from Gearld A Foster, American Slavery:
the Complete Story, 2 Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal 401-
420 (May, 2004) (420 Footnotes Omitted)
Abraham Lincoln is hailed as the "great emancipator" because
he supposedly risked his political future as well as the fragile
foundation of the relatively new republic, to end slavery. This is
indeed a noble version of American history and one that has inflamed and
incited partisans for nearly 140 years. However, the truth, which is
always relative and not absolute, is that Lincoln's one and only
priority was to preserve a fragile Union that was in the throes of the
Industrial Revolution and intense sectional antagonism, not to free the
slaves. The political agenda was integrally intertwined with an economic
agenda, both of which had far reaching international implications well
beyond the purview of slavery. Unfortunately, the issue of slavery still
remains the supreme bogey of American black-white race relations.
Two of the most unnecessarily divisive issues today have their genesis
in slavery--reparations and the confederate flag. In an August 2, 1862
letter to Horace Greeley, Abraham Lincoln made his position on slavery
crystal clear, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the
Union, and not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the
Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it
by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by
freeing some and leave others alone, I would also do it." He was
true to his words when, in September 1862, Lincoln signed the
Emancipation Proclamation freeing only those slaves who were in states
which were "in rebellion against the United States."
Journalist Brent Staples states, "Historians working on business
records are showing that the good, rich citizens of the Northeast were
vigorously seeking business with Southern slavers and trafficking in
slaves even after abolitionists had seized the day and Northeastern
states had outlawed the slave trade." We now are beginning to see a
much clearer picture of slavery and its most vital role in the emergence
of 19th century America as a world economic colonial power. In the 139
years since slavery officially ended, it has continued to excite, incite
and polarize America primarily because the term is inextricably attached
to the issue of race. However, the ultimate irony is that in most if not
all arenas of socio-political discourse, race is rapidly becoming a
non-entity. In the 2000 United States Census there were sixty-eight
different and distinct self-reported racial categories, showing that
race has already become demographically extinct. Yet, we must hasten to
add that racism is just as virulent and divisive as it has ever been.
The institution of racism is the omnipresent progeny of the nineteenth
and twentieth century manifestations of slavery and its bedfellow, race.
How did slavery and race become so patently intertwined as distinctly
American phenomena? Slavery in America was different from any other
corner of the world primarily because in America it was viewed early on
as the primary foundation upon which an emerging republic could solidify
its economic primacy in the global commerce of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Two hundred and twenty-eight years of free labor
will assure business success anywhere in the cosmos. However, the social
and political dilemma for a new republic was how to justify public
professions of equality, individual rights and democracy while at the
same time holding fast to African captives who had been systematically
and mentally dehumanized and designated as personal property. Therein
lay the challenge for the founding fathers and the signers of the
Declaration of Independence (1776) as well as the United States
Constitution (1787). This marked the beginning of contentious race
relations in America that persist to this day. False sciences and
religious zealotry were the primary fervent justifications for how black
slaves were treated and for the terror and brutality that flourished
well into the twentieth century, decades after slavery was legally
ended.
Social and political illusionists who purveyed racial inferiority,
genetic deficiencies, primal instinct and infantile proclivities
successfully convinced a nation that it was in fact acceptable to treat
blacks as property because it was scientifically and religiously
sanctioned and preordained. In reality, it was a perverted extension of
manifest destiny.
On this issue, we as a nation have miles to go before we sleep
President Clinton upon leaving office in 1999 empanelled a blue ribbon
committee on race; similarly in 1999, the New York Times undertook what
was considered the most controversial and ambitious journalistic project
in its history, How Race is Lived in America. One of the most widely
anticipated Supreme Court decisions in 25 years was handed down in June
2003 concerning the propriety of race as a key consideration in college
admissions policies and procedures.
If we are to progress in the global and diverse political economy of the
twenty-first century, we must expand our discussions on slavery to heal
our wounds of race and the malignancy of racism. In spite of its
longstanding racial foibles, America is still a land of unlimited
opportunity for those who are willing to be intellectually courageous
enough to discount the rhetoric of the race mongers and purveyors of
hate who persist in advancing agendas that alienate and polarize rather
than heal and conciliate.
A more balanced discussion of slavery is a critical first step in this
heretofore road not taken
.
III. What Was Slavery and Why Has It Been Such a Divisive Issue Since
1865?
The greatest threat to racism in the twenty-first century is accurate
and comprehensive revisionist history. History, that should begin with a
documented accuracy of past events, personalities, decisions and
consequences for too long has been intentionally packaged and presented
so that young people will be bored and old people relieved. Two of the
most important books that address this issue are Lies my Teachers Told
Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, by James W.
