It was a sacrifice on the founding fathers part, yes it was a mistake but at that time Southerners made up about 50% of the colonies. Yesit was bad but it was for the good of the whole and the problem was resolved eventually.
I believe that they should have fought against it. While they needed the constitution ratified, they had just won the war with England. I don't think a rejected draft of the constitution would have torn America apart. So, if nothing else, they could have lended their support to the anti-slavery issue.
I think they shouldn't have ignored the issue of slavery. I think that instead they should have addressed it upfront so that they could put an end to it sooner.
In order to have the southern states join the independent movement, they needed to not put a forward movement against slavery. The fathers shouldn't have had an agreement to not put a ban on it for 20 or so years. Unfortunately, the problem had disastrous results of many, many deaths.
If America was addressing another political system based on the same rules as other political systems, I could see the leaving out of slavery abolition until later. However, when the core of the governmental system is based on democracy, and the fact that "all men are created equal" is a key point, we can not simply change the definition of a man to better suit the colonists needs. I believe if a government is founded on freedom and liberties, we should not just ignore hundreds of thousands of lives to make our country founded faster. If we truly banded together and fought for a common goal, we still would find a way to found this country, even if it was a later time than actuality. The fact that the rules of freedom can change leaves open the possibilities for other laws to change, and other groups to be discriminated on. We still have a wide array of social issues that are against freedom and justice. Are we just going to say no to those to allow our politics to run smoother?
I was thinking that they could get the southerners into the agreement, then end it once they were in, but that may have not really worked.
C²,
I agree with you, but if fighting towards that goal would have postponed the organized government, then that would not have seemed worth it to them if they could not foresee a definite start. If you look at it from their perspective, they were still racist to a point, some more than others, and they put the problems of the economy, such as the nonuniform currency, and the crises with the inconsistent laws, and other problems that stemmed from the weak central government ahead of the problem of the enslavement of a group that some thought deserved less rights. I am not justifying, just explaining.
I think that the founding fathers should have addressed the slavery issue. I agree with C2. The founding fathers should have stood by the statement "all men are created equal" and worked for what the colonies said they were all about. If they had no intention of addressing slavery, "all men created equal" should have never come up.
Althought slavery was abolished eventually in America, it is ridiculously hypocritical of the founding fathers to not include even a mention of slavery in the Constitution. This was a document supposed to give people equal rights and opportunities and they fail to address the most unjust institution of that time.
Quote: "So, if nothing else, they could have lended their support to the anti-slavery issue." -Cole Dulas
Some did lend their support to the anti-slavery issue for the constitution. It just wasn't enough; in a sense that if the south did dis-unionize, they could never have any further rulings on slaves in the south. I believe they could not risk dis-unionizing, therefore playing it safe by toning their opinions down to personal levels, instead of a politcal one (in congress)
It didn't make it right, but in this situation, they couldn't have done something feasible at the time.
As a matter of the interpretation of "right", "right" would have to be defined.
1: righteous, upright. 2: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper. 3: conforming to facts or truth.
Knowing this, my next opinion is that what was right is morally important, but the fact is that first left the slavery issue out of the constitution which was wrong, but it was right in a sense for politcal reasons.
Note: In case you mis-understand, I do not condone slavery, but the facts show that no solution was even 3/4 perfected until later, so I believe that they did everything they could have done, without dis-unionizing their government.
I understand that they believed it was the right decision to leave slavery out; there were seven southern state. I still don't believe it was the right decision. The founding fathers obviously knew it wasa problem and that it needed to be addressed, or they wouldn't have had added the section about Congress being allowed to deal with it in twenty years. To me, it just seemed like they were temporizing because they did not want to deal with the issue themselves, and thought it better for the next generation to solve it.
The only issue with that is the fact it leaves open the opportunity to bend morals just to reach a politically satisfying point. If you walked out to your field and told one of your slaves that the only reason he was doing back breaking labor and being whipped day in and day out all because of colonial unity, he would stare at you with pure hatred and contempt. And holding off on a problem does not make it go away, but usually only makes things worse.
"the facts show that no solution was even 3/4 perfected until later..."
