There seems to be a lot of this gung-ho support for democracy, as if democracy is, and should be, the cornerstone of our political existence. However, perhaps we should stop to wonder if we allowed slavery because of this glorious system, not in spite of it? The heart of democracy is the equal vote. Liberty and justice have nothing to do with democracy. Our democracy allowed a majority to continue enslaving millions for the benefit of the privileged.
Democracy also allowed segregation to last for nearly a century. People got together and collectively thought it would be a good idea, so it went forth. And it continued until the majority finally wised up.
This is why I strongly believe that liberty supersedes democracy in its righteousness (or whatever wholesome word you wish to use). Liberty is more important than democracy.
I've recently made in a point in another thread which I wish to reiterate here. Why is the political left so quick to support a populist movement, where the people are strong and can induce change, but are so quick to dismiss individual freedom as anarchy? They seem to think that "the people" are strong and ambitious, but the individual is stupid and incompetent. They always warn we can't let individuals to be left to their own devices. They'll just run wild and shoot themselves in the foot. I'm not buying it.
Get your history right.
The United States did not allow slavery because of democracy. Rather, the U.S. included slavery in order to provide a united front against European powers.
At that time, the main economic base of the rural South was through plantation agriculture, and the best way to maximize the profits of agricultural products was through labor without pay, or slavery.
See, farming (and I know this through first hand experience) requires a
massive amount of manpower. It's not easy to manage the land in order to get crops to grow, harvest it, and then get the land ready to plant again. It takes a lot of work. So much work that if every person involved had to get paid the costs would be so high nobody would be able to pay for it.
This is why I really fear the energy crunch of loss of petroleum fuels.
See, the only reason why we don't have slavery now is not because of democratic ideals. Rather, it is because machine-power has replaced manpower when it comes to agricultural labor. Rather than hire a plantation full of slaves to do slow, long, break-breaking work to raise crops, a much smaller number of people can instead use tractors to do said work faster and at a more cost-effective rate - so long as fuel for the tractors remain cheap.
If it should increase so high so that farmers unable to cultivate their crops, then trust me - some form of slavery or indentured servitude will be established in order to raise that food.
After all, this is the reason why various types of slavery had been established throughout history. During the time of Sparta, for example, helots were essentially slaves who did nothing but raise crops for themselves and Sparta's citizens. Because of this dedicated caste of farmers, it freed up other social classes of Sparta to do other things beside gather essential resources - food and water and shelter. What those other classes in Sparta did with their free time was focus on warfare.
This was why Sparta was able to become professional soldiers during those ancient days - the tasks of gathering and cultivating essentials were forced upon others, giving them the chance to develop military professionalism.
Likewise, this was the basis of the system of serfdom during the age of feudalism. Serfs were tied to land, essentially enslaved farmers. Why? Because
someone needed to cultivate crops for food to be eaten by themselves and the other professionals of the age. And who was given the land that the serfs were tied to?
That's right. The professional soldiers of that age: knights. In the feudal system, the king technically owned all the land of the kingdom, but he parceled it out to the warriors who served him. This gave those warriors a steady supply of food. In return, those knights were obligated to call up military forces for their liege.
So slavery has nothing to do with democracy - rather, it has to do with the undeniable fact that there will always be **** work to do only nobody likes to do it because it is hard and because the **** work that needs to be done is relied on by everybody it has to be cheap enough so that everybody can acquire it.
So no - we did not allow slavery because of democracy. Rather, the Founding Fathers chose to be united as a nation because one region of the colonies exploited slaves for agricultural labor. However, slavery was becoming less and less required because of advances in machinery - the steam engine, the cotton gin, and others. This meant that because slavery was less required for manpower, it was becoming more and more institutionalized. That is, the South didn't have slaves because
they needed them but rather the South had slaves because
they wanted them.
It had become so ingrained in the society of the South that even when slaves were unneeded for the manpower to cultivate crops, the South would continue to maintain the institution of slavery.
However, it could also be said that the abolition of slavery also spurred on agricultural technology - that is, because plantations could no longer use slaves, farmers and engineers were required to use their education and ingenuity to create machines that would allow fewer people to cultivate the same amount of crops, thus keeping agricultural goods low enough to be bought.
So no - we did not allow slavery because of democracy. Rather, we allowed slavery because of the Southern economy. The Southern states would not have joined the Union if slavery was abolished by the outset, and, economically speaking, that is understandable. However, if the South did not join in the United States then that would have meant that there were two major powers in North America vying for control of the continent, and that would have meant that a war between North and South would have been fought much
much earlier.
However, I'm not sure if all that is the answer you were looking for with regards to your question. If that's the case, I think this one may do.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." - Winston Churchill