all kinds of business transactions. They were also traded for other kinds of goods and services.

The value of the investments slaveholders held in their slaves was often used to secure loans to purchase additional land or slaves. Slaves were also used to pay off outstanding debts. When calculating the value of estates, the estimated value of each slave was included. This became the source of tax revenue for local and state governments. Taxes were also levied on slave transactions.

Politically, the U.S. Constitution incorporated a feature that made enslaved Africans political capital—to the benefit of southern states. The so-called three-fifths compromise allowed the southern states to count their slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of calculating states' representation in the U.S. Congress. Thus the balance of power between slaveholding and non-slaveholding states turned, in part, on the three-fifths presence of enslaved Africans in the census.

(from National Geographic News)

So were Southern plantation owners right? Was the future of the United States - and the survival of the colonies before that - critical enough to justify slavery? Obviously, we have decided as a nation - as late as it was - that slavery was an evil institution and a regrettable part of our past. So should slavery be remembered as a necessary evil? If so, then how can it we get past the fact that African slaves were forced against their will to be at the center of this horrible history.

Today you heard the horrors that Africans had to endure from the moment they were captured. Hopefully, for a few minutes you tried to put yourself in Kunte's shoes - as impossible as that is.

So after reading above about how important slavery was to the economy of our country's early years and after considering what we heard and felt in class, how do you think the United States would be different today if the slavery in North America never existed? Would there have ever been a United States? Would the United States have been better off without slavery? If we decide that slavery was important enough to forgive early Americans for, then we should consider what Lincoln said:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

That's probably a good test to apply to ourselves whenever we argue for anything!!

Remember, keep your comments and debate respectful. Be thoughtful!!