The only reason this was is because of the lack of addressing the issue. The same exact thing is happening today with issues like the environment. No candidate has a clear vision for the future of energy or the world, and they believe just not talking about it and using temporary solutions like offshore drilling will take voters minds off it. We are making the same decisions hundreds of years later because it was deemed alright in years past, and allowed for our country to be founded.
"It didn't make it right, but in this situation, they couldn't have done something feasible at the time."
The only limit to feasibility, I believe, was the limit of their action. Some may have said it was impossible to ever separate from Britain or unite the colonies years before, but it was done. The problem is when liberties are taken and we find ways to go around the issues, we end up building up on political aspects, and swaying away from actual justice. These are taken as normal as time goes on, and the government then forms a sort of immunity from the law, which they consider "good for the people."
"but the fact is that first left the slavery issue out of the constitution which was wrong, but it was right in a sense for politcal reasons."
But if we let politics take merit over morals and righteousness, we end up with the cost of unnecessary lives, legal high ranking criminals, and *ahem* women with less than two years of experience in the Senate with a chance to become the leader of the free world.
P.S. I'm not saying the country could ever be perfect, and I don't expect any government was or ever will be, but I think if we tried, our country could have been founded on a different stance than it was, and could have perhaps been a different place than it is today.
If the founding fathers could not set the example thamselves, how could anyone really take them seriously? Sure, it was the only thing that would help ratify the Constitution, but if you don't step up and do what is right, things will get worse for all, and in the end hostilities will break out (Civil War). If all men were created equal, why are slaves different? What did white people have that made them better than the rest of the world?
bliu, I agree with you that the founding fathers did eveything they could to ratify the constitution without destroying their fragile government, but I must disagree with you that they did not do everything their power to correct the mistakes of their predecesors. A necessary evil is still evil,and ignoring the issue of slavery was like signing away those people's lives to a fate worse than death, laced with torture and cruelty. If their decision was really for the best, why did they say that "all men are created equal"?
When I weigh the pro's and con's to having it in there, it appears to me that there are more cons.
Had they supported slavery, there would be the definite problem of getting the Constitution passed, as most of the people supporting it were Southern plantation owners that owned slaves. There would not be as many people sympathizing with the slaves as needed, and it would not be appealing enough for the public's eyes. Had it been added in, we might be owned by the British today. The only way this would be guaranteed to work is if it was hidden away as a secret, but that would be eliminating the whole point of stating it there, and it would be easily noticed anyways.
On the other hand, excluding slavery has made a free country with (almost) equal rights for (almost) all people. As C² said, the country is not perfect. It hasn't ever been and never will be. No human alive today is perfect because everyone makes mistakes. And said mistakes lead to the downfall of societies that otherwise could be close to perfect.
However, the US has done a pretty good job staying together. The slavery issue was mostly resolved, but at the cost of many lives. So many people could have become a great physicist, mathematician, historian, etc. had slavery been abolished sooner, and I know that. We could have been in a much better state, but had about as equal of a chance of becoming another failed nation.
And here is a big problem: had it been in the Constitution, would it really have ever worked? Would people actually have abolished it sooner, later, or at the same time? I think it just would never had passed, and there goes our civilized independence.
So, I believe that it was a good choice. Had they had a very strong promise to do something about it sooner, it would have been a better choice.
It had to be done, there would be no US today if they would of tried to end the issue of slavery. The Civil War would have happened if they did and that would have sucked.
The founding fathers were great political leaders and well respected in America for the sacrifices they made, but the reason I believe they did not address slavery was the fact that they were slave owners them selves and it was their way of life. However I do beleive they were wrong.
I believe that they should have fixed the problem about slavery before the Constitution or in the constitution so that the states would not be so seperated. It would have been better to say something in the Constitution concerning slavery.
I agree with Kaitlin Morris when she says that they should have ended the problem of slavery sooner. If they ended it sooner it would have helped the states to become united sooner.
I agree with c2 entirely, but mr.max brought up a good point today, when he said that we could have ended up like Europe, and while I don't believe we would have, i think that they were fearful of ending up anything like Britain. The General area of Europe as well.
I agree with Brett Lenz when he said how hypicritical it was to ignore such an important issue in a document ment to bring equality and rights to the people. Even though it says that all are equal and that all have rights, it give absolutely nothing to the slaves which was totally unjust and wrong.
