The Founding Fathers slavery question?

Question

in congressional debates in 1790 about possible abolition of slavery, Georgia representative James Jackson attacked the abolitionist Quakers as "outright lunatics" and went on to say "if it were a crime as some assert, but which i deny, the British nation is answerable for it and not the present inhabitants, who now hold that species of property in question." Does Jackson's refusal to name "that species of property" point to his own moral discomfort with owning enslaved human beings? To what degree were the founders complicit to this deliberate refusal to name and acknowledge the moral problem of slavery?

i got the first question, but the second one i don't understand. i know they're saying "how were the founders involving themselves in the refusal to name the "species"..but i just don't understand how they involved themselves at all?

Answer 1

Many of the founding fathers were against slavery, and Jefferson does discuss it in Notes on the State of Virginia. For many of them, they knew slavery was wrong, but at the same time they were conflicted. In Jefferson case he was in debt and was unable to set his slaves free, it sounds off but things work funny with slavery and selling slaves. The thing was many of these men and many abolitionist were against slavery but didn't wan the Africans living around them as free men/women either. There was still racial prejudice to begin with. For many slavery became a necessary evil. Jackson argued that African were better off as slaves, and would be worse off in Africa. Here is a link to a e-book about what he said about slavery. http://books.google.com/books?id=t3SDQgf...

Also I would say that by calling them a species he is saying that they are not of the same species as white poeple let alone should be considered human which today we know is wrong. Many people back then did not believe that the African were of the same race and didn't consider than above livestock.

Answer 2

The primary issue with letting slavery continue in the new nation was the fear that if it was going to be oultawed then many of the southern states would not have supported the revolution making it far more difficult to gain independence from England.  Many southerners felt so strongly about this issue that they believed it would be better to remain loyal to England and keep slavery than to join the revolution and lose what they saw as their way of life.

It could be argued both ways as to whether the founders should have addressed the slavery issue but they felt the bigger issue was independence and that the slavery issue would eventually resolve itself.

Answer 3

The phrase "that species of property" does not indicate that the speaker believed blacks and whites were members of different species.  It simply means "that type of property."  Using the phrase was a way of arguing that owning slaves was no different from owning land or buildings or ships or animals or any other kind of property.

As for the complicity of the Founders in the "deliberate refusal to name and acknowledge the moral problem of slavery," look at the text of the Constitution.  Although several provisions in that document were designed to safeguard the property rights of slave owners, the institution of slavery was not mentioned by name until the 13th Amendment..

Answer 4

When the Constitution was made there was a majority who were against slavery, people like John Adams and James Madison.  Even Washington was against slavery even though he had slaves.  However,  the South would not have signed the Constitution if slavery had been outlawed.  Therefore, there would be no United States and the Northerners would be British subjects again.  There had to be a compromise and the North said yes to that because they had no choice really..  The slavery question remained contentious and both sides were adamant in their beliefs.  The Civil War, of course, was the result of this conflict. It was almost a foregone conclusion that it would happen .