Loewen and Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know
About History but Never Learned, by Kenneth C. Davis. Though written
almost 10 years apart both begin with the same premise. Brief excerpts
from each book provide the theme that surely should under-gird our
revisionist History.
Davis writes:
[T]he overwhelming response of far too many Americans to history is a
single word--'Boring!' For years, we have sent students to school and
burdened them with the most tedious textbook imaginable--deadly dull
books written by one set of professors to be read by another set of
professors-- which completely sucks the life out of this most human of
subjects.
In school books of an earlier era, the warts on our Founding Fathers'
noses were neatly retouched. Slavery also got the glossy makeover--it
was merely the misguided practice of the rebellious folks down south
until the "progressives" of the north showed them the light.
Davis continues:
There has always been a tendency to hide the less savory moments from
our past... . The history of this country is not necessarily a smooth
continuum moving toward a perfectly realizable republic... . America
remains shockingly divided along racial and economic lines.
Loewen writes:
High school students hate history. Students consider history the most
irrelevant of twenty-one subjects commonly taught in high school.
Textbooks stifle meaning by suppressing causation. Students exit
history textbooks without having developed the ability to think
coherently about social life.
Our teachers and our textbooks still leave out most of what we need
to know about the American past. Some of the factoids they present are
flatly wrong or unverifiable.
In sum, startling errors of omission and distortion mar American
histories.
Perhaps the most pervasive theme in our history is the domination of
black America by white America. Race is the sharpest and deepest
division in American life. Textbooks have trouble acknowledging that
anything might be wrong with white Americans, or with the United States
as a whole.
Slavery's twin relatives to the present are the social and economic
inferiority it conferred upon blacks and the cultural racism it
instilled in whites.
Racism in the western world stems primarily from two related historical
processes: taking land from and destroying indigenous people and
enslaving Africans to work the land.
Slavery in its simplest form is involuntary servitude. Yet most
Americans do not fully understand the importance of slavery as the
pivotal variable in early economic and political survival of the new
republic following the American Revolution.
Elected officials and particularly presidents are the ultimate
illusionists. For what other reason would they clamor to kiss babies,
eat poorly cooked chicken with their fingers, take smiling pictures with
total strangers, trot out the wife and kids conveniently to fake family
values and attend black churches the Sunday before the November
elections but to create an illusion of familiarity, compassion, trust,
incredible slogans aimed at minorities? They strongly imply "just
vote for me and I'll set you free." Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman,
Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and even Nixon all cajoled black Americans
into believing that their votes would indeed make for a better America.
Some achieved more than others and we do not demean Truman's executive
order 9981 to desegregate the armed forces or Eisenhower sending in
troops to quell racial tension surrounding school desegregation or
Kennedy's affirmative action order or Johnson's support of the 1964 and
1965 Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. However, we should not be naïve
enough to believe that, just as Lincoln carefully contemplated the
correct political decision in 1862, so did Kennedy in 1960 when he
placed the now much celebrated telephone call to the wife of Martin
Luther King offering his assistance in getting him released from the
Reidsville, Georgia jail. Kennedy knew all too well that he desperately
needed the black southern vote. He also knew that King's father was one
of the most influential black preachers in the south; ergo the call and
Daddy King's endorsement from the pulpit and the presidential victory
just weeks later by a slim margin.
Arthur Kenneth O'Reillly has written a definitive work on the racial
attitudes of America's first forty-two presidents and in each instance
he reveals that political expediency always superceded moral and ethical
governance. He states,
To write of the forty-two chief executives and their deeds and dreams
on matters of late yields few profiles in courage and a great many
profiles of men who acquired and analyzed only in search of more perfect
ways to protect slavery or Jim Crow . . . . The story of the presidency
and the politics of race is thus largely a story of choices made to
acquiesce in, preserve, and adapt the original intent of 1789 to modern
times.
American slavery was an economic and political necessity without which
the new republic would have certainly failed. Interestingly enough one
of the most vociferous opponents of American slavery, David Walker, was
one of the few abolitionists to articulate the economic necessity of
free slave labor in seventeenth and eighteenth century America. Walker
says, "The fact is, the labour of slaves comes so cheap to the
avaricious usurpers, and is (as they think) of such great utility to the
country where it exists, that those who are actuated by sordid avarice
only, overlook the evils, which will as sure as the Lord lives, follow
after the good."
