Did we allow slavery BECAUSE of democracy, not in spite of it?

[MSgt]

C'mon it's a pointless question anyway. Everyone should know that Democracy does not always lead to good things. The French spent almost 80 years getting democracy right and voted in Napoleon (an emporer) along the way. The Germans voted in Hitler. Iraq may eventually vote in a dictator (for which people will immediately use to define failure). It all goes to culture and historical circumstance. In an age where slavery was in it's economic high acceptance across the world, the people's democracy will not always do what is "right." Of course, we have the luxury of looking back with smug superiority and casting evil glares at our forefathers. What will generations ahead of us look upon in our generation with smug superiority?

 

[Gardener]

I feel like the kid pointing out the Emperor is naked here, but democracy was certainly not extended to the slaves. As such, while the system had elements associated with democracy, in practice it was an oligarchy based upon race.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I feel like the kid pointing out the Emperor is naked here, but democracy was certainly not extended to the slaves. As such, while the system had elements associated with democracy, in practice it was an oligarchy based upon race.

Excellent point - it took us over 200 years to legitimately adopt the very things we put into our own Constitution.
It was a lengthy struggle - it still is, in fact, being constantly fought over and debated.

It would be sufficient to say that the authors of the constitution paved the way to what they thought of as the ideal nation.
They most certainly didn't imagine it was *exactly that* when they first ratified it.

 

[Mensch]

Ah! But the Founding Fathers did not implement a pure, unadulterated democracy. Rather, they were very much proponents for indirect democracy. This made sense at the time for a variety of reasons.

The first major reason was because there was no public education system. Most people were lucky to learn how to read and write and do arithmetic, and those who learned as children only did so they could read the Bible and so they could do the equations and measurements needed to farm and make change for money. While the Founding Fathers eschewed permanent class and social divisions, they favored people having the opportunity to raise themselves up on their own merits. However, they knew that such opportunities back then would be scarce, and so favored indirect democracatic processes so that the fewer people who were more educated could make decisions for the benefit of the rest of the citizens.

The second major reason was that they were attempting to forge a new society or republicanism (that is without inherited nobility or aristocracy) from an empire that had an aristocratic society for 700 years. They knew quite well that the United States would be an experiment, and how greatly different it was from the majority of political norms at that time. Because of that, they didn't stray too far - for example, only allowing white landowners to vote in elections. Why? Because, as I mentioned before, those were the ones most likely to have the economic wealth needed to invest in an education which would allow them to make better decisions on behalf of the country.

So again, to answer your original question it's still a no, did not allow slavery because of democracy because it was not a pure democracy that the Founding Fathers originally designed for our federal government, not was it a pure democracy used in state governments - rather, our nation started out utilizing indirect representative democratic processes and only through time have we developed political procedures that have relied more and more on direct democracy.

In fact it has the been the increase in direct democracy (giving minorities the right to vote, giving women the right to vote, abolition of poll taxes, striking down of Jim Crow laws to allow African-Americans to exercise their right to vote) that has allowed slavery and the vestiges of it to be struck out from our society.

So you still can't blame democracy for allowing slavery in our nation.

Let me ask you just one last question.

What was the Fugitive Slave Act? How was the fugitive slave act passed, enforced, and interpreted? Was it by using the democratic rule of the majority?

 

[Mensch]

Our Constitution defines the parameters within which we vote. . . if it was *always* based on how we "felt" then my state would have been permitted to ban single-person adoptions and the burning of the American Flag would be a horrible crime - the Westboro Baptist Church people would be imprisoned for hate speech . . . and so on.

But slavery was enacted heavily before we formed the US with our Constitution.
And it was our very own Constitution that was used to end it.
And it was also the very core for ending Jim-Crow laws AND for trying to bring everyone onto the same level of equality.

Our country isn't perfect - but to claim that the very system when ended such practices is the reason why they were begun to start is silly.

I did not say that democracy had nothing to do with ending slavery. Democracy, in this country, both legitimized slavery and finally ended it. A democratic nation is merely relying on the whims of the majority. If the majority accepts slavery, then slavery will exist. If the majority abhor slavery, then they will attempt to abolish it.

 

[samsmart]

Let me ask you just one last question.