Well yea i thought it was a mistake for the founding fathers to ignore the slave issue because there was alot of cruelty in the act and it had to be dealt with, the sooner the better but they decided not to go against the constitution, making the slaves deal with more harsh years of brutality.
i actually agree with Mr.Gooley for once in my life haha. i feel as though even if slavery wasnt dealt with as quickly as i would have hoped it had, it had to take time. Like Josh said if that wouldnt have been solved, the US would not be what it is today.
The thought that slavery would be required to keep a country from falling apart is sickening but it was also true. The fact of the matter is slavery as Andrew Jackson says it was a "Necessary Evil." If we had attempted to abolish slavery we might have been driven into a civil war even sooner. Leaving us vulnerable to attacks from Britian. They would have jumped at the chance to get back at us in an weakned state. Even though extremley wrong and inhumane our country may not have survived without this act.
I think the whole thing was very hypocritcal,the constitution says that we are all created equal and yet they still had slaves. what did white people have that slaves didnt? Even though the slavery problem was resolved i cant help but think about all the slaves that had to suffer. It makes me sad, even thought the founding fathers were well respected they should of put there foot down and thought about the slaves and how they treat them.
They made a very good decision by not bringing up slavery. If they had brought up slavery it could have started a civil war just after they became a nation. Britain could have looked at this as an opportunity to recapture the colony. The nation was weak at the time and bringing up an important issue like slavery could have torn the country apart.Even though slavery was a very important issue of the time, they would have made a grave mistake if they brought it up.
Of course we all love to say that we would have tried to end slavery. If you think about it the colonists had slaves longer than we have had computers. If the fouinding fathers had called for such a radical change, it would be as if W banned computers. Just as we need computers, the southerners needed their slaves. If the founding brothers went against slavery it would have caused an uproar from the south. Their economy was so dependant on these workers. Of course slavery was bad but it needed to eventually abolished, doing it all at once would not have worked. The founding fathers did the right thing.
I think that the founding fathers made the right decision in evading the issue. if they didn't, there was no way that the constitution would have passed. Yes obviously I agree that slavery was an extreme injustice, but if the northern states tried to outlaw it at a national level they would have made the colonies more isolated and destroyed any hope of stronger unity from each other. Try to think about it this way: if the decision was up to you, can you honestly come up with a solution that would be better for the majority of the population? If you tried to outlaw it you would run the risk of never ratifiying the constitution. All of this, not to mention the secession of the south, when the country was not nearly stable enough to afford a civil war.
I agree with Mr.Jenkins, America just came out of a war and was going through an economic depression. There was so much change going on that the colonists were not yet ready to get rid of their workers. Ending slavery so sone would have weakened the colonies even further.
I believe that slavery is unjust and immoral overall. I wished that they would have abolished it before or incorporated it into the Consitution so our country could have been more organized in that matter. I understand that some people tried to stop this trade, but their failures led to the grave effect of many lives suffered and lost. I know that by putting a stop to slavery at the wrong time would have cause many problems, but by keeping it also led to even bigger conflicts including war.
I agree with Kayleigh because this was a huge issue and I think that our founding fathers did not address is seriously enough and some were just too concerned about their reputation and what the states and citizens thought of them. Their mistake took many lives away and leaves a grave and tragic mark on our history.
I think that in the event that slavery was addressed, our country would not be the same as it is today. I look at it as being the horrible thing that it was, but also I see that the slaves back then were just as important as the men who later signed away their lives on the Declaration of Independence, for example. Though the circumstances were different, the sacrifices the slaves made helped determine the outcome of today.
I believe that the better decision was made to not address the problem of slavery when the constitution was being signed. although it was a moral issue, i think that the represenatives not addressing the issue then was a wise decision to keep the fragile colonies together in one unified nation.
Excellent analysis and discussion. I'm proud of the work and thought you put into this. Full credit for everyone who blogged. Look forward to more in the future.
I agree with Bensen (i think thats how u speel it?) that people in congress did lend their support to the slavery cause, there just wasnt enough of a majority to really do anything.
This is ridiculous! Of course they should have fought to keep slavery in the constitution. It's not something you can just forget about. It was a huge issue, and they shouldn't have left it out. They could have put something simple about it in there, but they didnt do squat. So what if the constitution didnt pass right away, they could have improved it later or something. They didnt fight for what they believed in.
