The Paragraph On Slavery That Never Made It Into The Declaration Of Independence

[Bob N]

I just found this interesting read on this Fourth of July that I never knew.

Apparently Thomas Jefferson wanted to mention the subject of slavery in the Declaration of Independence critiquing King George thus blaming him over the United States predicament on slavery yet the paragraph was omitted.

The Paragraph On Slavery That Never Made It Into The Declaration Of Independence

For one thing, Jefferson did directly engage with slavery in his initial draft of the Declaration. He did so by turning the practice of slavery into one of his litany of critiques of King George:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation hither … And he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Like so much in the American founding, these lines are at once progressive and racist, admitting the wrongs of slavery but describing the slaves themselves as “obtruding” upon and threatening the lives of the colonists. Not surprisingly, this complex, contradictory paragraph did not survive the Declaration’s communal revisions, and the final document makes no mention of slavery or African Americans.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I just found this interesting read on this Fourth of July that I never knew.

Apparently Thomas Jefferson wanted to mention the subject of slavery in the Declaration of Independence critiquing King George thus blaming him over the United States predicament on slavery yet the paragraph was omitted.

The Paragraph On Slavery That Never Made It Into The Declaration Of Independence

If it hadn't been dropped and left to future generations, there would have been no new nation. And without this new nation, past wrongs would never have a chance of being righted... Not just slavery.

 

[shrubnose]

If it hadn't been dropped and left to future generations, there would have been no new nation.

And without this new nation, past wrongs would never have a chance of being righted... Not just slavery.

If your aunt was a man s/he would be your auncle, eh?

What happened 239 years ago can't be changed today.

 

[Occam's Razor]

If your aunt was a man s/he would be your auncle, eh?

What happened 239 years ago can't be changed today.

A little early to start drinking, isn't it? That made no sense.

 

[shrubnose]

A little early to start drinking, isn't it? That made no sense.

If you think that what happened 239 years ago can be changed today I'd like to hear how you plan on doing that.

 

[Summerwind]

I just found this interesting read on this Fourth of July that I never knew.

Apparently Thomas Jefferson wanted to mention the subject of slavery in the Declaration of Independence critiquing King George thus blaming him over the United States predicament on slavery yet the paragraph was omitted.

The Paragraph On Slavery That Never Made It Into The Declaration Of Independence

I didn't know about the paragraph specifically, but I had read numerous times in numerous biographical articles that he was very torn by the slavery issue, even though he owned slaves and openly parented children with one of his slaves, iirc. So I'm not at all surprised that paragraph was introduced by him.

 

[joG]

If it hadn't been dropped and left to future generations, there would have been no new nation. And without this new nation, past wrongs would never have a chance of being righted... Not just slavery.

History is, what it is. It is important to understand it to understand how we got where we are. But it is often not easy to make sense of it.

 

[Occam's Razor]

History is, what it is. It is important to understand it to understand how we got where we are. But it is often not easy to make sense of it.

Actually... It's not that hard. What is hard is admitting we are as flawed and ambitious as all who came before. It's hard to divorce ourselves from our beliefs, biases, fears and passions to view history with enlightened objectivity.

 

[joG]

Actually... It's not that hard. What is hard is admitting we are as flawed and ambitious as all who came before. It's hard to divorce ourselves from our beliefs, biases, fears and passions to view history with enlightened objectivity.

In certain manor it is quite impossible to to separate man from passion and fear and greed. That does not mean we cannot try to view things in view and in awareness of the handicap. But once we understand that only our software has changed it doesn't seem hard to accept.

 

[Ganesh]

I just found this interesting read on this Fourth of July that I never knew.

Apparently Thomas Jefferson wanted to mention the subject of slavery in the Declaration of Independence critiquing King George thus blaming him over the United States predicament on slavery yet the paragraph was omitted.

The Paragraph On Slavery That Never Made It Into The Declaration Of Independence

This is no small amount of hypocrisy on the part of Jefferson (himself a slave owner), as Americans were just as deeply involved in the slave trade as the Brits, and for a longer period of time.

 

[Kreton]

I dont really see what adding that paragraph would have accomplished.

 

[Goshin]

I just found this interesting read on this Fourth of July that I never knew.

Apparently Thomas Jefferson wanted to mention the subject of slavery in the Declaration of Independence critiquing King George thus blaming him over the United States predicament on slavery yet the paragraph was omitted.

The Paragraph On Slavery That Never Made It Into The Declaration Of Independence

Interestingly enough, much the same thing Jefferson indicts King George for (calling on slaves to revolt and attack their former owners, or turn against them by joining the Union army) is exactly what Lincoln was trying to achieve with the Emancipation Proclamation (which freed only those slaves that lived in states in rebellion).

It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion.[2] Because it was issued under the President's war powers, it necessarily excluded areas not in rebellion - it applied to more than 3 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that suitable persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not outlaw slavery, and did not grant citizenship to the ex-slaves (called freedmen).

The Proclamation applied in the ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, and thus did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states. Those slaves were freed by later separate state and federal actions.