What was the Fugitive Slave Act? How was the fugitive slave act passed, enforced, and interpreted? Was it by using the democratic rule of the majority?

I thought you were going to ask me only one last question, not three.

What was the Fugitive Slave Act?

I am supposing that you are referring tot he Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. If you are really curious, you can read all about it here.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can read, it was part of the Compromise of 1850, which you can read about here.

Compromise of 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How was the fugitive slave act passed...

It was passed in Congress as an attempt by Northern and Southern Representatives and Senators to reach compromises regarding the issue of slavery at the federal level in an attempt to prevent civil war and secession.

...enforced,...

It made all federal law enforcement officers responsible for capturing any runaway slaves, even into free states, based solely on the sworn affidavit of a slaveowner and denied jury trials to the accused runaway. If a federal law officer did not pursue runaways, they would be fined for $1k, and any civilian caught aiding a runaway slave could be imprisoned for 6 months and face a $1k fine.

...and interpreted?

State governments, especially in the North, began enacting "personal liberty laws."

Personal liberty laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Such laws were written to hamper the federal law officers who were charged in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. Personal liberty laws called for trial by jury for accused runaway slaves and for bounty hunters to prove that the fugitive was indeed a runaway slave. Also, these state laws made it illegal for state prisons to be used to hold fugitive slaves and from state law officials to enforce the federal Fugitive Slave Acts.

There were other, more forceful interpretations of the unpopular laws in the abolitionist North. For instance, Wisconsin's state supreme court ruled the federal Fugitive Slave Acts unconstitutional; however, a SCOTUS decision ruled that state supreme courts cannot rule or interfere with federal laws, thus striking down Wisconsin's decision.

But I would like to remind you that the Justices of the Supreme Court are not democratically appointed.

Was it by using the democratic rule of the majority?

No, it was not, for this very basic and simple reason that you somehow refuse to grasp: federal bills are not passed into laws by national democratic votes.

 

[Mensch]

No, it was not, for this very basic and simple reason that you somehow refuse to grasp: federal bills are not passed into laws by national democratic votes.

A republican democracy is still a democracy.

 

[samsmart]

A republican democracy is still a democracy.

A republic is any form of government that is non-monarchial. So I believe you're saying that a representative democracy is still a democracy. Which isn't quite right.

Saying that a representative democracy is still a democracy which causes a tyranny of the majority is like saying Orange Crush is like natural orange juice but you still don't want to drink Orange Crush either because you don't like the pulp from the oranges.

See, we have a representative democracy precisely to inhibit a tyranny of the majority. The majority of citizens do not make policy - rather, the majority of legislators in two separate chambers with the approval of President to sign bills into law and execute and for the Supreme Court to declare as constitutional is what makes policy in our country.

So we have inhibitions of the tyranny of the majority through three methods
1) representatives making policy rather than the citizens directly
2) separation of powers and a system of checks and balances with regards to government operations
3) a Constitution providing explicit powers and limitations for the government

So in no way did a pure democracy or, as you have stated elsewhere in this thread, "a tyranny of the majority" contribute to slavery since the issue of slavery was never put up to a vote by the citizens.

 

[Slartibartfast]

While democracy is not perfect (and no system ever is). What we have seen in the US through a couple of centuries of democratic influence is an expansion of the right to vote, enfranchisement of minorities, and several other freedoms come online into the system. While there are theoretical concerns about tyranny of the majority, the real world example seems to show the opposite effect.

 

[Mensch]

A republic is any form of government that is non-monarchial. So I believe you're saying that a representative democracy is still a democracy. Which isn't quite right.

Saying that a representative democracy is still a democracy which causes a tyranny of the majority is like saying Orange Crush is like natural orange juice but you still don't want to drink Orange Crush either because you don't like the pulp from the oranges.

See, we have a representative democracy precisely to inhibit a tyranny of the majority. The majority of citizens do not make policy - rather, the majority of legislators in two separate chambers with the approval of President to sign bills into law and execute and for the Supreme Court to declare as constitutional is what makes policy in our country.

So we have inhibitions of the tyranny of the majority through three methods
1) representatives making policy rather than the citizens directly
2) separation of powers and a system of checks and balances with regards to government operations
3) a Constitution providing explicit powers and limitations for the government

So in no way did a pure democracy or, as you have stated elsewhere in this thread, "a tyranny of the majority" contribute to slavery since the issue of slavery was never put up to a vote by the citizens.