I'm going to agree with Robert. He makes a very valid point on the fact that we were incredibly weak and the fact that we had been trying so hard to break away from England didn't help any. What I really disagree on though is the fact that they remained silent about it. If they would've adressed the fact that slavery did indeed need to be abolished and they would discuss the abolition after they got a little bit stronger of a standing it would've made the whole ordeal a lot shorter and in turn would let the slaves actually have rights and be allowed to own property ages before they actually could.
I don't know, the whole thing is messed up. If they just fought it like Cole says, than it would have been more than just a rejected draft, it would be a continually rejected draft because the south would not wont to lose slavery. If the first draft was rejected, its not like that would end the issue, it would put more stress on the topic, but obvously waiting till we were stronger wasnt to good either, cause even after bout a century or so, when we were stronger and the issue was brought up, it started a civil war. I think the best they could have done was let the states decided, and than try to find ways to take away the dependence of slaves in the south so when abolishment come it wouldnt have been to big of a hit. But that idea oly really works on paper
wow u guys! many interesting and thought provoking points have been brought up. all i can do is agree with...everyone
yes i do believe that the institution of slavery is wicked and evil. the idea of taking another human being, our brothers, and degrading them to worthless beasts is...sickening
with that said, i agree with the quote, slavery was a "necessary evil". by this i mean to say that the issue of abolishing slavery was rightly left out of first ratifications of the constitution.
sure, slavery could have been addressed and a system could have been worked out to free the slaves and still ensure economic stability of the colonies
but the founding fathers overlooked this opportunity to ensure lasting stability or at least UNIFY the already weak colonies. think about it... how could one group agree on any issue if they weren't a unified group already?
my point is, by setting up a constitution that the representatives and colonies agreed to follow, then debates and laws could be passed to abolish slavery --what good would any laws do to stop slavery if some of the colonies weren't going to follow them
in a way, the constitution "tied" the colonies down to following what laws would be passed in the future.
--what good are prison cells if you have no escaped convicts to fill them with?
in the same way, the constitution's first job was to ensure lasting unification within the colonies. once the individual states agreed to a lasting government and body of laws, then they could start to debate and discuss moral issues of slavery
America is not perfect. through time, our nation has been shaken apart by social and economic rifts ---the civil war, most likely was inevitable, slavery was such a large part of america's economy that it wasn't abolished until a great war came along. i still believe it was better to wait until the country was more unified through the constitution to begin to talk about the problems with slavery.
Wow, Maggio, you make a great point. Even though it helped unify the colony's, don't you think something more could have been done? I mean, they could have made a few comprimises with slavery, at least, but they didn't try anything with it after they told them that slavery wouldn't be mentioned in the constitution. Our Founding Fathers were great and smart men who could've acomplished so much more with slavery.
i dont who to agree with, i want to agree with dan cause he brings up such good points that slavery was a horrible thing but it was a nesscary evil that had to be done to help unify the colonies. its just still dumb how to me how the founding fathers wanted to get rid of slavery, but had slaves themselves. i understand the situation, but its still hypocritical to me
Ok, so I can only partly agree with Dan. I realize they thought it was needed to unify the colonies, but waiting didn't seem to help much. The nation still split because of slavery, and yes it was restored, but who says that the country wouldn't have been able to mend itself back in the late 1700s?
Dan, I thought you expressed very well what I was thinking before in reference to bringing the states into the Union and then debating moral rules.
curtisb, You agreed with DMaggio and said that "the silence" was needed, but I would disagree. although it could be debated that they couldn't include the issue of slavery in the Constitution, after those years of all ready being the US, they could have fought against it. The Constitution was already written, that wasn't going to change, but they could have started to make an effort in the Congress later instead of keeping SILENT
well i think they should have addressed the issue of slavery. Although we had just got out of the war. The economy was bad and we needed out southerns to get back to producing our countries main money maker. The south had a good point, sure lets abolish slavery but then tell us what are we supposed to do? Give us an alternative. The slaves were needed to help with the labor. However it still wasn't right or fair to them, they were people too and should have been treated as an equal.