The modern theorist who perhaps captures best the complex essence of
slavery is Maulana Karanga. He postulates that American slavery was
predicated on three major factors: its profitability, its practicality
and its justifiability; without slavery, America could not have evolved
and sustained itself as a free independent player in the growing global
capitalist system of trade and politics. The profitability of 220 years
of free labor is self-evident. African enslavement was clearly more
practical than that originally attempted with white indentured servants
and indigenous natives. Thus, the massive importation of Africans became
the next best option. The first two factors could only be achieved and
sustained if in fact an ideology could be developed to justify slavery.
Finally the basis of the American system of enslavement was its
justifiability in European racist thought. Although the enslavement of
Africans was based on economic reasons, it also rested in racism as an
ideology. Racism as an ideology became a justification and encouragement
for enslavement. It expressed itself in religious' absurdities,
biological absurdities and cultural absurdities. Thus, religiously it
was argued God ordained whites to conquer, then civilize and
Christianize the African "heathen." The biological absurdities
included redefinition of Africans out of the human race, denying their
history and humanity and giving them animal characteristics to suit
their bestial treatment. Culturally we see this maddening scheme
solidified in the cultural themes advanced by Darwin, Galton,
Blumenabach, Freud, and many other white theorists of the era.
Historical timelines lend considerable credence to the importance of
"scientific" theory and the institutionalization of slavery in
America immediately before the America Revolution, the Declaration of
Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Stephen Jay Gould raised serious
questions about what could be curiously labeled "historical
coincidences." Noting that Johann Blumenbach established the most
influential of all racial classification systems in 1775 in his doctoral
dissertation, Gould argues:
As the minutemen of Lexington and Concord began the American
Revolution . . . [Blumenbach] then republished the text for general
distribution in 1776. The coincidence of three great documents in 1776--
Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (on the politics of liberty),
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (on the economics of individualism) and
Blumenbach's treatise on racial classification (on the science of human
diversity)--records the social ferment of these decades and sets the
wider context that makes Blumenbach's taxonomy, and his subsequent
decision to call the European race Caucasian, so important for our
history and current concerns.
An important and most relevant feature of Blumenbach's theory is that he
identified the Caucasian race as superior in beauty, subtly changing the
racial ordering in the world to a hierarchy of worth. This is the
primary reason that Blumenbach rather than his mentor Carolus Linnaeus,
who created the first racial taxonomy in 1759, is important in the
beginning phase of American race theory and racism.
Following Linnaeus and Blumenbach were Charles Darwin's theory of
natural selection, Sir Francis Galton's theory of eugenics (1883), both
predicated on selective breeding and extermination of weaker races, and
Sigmund Freud's theory of psycho-analysis, which laid the foundation for
psychiatric studies. Thus, "When Africans were torn from their
families and homes and sold into slavery in the United States, science
stood ready to define any disobedience or insubordination as a 'mental
illness."'
The article further states that in 1851 a noted Louisiana physician
Samuel Cartwright "discovered" two so-called mental diseases
found exclusively among blacks that justified their enslavement. The
first was "Drapetomania," which Cartwright professed to be a
disease that caused black slaves to have an uncontrollable urge to run
away from their masters. The prescribed treatment was prolonged
whippings to exorcise the demons. The second disease, "Dysaesthesia
Aethiopis," supposedly afflicted the mind and the body. The
diagnostic symptoms included disobedience, answering disrespectfully to
a master or overseer and refusing to work. The purported cure was to
inflict extreme hard labor that would send vitalized blood to the brain
to liberate the demented slave mind. The article concludes that
"much scientific" and statistical rhetoric was used to justify
slavery. One 1840 census "proved" that blacks living under
"unnatural conditions of freedom" in the north were more prone
to insanity. Dr. Edward Jarvis, a specialist in mental disorders, used
this to conclude that slavery shielded blacks from some liabilities and
dangers of active self-direction. Pseudo-sciences and skewed religious
ideologies accomplished their purpose in convincing white America in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that blacks could in fact be
mistreated, brutalized and discarded as troublesome property because
they were not human and, by virtue of this depersonalization, they were
not entitled to humane treatment and civil or moral consideration.
Many slavery apologists took delight in expressing that the 1787 U.S.
Constitution banned the importation of slaves 20 years hence, in 1808.
However, "The federal law of 1808 was so weak and the enforcement
of it so lax that a repeal was unnecessary to reopen the trade."
According to John Hope Franklin, in 1790 there were fewer than 700,000
slaves in America. By 1830 the number rose to over two million and by
1850 the number of slaves was just under four million.