Interesting. Yet that exact system permitted slavery and various other methods to restrict individual freedoms. When people vote for individuals to represent them, they're voting for an idea or group of ideas. When dixicrats elected pro-segregation representatives to the government (or supported the appointment of such individuals), they essentially voted for segregation. And being that they made up the majority of the Southern population, they got their way.

If representative democracy is suppose to limit the tyranny of the majority, then obviously it failed miserably for the first century of our history. And it continues to fail in certain areas of economic freedom and civil liberties.

 

[Mensch]

While democracy is not perfect (and no system ever is). What we have seen in the US through a couple of centuries of democratic influence is an expansion of the right to vote, enfranchisement of minorities, and several other freedoms come online into the system. While there are theoretical concerns about tyranny of the majority, the real world example seems to show the opposite effect.

I think it was the ability of the individual to live free and prosper in a democratic society that ultimately materialized with the country we know today. Democracy does not appear to be lifting the Indians out of the most impoverished conditions. As I stated earlier, a democracy must be a liberal one in order to establish financial security and general welfare.

 

[samsmart]

Interesting. Yet that exact system permitted slavery and various other methods to restrict individual freedoms. When people vote for individuals to represent them, they're voting for an idea or group of ideas. When dixicrats elected pro-segregation representatives to the government (or supported the appointment of such individuals), they essentially voted for segregation. And being that they made up the majority of the Southern population, they got their way.

If representative democracy is suppose to limit the tyranny of the majority, then obviously it failed miserably for the first century of our history. And it continues to fail in certain areas of economic freedom and civil liberties.

No government system is perfect.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think it was the ability of the individual to live free and prosper in a democratic society that ultimately materialized with the country we know today. Democracy does not appear to be lifting the Indians out of the most impoverished conditions. As I stated earlier, a democracy must be a liberal one in order to establish financial security and general welfare.

The desire of the individual to live free and prosper, sure, but that translates into votes. The Indian reservations are somewhat autonomous and that is another situation entirely.

 

[Mensch]

The desire of the individual to live free and prosper, sure, but that translates into votes. The Indian reservations are somewhat autonomous and that is another situation entirely.

I was actually referring to Indians from India.

 

[other]

The whole purpose of the democratic elements in our system is to introduce just enough chaos and accountability into the upper echelons on government to keep the government to weak to take away liberties that the people should hold for themselves.

I think that slavery, although economically viable in the south prior to the civil war, proved to be impossible to sustain politically in large part because of the democratic elements in the system--pressure from the much more populous free states.

A well-regulated democracy is a good thing, IMO, but unrestrained they are just as tyrannical as any unrestrained government can be.

 

[Mensch]

No government system is perfect.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that we had a democratic system in place that legitimized slavery (it was also the vehicle for ending slavery).

And as long as our democratic government continues to control our bodies and our ability to make decisions regarding our own bodies, we're not completely free.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I did not say that democracy had nothing to do with ending slavery. Democracy, in this country, both legitimized slavery and finally ended it. A democratic nation is merely relying on the whims of the majority. If the majority accepts slavery, then slavery will exist. If the majority abhor slavery, then they will attempt to abolish it.

How did it legitimize it?

Just because they ignored it and didn't deal with it doesn't mean that their form of government supported or encouraged it - it really just means that htey didn't feel like dealing with it.

 

[PeteEU]

How did it legitimize it?

Just because they ignored it and didn't deal with it doesn't mean that their form of government supported or encouraged it - it really just means that htey didn't feel like dealing with it.

No, it means that in 1776 and up to the freeing of the slaves, it was an accepted practice in society. It was not ignored, and it was legitimized because Africans were not seen as real humans, and the fact that slavery had been part of human society for 4000+ years before 1776. People did not know any better and saw nothing wrong in having slaves.

It is no different than giving women the vote and making them equal citizens. It was accepted by society for 4000 years that women were second class citizens (if even that) to be traded like other commodities. Women accepted this and if they did not then they were beaten or burned at the stake, so society formed around this idea. But then society changed due to more education and in the early part of the 20th century and that is when women got the vote and more freedoms. We could not today understand a society where women are not free, but then again people of 1776 would not understand how we could give women the vote at all..