The constitution was not, nor is perfect. But what makes it great is its ability to adapt to the current political situation. This is why the constitution has succeded. It was not a very effective document when it was first drafted, but it was America's starting off point. It allowed the Americans to start running their country and not worry about how to run their politics. Now I am getting a little off topic. If the Founding Fathers would have addressed the problem of slavery so early after the Revolution, there would have probaly been a civil war. There was no way slavery was going to able to be abolished so soon in the countries life. For one, the country needed money, and the countries biggest source of income was agriculture, and what was the major workforce for agriculture? It was slavery of course. So getting rid of slavery might have caused a civil war, it WOULD have probaly crippled our young nation's economy and would have probaly set our country back at least 20-50 years. If that would have happened, would we have been able, or willing to spend $2 million dollars on the Louisiana Purchase an expand our country past the Mississippi? Who knows, who knows. Carpe Diem my peeps!!!
The constitution was not, nor is perfect. But what makes it great is its ability to adapt to the current political situation. This is why the constitution has succeded. It was not a very effective document when it was first drafted, but it was America's starting off point. It allowed the Americans to start running their country and not worry about how to run their politics. Now I am getting a little off topic. If the Founding Fathers would have addressed the problem of slavery so early after the Revolution, there would have probaly been a civil war. There was no way slavery was going to able to be abolished so soon in the countries life. For one, the country needed money, and the countries biggest source of income was agriculture, and what was the major workforce for agriculture? It was slavery of course. So getting rid of slavery might have caused a civil war, it WOULD have probaly crippled our young nation's economy and would have probaly set our country back at least 20-50 years. If that would have happened, would we have been able, or willing to spend $2 million dollars on the Louisiana Purchase an expand our country past the Mississippi? Who knows, who knows. Carpe Diem my peeps!!!
First of all, you made your post twice. I suggest deleting one. Also, you make a interesting point about how it may have crippled our economy, but then again, hindsight is 20/20. Also, after the civil war, our economy didn't utterly collapse even though we had great expenditures and the slaves were no longer slaves. The South was incredibly hurt during the Civil War and it left its scars, but those who were enslaved didn't just pack up and leave. They had no place to go and thus became tenant farmers and the only pockets that got hurt were the farmers who lost land to the former slaves.
Honestly I feel the founding fathers did the wrong thing by not addressing slavery. First off, me being an african-american and having to hear about the sufferings and hardships my ancestors went through is something i don't like. Secondally, if they would have addressed it back then America would have avoided such things as the civil rights movement and black riots.
I agree with nam11 for the simple fact that he shares the same feelings i do towards the brutality in slavery. We both agree that it should have been addressed and outlawed in that time period.
At the time, they beleived it was the right decision for them to make. Slavery was a major part of their economy, and a major part of their everyday life. The southern states would not have ratified the Constitution if the Founding Fathers would have abolished slavery, and leave them with no laborers. As I look back now though and analyze the situation more closely, I believe they should have abolished slavery then. They obviously knew it was morally wrong and should have dealt with the situation as soon as they could, instead of leaving the problem to future generations. The Founding Fathers allowed the southern states to continue to depend on slavery for far too long.
I agree with Kaitlin Morris when she said they should have dealt with the issue of slavery so they could "put an end to it sooner". It would have been very difficult to have the Constitution ratified, but I believe the leaders back then would have been able to unite the colonies.
I think that over all there was really no right decision that the Founding Father's could have made because no matter what there were grave consequences for both.
If slavery had been abolished right away the southern states would have been infuriated and left the union. There would be no United States of America because they would have never united. We would not have the great nation that we do today.
On the other hand, the position that the delegates did take hurt thousands of innocent people and took way too many lives.
In the end a Civil War was inevitable as well; if not for one reason...the other. There is no possible way that everyone can agree and be happy about a national decision.
Although it is easy for me to look back from the perspective i have today and judge the Founding Fathers and say they made the wrong decision by not addressing slavery right away, I honestly think they made the best decision they could with the knowledge they had. They were just coming from a huge war where man after man sacrificed his life for independent and united colonies. It would almost be disrespectful to then go and undo everything they had just fought so hard to gain.