Although there are well document incidences of slave resistance and
slave insurrections, the majority of slaves lived daily lives of what
Cornel West calls nihilism. In describing the condition of African
Americans in the ending years of the twentieth century he states,
Nihilism is not new in black America. The first African encounter
with the New World was an encounter with a distinctive form of the
absurd. The initial black struggle against degradation and devaluation
in the enslaved circumstances of the New World was, in part, a struggle
against nihilism. In fact, the major enemy of black survival in America
has been and is neither oppression nor exploitation but rather the
nihilistic threat--that is loss of hope and absence of meaning. For as
long as hope remains and meaning is preserved, the possibility of
overcoming oppression stays alive.
If meaninglessness, hopelessness and lovelessness are the foundations of
nihilism and the plight of slaves two hundred years ago, it is also the
daily plight of far too many blacks today even among those in the
so-called black middle class. Without hope the homeless will remain
defeated in their own minds, as will the illiterate, the medically
unserved and underserved, the terminally ill, the wrongfully
incarcerated, the unemployed and even the working poor. Without hope, a
person's tomorrows will be no better than their todays. So what's the
use in trying to improve?
For many black reparationists, this pervasive sense of nihilism is a
twenty-first-century vestige of eighteenth-century slavery and therefore
America, particularly its corporate entities, owe 35 million black
Americans a debt. Randall Robinson, one of the prominent supporters of
reparations writes, "There is no linear solution to our problems
for our problems are not merely technical in nature. By now after nearly
380 years of unrelenting psychological abuse, the biggest problem is
inside us."
Robinson continues, "What slavery had firmly established in the way
of debilitating psychic pain and a lopsidedly unequal economic
relationship of blacks to whites, formal organs of state and federal
government would cement in law for the century that followed."
One of the more vexing questions inherent in the reparations movement is
who among the 35 million blacks today would be the beneficiaries of the
money and services associated with this trillion-dollar debt to black
America? More basically, how would anyone determine who is black? Most
blacks can only trace their genealogy back three and at best four
generations, which places them at the door of the twentieth century and
thirty-five years after the civil war ended slavery. Do we apply the
infamous "one drop rule" or the one-eighth rule? Do we
eliminate blacks with white ancestors? Would black billionaires Robert
Johnson and Oprah Winfrey receive the same reparations as the black
Mississippi sharecropper or the homeless families in urban centers
throughout the nation?
Reparations may be one modern solution to slavery but as a nation we
need to transcend symbolism and racial tomfoolery and confront the
totality of slavery with courage, conviction and an honest need for
absolution of a nation's collective conscience. We all know that for
true healing to occur, the root causes, rather than the symptoms, need
to be diagnosed and then treated. If we return to our historic
illusionist theme we will see that political history is replete with
intentional distortions of reality to advance and maintain a public
perception that belies the truth. Some examples of this historical magic
would be Jefferson's liaison of twenty-eight years with his slave Sally
Hemming, and the resulting seven offspring, Franklin Roosevelt's polio
affliction, John Kennedy's chronic back ailment and resultant dependence
on narcotic pain killers, Reagan's trickle down economics, Johnson's
Vietnam War, Nixon's Watergate cover-up, Washington's cherry tree, and
George W. Bush's fabricated reasons for going to war with Iraq in 2003.
On the matter of American slavery and a legitimate historical
presentation of African culture and civilization before the seventeenth
century, there appears to have been a solid conspiracy of white
chroniclers of history who were doggedly committed to inventing and
"scientifically" supporting the most extreme and damning
stereotypical characterizations of black Americans. It is important to
note that there were black intellectuals of that period who meticulously
refuted these lies but they had no legitimate standing in the mainstream
social science community and therefore their views were non-existent.
However, there were a few liberal minded white philanthropists and
social scientists who seemingly felt morally compelled to legitimize the
existence of a distinct African culture, which went a long way in
debunking the typical demeaning stereotypes, that had prevailed for
almost 200 years. Foremost among these persons was Columbia University
anthropologist Melville J. Herskovits who in 1940 published "The
Myth of the Negro Past." This book was the result of seventeen
years of research on the Negro in Africa, South America, the West Indies
and in the United States.
Herskovits was one of only ten scholars asked to participate in the most
comprehensive scientific study ever conducted on the American Negro. The
complete study, "The American Dilemma," that was directed by
Swedish social scientist Karl Gunnar Myrdal, was released over a year
after Herskovits' study. The scientific conclusion of Herskovits was
that the American Negro, contrary to the prevailing ideology of the past
three centuries, has a rich and highly developed African culture and
history. He stated, "This book when first published, discussed and
documented, a position that at the time was less than congenial to the
considerable number of intellectuals who accommodated their thinking to
the position of an important and established group of social scientists
and students."