Democracy did not really come to barring before the 20th century because of the limited "democracy" in many countries and especially the US. Remember just because some can vote in elections does not mean per say that it is a democracy. In the US only men of a certain age and wealth could vote, which is pretty much what is happening in Saudi Arabia today.. but I doubt that you would call Saudi Arabia a democracy.

Slavery became an illegitimate form of labour because of education of the masses and a slow acceptance over many decades that Africans were also humans. And in many countries slavery was ended before real democracy was put in place.. so

 

[other]

No, it means that in 1776 and up to the freeing of the slaves, it was an accepted practice in society. It was not ignored, and it was legitimized because Africans were not seen as real humans, and the fact that slavery had been part of human society for 4000+ years before 1776. People did not know any better and saw nothing wrong in having slaves.

They knew better, but it isn't easy to totally reconstruct a society overnight. Many americans spoke out against slavery prior to the civil war, both in the north and the southern states. Some sought justifications because they relied on slave labor, simple as that. Many did, in fact, try to ignore the issue, fearing correctly that the issue would lead to a catastrophic war or a permanent division of the country. In 1776, the issue was largely sidelined--many knew slavery didn't sit right in America, but settled with a compromise because otherwise they would not have united into a single country at all.

Democracy did not really come to barring before the 20th century because of the limited "democracy" in many countries and especially the US. Remember just because some can vote in elections does not mean per say that it is a democracy. In the US only men of a certain age and wealth could vote, which is pretty much what is happening in Saudi Arabia today.. but I doubt that you would call Saudi Arabia a democracy.

You don't consider ancient Athens to have been a democracy? Saudi Arabia's not a democracy because it is a hereditary monarchy-- the U.S. never was.

Slavery became an illegitimate form of labour because of education of the masses and a slow acceptance over many decades that Africans were also humans. And in many countries slavery was ended before real democracy was put in place.. so

Note that the abolitionist movements started out in the churches--most notably with the Quakers. The abolitionist movements started as grassroots religious movements.

 

[samsmart]

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that we had a democratic system in place that legitimized slavery (it was also the vehicle for ending slavery).

And as long as our democratic government continues to control our bodies and our ability to make decisions regarding our own bodies, we're not completely free.

As opposed to what? An autocratic system that controls our bodies? A totalitarian system that controls our bodies? A monarchial system that controls our bodies? An anarchic system that doesn't give us the means to control our bodies?

You are criticizing democracy and using only one issue to do so. However, no other system is better in representing the interests of diverse groups within a society.

 

[PeteEU]

They knew better, but it isn't easy to totally reconstruct a society overnight. Many americans spoke out against slavery prior to the civil war, both in the north and the southern states. Some sought justifications because they relied on slave labor, simple as that. Many did, in fact, try to ignore the issue, fearing correctly that the issue would lead to a catastrophic war or a permanent division of the country. In 1776, the issue was largely sidelined--many knew slavery didn't sit right in America, but settled with a compromise because otherwise they would not have united into a single country at all.

Disagree.. revisionist history making. In 1776, slavery was the norm and had been for a long time world wide. Now there was a change in attitudes, yes, but as a general attitude it was very much accepted many places.

You don't consider ancient Athens to have been a democracy?

Well good question. Considering that they had slaves, and some of those slaves were their own people, and the fact that women had no right to vote, and that they limited considerably what a "citizen" was and hence the right to vote, then it was as much a democracy as Iran or another country that limits who can vote considerably.

Saudi Arabia's not a democracy because it is a hereditary monarchy-- the U.S. never was.

They vote in Saudi Arabia for their version of a parliament. Granted it is only male citizens who can vote and only approved candidates that can run, but regardless they do practice the main principle of democracy... they vote for their elected officials.

The UK, Denmark, Sweden and so on are also hereditary monarchies. Japan is also, as is many other countries. Heck Canada is technically one too, since Elizabeth is head of state there. But all also elect their governments in democratic elections.