I agree with Robin Hong. The Founding Fathers were very hypocritical. They were all talk. I don't completely agree with Brandon, though, because although Civil Rights movements and black riots would have been avoided, there would have been just as critical problems such as territory issues of a non united country, currency crisis, and economic disaster for the entire South.
I have to say I still think that they should have fought vehemently against it. Even If we did end up as 13 l separate countries I don't think life would be much different today. I think what would have happened is that America would have been divided into two countries, and eventually be brought together by something similar to the civil war.
For more Cole-ness Check out my blog...www.kohldulas.tk
I think that is was somewhat Ignorant of them to ignore the issue of slavery in the constitution because I don't think that it was fair.In the constitution they say all men are created equal.Our founding fathers wern't stupid, so they must have understood that the blacks were humands just like everyone else, I believe they knew what they were doing was wrong, yet they refused to admit it and walked with their tails tucked under,like a scared dog.On the other hand,What if it was included.If we didn't have slavery we probably would have shribbled up as a country in our early years.Tobacco,wheat and rice were some of the things that kept our country from running out of gas.It reminds me of animal testing. It's wrong to test on animals,becuase they are living creatures like us, but we need it in order to keep on coming up with new treatments.vaccines for polio and rabies were done throgh animal testing. and penecilin too. These tests have samed millions of lives.If you looked at a picture of animal testing it's sad,because you know they are probably in pain when the person took the picture. I'm sure if u looked into a slaves eyes, you would find that same scared sorrowy look.(didn't mean to compare slaves to animals)wow. that sounds really bad.:X. My point being even though it was wrong,slaves were the ones who were backstage making sure that there was always monkey in the countries pocket. They were one of the TRUE heros of this country. But what if we didn't have slaves in this country, I don't feel like it would be the....... "United States of America" It would be totally different. Nothing that happened in our history would have happened.Everything we do now, affects our future.We probably would have been overun by another country,and then what? who would we be then? You might have not even been born due to that.And what can you say to that?
I think that is was somewhat Ignorant of them to ignore the issue of slavery in the constitution because I don't think that it was fair.In the constitution they say all men are created equal.Our founding fathers wern't stupid, so they must have understood that the blacks were humands just like everyone else, I believe they knew what they were doing was wrong, yet they refused to admit it and walked with their tails tucked under,like a scared dog.On the other hand,What if it was included.If we didn't have slavery we probably would have shribbled up as a country in our early years.Tobacco,wheat and rice were some of the things that kept our country from running out of gas.It reminds me of animal testing. It's wrong to test on animals,becuase they are living creatures like us, but we need it in order to keep on coming up with new treatments.vaccines for polio and rabies were done throgh animal testing. and penecilin too. These tests have samed millions of lives.If you looked at a picture of animal testing it's sad,because you know they are probably in pain when the person took the picture. I'm sure if u looked into a slaves eyes, you would find that same scared sorrowy look.(didn't mean to compare slaves to animals)wow. that sounds really bad.:X. My point being even though it was wrong,slaves were the ones who were backstage making sure that there was always monkey in the countries pocket. They were one of the TRUE heros of this country. But what if we didn't have slaves in this country, I don't feel like it would be the....... "United States of America" It would be totally different. Nothing that happened in our history would have happened.Everything we do now, affects our future.We probably would have been overun by another country,and then what? who would we be then? You might have not even been born due to that.And what can you say to that?
In one sense they did and in the other they didnt. They did because if they wouldnt of ignored it, the fighting between the north and the south would of split the country in two (Wich is a bad thing). But the again they shouldnt of assumed that it would of died out on its own, they later found out in the census that it was actually growing. I think it was the right thing to do. You know, they had a tough desition to make and choose the lesser of two evils. It was a hard but necessary decision.
This is definately one of those controversial questions people debate for YEARS, kind of like, "does a locker slamming shut make noise when no one is around to hear it?" But do these questions have right answers? I think this question in particularly can be answered correctly with a yes and a no. Yes,the founding fathers did make a correct choice because if these prominent leaders had made the choice of addressing the issue of slavery in the Constitution, it would have definately resulted in a separation of the union (the south and the north). This is a significant loss because we would not be in the same America as we know it to be today. However, it is important to look at this from the slaves standpoint and through moral values, slavery is WRONG. The African Americans were, just as they are now, people just like anybody else and deserved to be treated like citizens. To say that the slaves who were working day in and day out, sacrificing their time and lives to rice plantations, all the while being treated like animals was worth it: that all that torment they personally went through was eventually resolved and led to the America as we know it, is just plain selfish.