The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, under a recognized Union government, so it was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties then in the process of forming the new state of West Virginia, and seven additional counties and two cities in the Union-controlled Tidewater region.[20] Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and 13 named parishes of Louisiana, which were mostly under federal control at the time of the Proclamation. These exemptions left unemancipated an additional 300,000 slaves.[21]

The Emancipation Proclamation has been ridiculed, notably in an influential passage by Richard Hofstadter for "freeing" only the slaves over which the Union had no power

 

[jet57]

I just found this interesting read on this Fourth of July that I never knew.

Apparently Thomas Jefferson wanted to mention the subject of slavery in the Declaration of Independence critiquing King George thus blaming him over the United States predicament on slavery yet the paragraph was omitted.

The Paragraph On Slavery That Never Made It Into The Declaration Of Independence

Since it was omitted, I would say that free market capitalism said "no".

 

[cpwill]

I dont really see what adding that paragraph would have accomplished.

All I can think of is that it would have set in stone in the founding document the claim that our idea of inherent and universal rights did indeed make slavery an abomination.

 

[Oozlefinch]

This is no small amount of hypocrisy on the part of Jefferson (himself a slave owner), as Americans were just as deeply involved in the slave trade as the Brits, and for a longer period of time.

The problem here is that you are looking over 200 years into the past, and trying to look at it through the eyes of today. That is always a failure.

To begin with, it has to be realized that the majority of "Europeans" considered themselves superior as humans. It was the overwhelming belief that Whites were the "Master Race", and all others (blacks, Asians, Indians, etc) were genetically and intellectually inferior. So it is foolish in the extreme to try to inflict upon people with that belief system the idea that "all people are equal". Equality is a nice goal, but at that time it was all still a pipe dream.

And yes, the more progressive and liberal of slave owners in that era were very much questioning the institution. Jefferson and Washington were both disturbed by it, but knew of no way out of the trap that had already been laid.

And sorry, the "longer" in the slave trade then the Brits is simply wrong. As the first Governor of Virginia, that state outlawed the slave trade (importing of new slaves) in 1778. And both the US and UK together outlawed the slave trade in 1807. And whie the British were involved in the slave trade for over 300 years, they were only majorly active in it for around 75 years (the Royal African Company only existed from 1660-1752). The major participants to the exporting of slaves from Africa was the Portugese and the Spanish.

 

[Ganesh]

The problem here is that you are looking over 200 years into the past, and trying to look at it through the eyes of today. That is always a failure.

To begin with, it has to be realized that the majority of "Europeans" considered themselves superior as humans. It was the overwhelming belief that Whites were the "Master Race", and all others (blacks, Asians, Indians, etc) were genetically and intellectually inferior. So it is foolish in the extreme to try to inflict upon people with that belief system the idea that "all people are equal". Equality is a nice goal, but at that time it was all still a pipe dream.

And yes, the more progressive and liberal of slave owners in that era were very much questioning the institution. Jefferson and Washington were both disturbed by it, but knew of no way out of the trap that had already been laid.

I see your point about the distortions of superimposing contemporary values onto past events. This is unfair, and leads to a skewed view of history. In this case however, we have a contemporary roasting a fellow contemporary, for a practice he himself is engaged in. This is a different kettle of fish, and one for which the term hypocrisy applies.

And sorry, the "longer" in the slave trade then the Brits is simply wrong. As the first Governor of Virginia, that state outlawed the slave trade (importing of new slaves) in 1778. And both the US and UK together outlawed the slave trade in 1807. And whie the British were involved in the slave trade for over 300 years, they were only majorly active in it for around 75 years (the Royal African Company only existed from 1660-1752). The major participants to the exporting of slaves from Africa was the Portugese and the Spanish.

The trade in slaves may have been abolished, but the practice of slavery continued on for another 30 odd years in the US after British ending of the actual business itself. Going back before the US revolution makes little sense, as the US was not a country at that time.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The trade in slaves may have been abolished, but the practice of slavery continued on for another 30 odd years in the US after British ending of the actual business itself. Going back before the US revolution makes little sense, as the US was not a country at that time.

Ahhh, but you did not say slavery, you said the slave trade. Two very distinct and seperate things altogether.

And it was not 30 years, more like 20 years. The Slavery Abolition Act if 1833 curiously left in an exemption for the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company, the "Island of Ceylon," and "the Island of Saint Helena". And even that did not end it, British ship captains as late as 1954 were captured moving slaves from Africa to Brazil. It was not until 1873 withthe Slave Trade Act that the UK finally entered the "war against slavery".

And many can argue that slavery in Australia continued until the mid 20th century with the inability of Aboriginies to travel freely and sue in court for non payment of wages.

Remember, I urge above all else accuracy and completeness. The simply "abolishment" of slavery in most (land area not population) of the UK is the same thing as your implying they ended the "business itself". They continued on for many decades, they simply shipped them to other countries that did not have such prohibitions.

In fact, over 40% (the largest number to a single nation) of slaves did not go to the US, but to Brazil. Which did not abolish slavery until 1888. It is estimated that only 10-15% of slaves from Africa were brought to the United States. Almost universally the slaves in the US were born there, multiple generations after their forefathers had been brought to the US. Even Alex Haley was only able to track the most recent of his ancestors to have been brought from Africa to 1750, the rest of his ancestors had been brought over decades earlier.