As for the US not being a hereditary monarchies.. well maybe not in the true sense of the word, but you do have political dynasties and have until Obama selected a certain "type" of person each time... older white males. One could easily claim the Bush clan and Kennedy Clan are political dynasties.

Note that the abolitionist movements started out in the churches--most notably with the Quakers. The abolitionist movements started as grassroots religious movements.

Yes, one of the few good things to come out of religious movements. But also note, that they were also instrumental in many cases in defining what could be a slave and abused slaves for centuries like everyone else. The Church was also heavily involved in defining what a "citizen" was and who could have a voice/vote in political matters.. they were instrumental in keeping the vote from women for 1900+ years.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I was actually referring to Indians from India.

Ahh, I misunderstood. Actually, the Indian economy is starting to boom and is in the early stages of becoming a modern economy. There will be fits and starts and always a terrible distribution of wealth as there are in the early stages of these things, but all of that will probably smooth out in 30 or 40 years or at least make some serious headway.

 

[other]

Disagree.. revisionist history making. In 1776, slavery was the norm and had been for a long time world wide. Now there was a change in attitudes, yes, but as a general attitude it was very much accepted many places.

There's a difference between being "generally accepted" and "not knowing any better." There is plenty of evidence that many Americans were opposed to slavery as far back as 1776.

Well good question. Considering that they had slaves, and some of those slaves were their own people, and the fact that women had no right to vote, and that they limited considerably what a "citizen" was and hence the right to vote, then it was as much a democracy as Iran or another country that limits who can vote considerably.

They were a democracy-- they invented that form of government. They simply weren't an egalitarian society (in the modern sense). Democracy doesn't necessarily entail an egalitarian society. Under the Athenian demcracy, their was no King nor Iyatollah, they were actually directly ruled by the demos with no other extraneous authoritarian figures.

They vote in Saudi Arabia for their version of a parliament. Granted it is only male citizens who can vote and only approved candidates that can run, but regardless they do practice the main principle of democracy... they vote for their elected officials.

Yes, so they have some democratic institutions-- but they are a monarchy, not a democracy. Britain had a parliament in the 1600s, they had democratic institutions but they were still a monarchy. Simply having a few democratic institutions doesn't make a democracy, especially if their is still powerful authority in the hands of an unelected monarch.

The UK, Denmark, Sweden and so on are also hereditary monarchies. Japan is also, as is many other countries. Heck Canada is technically one too, since Elizabeth is head of state there. But all also elect their governments in democratic elections.

They are no longer monarchs of any consequence. They are figureheads. Compare their authority to that of the monarchs of saudi arabia and you will see the difference.

As for the US not being a hereditary monarchies.. well maybe not in the true sense of the word, but you do have political dynasties and have until Obama selected a certain "type" of person each time... older white males. One could easily claim the Bush clan and Kennedy Clan are political dynasties.

That is a feature of any democratic institution. Tribunes and consuls in ancient republican Rome, representing the lower and upper classes respectively, also developed into such "dynasties." That is still different that automatic hereditary succession.

Yes, one of the few good things to come out of religious movements. But also note, that they were also instrumental in many cases in defining what could be a slave and abused slaves for centuries like everyone else. The Church was also heavily involved in defining what a "citizen" was and who could have a voice/vote in political matters.. they were instrumental in keeping the vote from women for 1900+ years.

Now you're totally out of the American context. Historically, "the church" as a whole cannot be defined as a single entity over a 1900 year span, especially after the protestant reformation. In early national America, the churches never defined citizens and, in fact, were also involved in the birth of the women's liberation movement. Check out the Seneca Falls convention of 1848--also pushed by the Quakers. There was a flutter of women pushing for equal rights along with slaves, but the women were essentially drowned out by the little war that erupted involving the slave issue.

 

[PeteEU]

There's a difference between being "generally accepted" and "not knowing any better." There is plenty of evidence that many Americans were opposed to slavery as far back as 1776.

And there is a difference between many and most and a majority. You can not deny that slavery was accepted in the US in 1776 and before just as it was accepted in Europe at the time. That there was a minority who were against it, does not mean that George Washington did not have slaves as did most of his people.

They were a democracy-- they invented that form of government. They simply weren't an egalitarian society (in the modern sense). Democracy doesn't necessarily entail an egalitarian society. Under the Athenian demcracy, their was no King nor Iyatollah, they were actually directly ruled by the demos with no other extraneous authoritarian figures.

