Thank you Dr. Brands for posting Brand's Laws of History. This post has so much historical context that has been missed by people commenting on the late-18th and early to mid-19th century. If you don't mind I would like to use this as an intro to Thomas Jefferson in my AP US History course. Thank you again!
Prof. Brands, I have enjoyed several of your books and thank you for your cogent commentary here. Leaders are, indeed, both human and creatures of their times and circumstances. But I came up short against your statement that "None of the founders would have introduced slavery into America had it not already existed there." My reading suggests to me that some founders had very direct family (and therefore, wealth) connections to the slavery economy--particularly the Barbadian-influenced lowland planters of Carolina. So, in the hypothetical history of who would have done what if their predecessors had not introduced slavery, my thought is that their would have been other creatures of their (1789) time who would have lobbied hard for allowing the economic system that had so enriched other owners of labor. Given all the compromises necessary to get a new Constitution drafted, the planters--real or prospective--essentially held veto powers. The compromise achievement was to include ways to limit and hopefully reduce over time the spread and power of a slave-based system.
Your comment is very apt, Tom. And I can't prove my hypothesis. But in its defense I'll say this: First, the founders took republicanism very seriously. And they knew that slavery would cause huge problems for any republic. If they had not had a preexisting material interest in slavery, they would have been strongly inclined to find another form of labor mobilization - perhaps more indentured servitude. Of course, an objection to this is that without slavery, the existing economies of the Carolinas, for example, would have looked very different. But that is part of my point. Had those economies not already depended on slavery, there would not have been the vested interest in slavery that compelled the compromises you mention. Almost to a person, the founders considered slavery a necessary evil at best. Had it not been necessary, as a result of the habits of the preceding 150 years, they would have focused on the evil and have shunned it. It's worth noting that no republic (at least that I know of) ever introduced slavery where it didn't already exist.
But thanks for your thoughtful comments, and keep them coming.
Prof. Brands--Thanks for your response, and of course hypothetical history can't be proved. It is hard to imagine--though certainly worth thinking about--what the "founding" efforts would have been like without the established tradition of slavery. I certainly agree that constitutional protections for slavery and its electoral advantages would have been a huge stretch in 1789 had pre-existing conditions been different. The agrarian basis of the southern half of the states certainly would have led to struggles over tariff powers, war debts, taxation (origin of the 3/5ths concept), etc. But to your point, perhaps not game changers without the massive entrenched interests of wealthy planters. To your idea of indentured labor, as you undoubtedly know, entrepreneurs both north and south had increasing difficulties controlling (and simply holding to contract) indentured immigrant laborers, much less the dwindling supply of Native Americans. It is interesting to consider what the history of the non-slave working class in the early republic would have been under such conditions. But--not to overextend my thoughts--your essential argument about the need to see statesmen as acting within their own time and under their own pressures (Jefferson's debt; the state politics for Wilson or Mason, etc.) is central for any useful "lessons from history" of the founding, rather than hagiography or retrospective moralisms. Thanks. Keep up the good work.
Historical figures rarely work well as saints. They were all too human, but they provide hope for those of us who know that we will never achieve perfection. Their human flaws do not have to overshadow their successes. Great piece!
Thank you Dr. Brands for posting Brand's Laws of History. This post has so much historical context that has been missed by people commenting on the late-18th and early to mid-19th century. If you don't mind I would like to use this as an intro to Thomas Jefferson in my AP US History course. Thank you again!
Feel free, Michael.
Prof. Brands, I have enjoyed several of your books and thank you for your cogent commentary here. Leaders are, indeed, both human and creatures of their times and circumstances. But I came up short against your statement that "None of the founders would have introduced slavery into America had it not already existed there." My reading suggests to me that some founders had very direct family (and therefore, wealth) connections to the slavery economy--particularly the Barbadian-influenced lowland planters of Carolina. So, in the hypothetical history of who would have done what if their predecessors had not introduced slavery, my thought is that their would have been other creatures of their (1789) time who would have lobbied hard for allowing the economic system that had so enriched other owners of labor. Given all the compromises necessary to get a new Constitution drafted, the planters--real or prospective--essentially held veto powers. The compromise achievement was to include ways to limit and hopefully reduce over time the spread and power of a slave-based system.
Your comment is very apt, Tom. And I can't prove my hypothesis. But in its defense I'll say this: First, the founders took republicanism very seriously. And they knew that slavery would cause huge problems for any republic. If they had not had a preexisting material interest in slavery, they would have been strongly inclined to find another form of labor mobilization - perhaps more indentured servitude. Of course, an objection to this is that without slavery, the existing economies of the Carolinas, for example, would have looked very different. But that is part of my point. Had those economies not already depended on slavery, there would not have been the vested interest in slavery that compelled the compromises you mention. Almost to a person, the founders considered slavery a necessary evil at best. Had it not been necessary, as a result of the habits of the preceding 150 years, they would have focused on the evil and have shunned it. It's worth noting that no republic (at least that I know of) ever introduced slavery where it didn't already exist.
But thanks for your thoughtful comments, and keep them coming.
Prof. Brands--Thanks for your response, and of course hypothetical history can't be proved. It is hard to imagine--though certainly worth thinking about--what the "founding" efforts would have been like without the established tradition of slavery. I certainly agree that constitutional protections for slavery and its electoral advantages would have been a huge stretch in 1789 had pre-existing conditions been different. The agrarian basis of the southern half of the states certainly would have led to struggles over tariff powers, war debts, taxation (origin of the 3/5ths concept), etc. But to your point, perhaps not game changers without the massive entrenched interests of wealthy planters. To your idea of indentured labor, as you undoubtedly know, entrepreneurs both north and south had increasing difficulties controlling (and simply holding to contract) indentured immigrant laborers, much less the dwindling supply of Native Americans. It is interesting to consider what the history of the non-slave working class in the early republic would have been under such conditions. But--not to overextend my thoughts--your essential argument about the need to see statesmen as acting within their own time and under their own pressures (Jefferson's debt; the state politics for Wilson or Mason, etc.) is central for any useful "lessons from history" of the founding, rather than hagiography or retrospective moralisms. Thanks. Keep up the good work.
Historical figures rarely work well as saints. They were all too human, but they provide hope for those of us who know that we will never achieve perfection. Their human flaws do not have to overshadow their successes. Great piece!
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for your comment.