The prevailing ideology then concerning the American Negro was captured
by Lewis C. Copeland who wrote, "The South's dependence on the
Negro is further obscured by the belief in the complete dependence of
the black race upon the white race for moral as well as for economic
support. The Negro is thought of as a child race, the ward of the
civilized white man. We are told, "The savage and uncivilized black
man lacks the ability to organize his social life on the level of the
white community. He is unrestrained and requires the constant control of
white people to keep him in check."
In addition to refuting this venal propaganda, Herskovits also
recognized and legitimized the scholarship of his black intellectual
contemporaries who also had through rigorous scientific scholarship
challenged the widespread racism expressed by these white prophets of
hate. Foremost among the black scholars were W.E.B. DuBois, Carter G.
Woodson and Charles Johnson all of whom had written extensively on the
rich and valuable cultural heritage of blacks in America. Yet, they were
unanimously ignored and discredited by their white counterparts. Then,
for the first time ever, Herskovits stated and reaffirmed what DuBois,
Woodson and Johnson had been saying for over forty years:
DuBois held fast to his beliefs and fought valiantly for his race,
saying, I do not for a moment doubt that my Negro descent and narrow
group culture have in my cases predisposed me to interpret my facts too
favorably for my race; but there is little danger of misleading here for
the champions of white folk are legion. The Negro has long been the
clown of history; the football of anthropology and the slave of
industry. I am trying to show here why these attitudes can no longer be
maintained. I realize that the truth of history lies not in the mouth of
the partisans but in the calm science that sits between her cause I seek
to save, and wherever I fail, I am at least paying truth the respect of
earnest effort.
Discouraged and frustrated, DuBois renounced his American citizenship
and moved to Ghana in 1961. Two years later on the eve of the 1963 March
on Washington, he died peacefully at the age of ninety-six. There is
great significance in the travails of persons such as Herskovits and
DuBois. First, their protracted life long struggles point out the
virulent entrenched malignancy of institutionalized racism in America.
In spite of the renowned work of the legions of truth seeking social
scientists who labored on behalf of justice and equality for the African
American, today we still see clear vestiges of this evil social
millstone that had its genesis in seventeenth century slavery.
Herskorvits died on February 25, 1963 a mere six months before his
friend and colleague DuBois. He was only sixty-eight years old and never
relented in his commitment to his life long struggle for enlightened
Negro history.
In his most recent work "Who Owns History: Rethinking the Past in a
Changing World," Eric Foner states:
A second set of debates centered on the legacy of slavery and the
Civil War. In an essay on historical consciousness, Friedrich Nietzsche
spoke of "creative forgetfulness"--how the memory of some
aspects of the past is predicated on amnesia among others. Slavery is a
case in point. Nowhere is the gap between scholarly inquiry and public
perceptions of history more stark. It is probably safe to say that the
finest body of American historical writing to appear during the past
thirty years has been produced by scholars of slavery and emancipation.
This literature has not only established beyond question the centrality
of slavery to the history of the United States but has refashioned our
understanding of subjects ranging from colonial settlement to the
American Revolution and the origins and consequences of the Civil War.
Americans must not be blinded or deluded by the purported noblesse
oblige of the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and
Fifteenth amendments to the Constitution, the 1948 Truman executive
order, the Brown v. Board of Education decision nor the 2003
pro-affirmative action Supreme Court decision. Racial discrimination
should have begun to moderate after the Constitution outlawed the
importation of slaves in 1808. Yet it did not, primarily because the
inhumane treatment of blacks had already become an integral part of our
social, economic, and political order. A prime example is the
three-fifths compromise that was also in the 1787 U. S. Constitution. In
1968, Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton politely defined racism as
"the predication of decisions and policies on considerations of
race for the purpose of subordinating a racial group and maintaining
control over it."
I submit a more pointed definition of racism. Racism is, "the
everlasting legacy of American slavery that with ruthless intentionality
oppresses, represses and commits cultural genocide against people of
color but particularly black Americans. It is manifested in all of the
primary social, economic, educational and political institutions in
America. Oppression puts a people down, repression keeps them down and
cultural genocide infests their lives with pervasive nihilism. It kills
their spirit and strips them of hope." Evidence of racism is seen
daily in substandard housing, haphazard healthcare, mis-education,
discriminatory criminal sentencing and symbolic political patronizing.
To create the illusion of progress, some blacks are selectively included
in the mainstream of American life, most are marginalized and those at
the bottom who make up the permanent underclass engage in daily suicidal
rituals that mirror suicide among slaves, starting with throwing
themselves overboard during the Middle Passage.
Is this critical American problem that Mrydal referred to in 1944 as the
American Dilemma solvable?
CONTINUED
Slavery and Race American Slavery: the Complete Story - CONCLUSION |