Again debatable. While you are correct that the Athenian democracy had no king or similar (Iyatollah is spelled wrong and can not be compared to a king.. Pope maybe), but it was still only for the very few. A majority of the people in the Athenian "democracy" had no rights and were either slaves or defacto slaves.

Yes, so they have some democratic institutions-- but they are a monarchy, not a democracy. Britain had a parliament in the 1600s, they had democratic institutions but they were still a monarchy. Simply having a few democratic institutions doesn't make a democracy, especially if their is still powerful authority in the hands of an unelected monarch.

No, but the Saudi's do get to vote, just as the American's of 1776 and just like the Athenian's of ancient Athens. It is a limited amount of people out of the population, but they do get to vote and voting is one of the core elements of a democracy.

They are no longer monarchs of any consequence. They are figureheads. Compare their authority to that of the monarchs of saudi arabia and you will see the difference.

So what. You claimed that because it was a hereditary monarchy then it was not a democracy. That is simply not true. What is key is who can vote and the strength of the democratic institutional base and system. Saudi Arabia's is limited and lacking on all fronts, but like it or not it is still a very basic democracy not unlike the US of 1776.

That is a feature of any democratic institution. Tribunes and consuls in ancient republican Rome, representing the lower and upper classes respectively, also developed into such "dynasties." That is still different that automatic hereditary succession.

Well yes and no. In my home country it is very rare that there is any political "dynasty" in any party. There has been a few of course but none of them ever became leaders of the country.

But saying that a political dynasty is not much different than a hereditary succession in many ways especially in the way that they are treated if they do get into power.

Now you're totally out of the American context.

Was never in solely "American context".

Historically, "the church" as a whole cannot be defined as a single entity over a 1900 year span, especially after the protestant reformation.

Yes it can. Despite having the protestant reformation the Christian areas of the world kept women and slaves. Despite the protestant reformation, the slave trade broke out and protestant countries "colonised" Africa.

And this was because it was accepted and normal. That is not saying that a minority were against such things but they did keep quite for fear of death... especially women demanding equal rights.

In early national America, the churches never defined citizens and, in fact, were also involved in the birth of the women's liberation movement. Check out the Seneca Falls convention of 1848--also pushed by the Quakers. There was a flutter of women pushing for equal rights along with slaves, but the women were essentially drowned out by the little war that erupted involving the slave issue.

Again was not meant as "American context" only. What may be relevant in the US is not relevant in other parts of the world.

The US was "late" in giving women the vote in contrast to many nations, and it was also early compared to others. Making an excuse that "we freed the slaves" is a lame.. women's suffrage was not on the radar before the late 1800s when areas of the world started to give women suffrage.

Now if you look at the list of when women got suffrage in various countries, a clear pattern emerges. Catholic countries were for the most part later than non Catholic countries. Some Catholic countries that were "very Catholic" were much much later than the US.. France for example was in 1944 (yes they were much more religious back in the day than now), Italy in 1946 (home of the Catholic Church), and Spain in 1931. Muslim countries of course dont have it or were even later in giving women suffrage.

Basically, religion has had a profound impact on things we take for granted today, from slavery to women's suffrage to gay rights and so on.

 

[Mensch]

As opposed to what? An autocratic system that controls our bodies? A totalitarian system that controls our bodies? A monarchial system that controls our bodies? An anarchic system that doesn't give us the means to control our bodies?

You are criticizing democracy and using only one issue to do so. However, no other system is better in representing the interests of diverse groups within a society.

As opposed to a strongly liberal democracy that strongly supports individual liberties. Granted, every liberal democracy is usually lacking liberty in at least one area of individual rights. And true enough, this nation is competitively liberal in its institutions (which isn't to say more liberty is unnecessary).

But as we've witnessed from history, America was a democracy before it abolished slavery and the UK abolished slavery before it was a democracy. Both countries also failed to widen suffrage until the early 1900s. Given the fact that more than half the population couldn't vote before 1920, it could be argued that America wasn't a democracy at all until then.

The bottom line is that a democratic government without a safeguard for liberty is no better than a monarchy with absolute power.