64 comments:
I think that it was a grave mistake because it allowed the southerners to make slavery a part of everyday life.
It was a sacrifice on the founding fathers part, yes it was a mistake but at that time Southerners made up about 50% of the colonies. Yesit was bad but it was for the good of the whole and the problem was resolved eventually.
I believe that they should have fought against it. While they needed the constitution ratified, they had just won the war with England. I don't think a rejected draft of the constitution would have torn America apart. So, if nothing else, they could have lended their support to the anti-slavery issue.
I think they shouldn't have ignored the issue of slavery. I think that instead they should have addressed it upfront so that they could put an end to it sooner.
In order to have the southern states join the independent movement, they needed to not put a forward movement against slavery. The fathers shouldn't have had an agreement to not put a ban on it for 20 or so years. Unfortunately, the problem had disastrous results of many, many deaths.
If America was addressing another political system based on the same rules as other political systems, I could see the leaving out of slavery abolition until later. However, when the core of the governmental system is based on democracy, and the fact that "all men are created equal" is a key point, we can not simply change the definition of a man to better suit the colonists needs. I believe if a government is founded on freedom and liberties, we should not just ignore hundreds of thousands of lives to make our country founded faster. If we truly banded together and fought for a common goal, we still would find a way to found this country, even if it was a later time than actuality.
The fact that the rules of freedom can change leaves open the possibilities for other laws to change, and other groups to be discriminated on. We still have a wide array of social issues that are against freedom and justice. Are we just going to say no to those to allow our politics to run smoother?
Dex,
Easy for you to say 220 years later! What about all the slaves who suffered in the period before the Civil War? Interesting thoughts, though.
I was thinking that they could get the southerners into the agreement, then end it once they were in, but that may have not really worked.
C²,
I agree with you, but if fighting towards that goal would have postponed the organized government, then that would not have seemed worth it to them if they could not foresee a definite start.
If you look at it from their perspective, they were still racist to a point, some more than others, and they put the problems of the economy, such as the nonuniform currency, and the crises with the inconsistent laws, and other problems that stemmed from the weak central government ahead of the problem of the enslavement of a group that some thought deserved less rights. I am not justifying, just explaining.
Excellent points made by both C2 and Dex. Nice work, guys! :O)
I think that the founding fathers should have addressed the slavery issue. I agree with C2. The founding fathers should have stood by the statement "all men are created equal" and worked for what the colonies said they were all about. If they had no intention of addressing slavery, "all men created equal" should have never come up.
Althought slavery was abolished eventually in America, it is ridiculously hypocritical of the founding fathers to not include even a mention of slavery in the Constitution. This was a document supposed to give people equal rights and opportunities and they fail to address the most unjust institution of that time.
Quote: "So, if nothing else, they could have lended their support to the anti-slavery issue." -Cole Dulas
Some did lend their support to the anti-slavery issue for the constitution. It just wasn't enough; in a sense that if the south did dis-unionize, they could never have any further rulings on slaves in the south. I believe they could not risk dis-unionizing, therefore playing it safe by toning their opinions down to personal levels, instead of a politcal one (in congress)
It didn't make it right, but in this situation, they couldn't have done something feasible at the time.
As a matter of the interpretation of "right", "right" would have to be defined.
1: righteous, upright. 2: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper. 3: conforming to facts or truth.
Knowing this, my next opinion is that what was right is morally important, but the fact is that first left the slavery issue out of the constitution which was wrong, but it was right in a sense for politcal reasons.
Note: In case you mis-understand, I do not condone slavery, but the facts show that no solution was even 3/4 perfected until later, so I believe that they did everything they could have done, without dis-unionizing their government.
I understand that they believed it was the right decision to leave slavery out; there were seven southern state. I still don't believe it was the right decision. The founding fathers obviously knew it wasa problem and that it needed to be addressed, or they wouldn't have had added the section about Congress being allowed to deal with it in twenty years. To me, it just seemed like they were temporizing because they did not want to deal with the issue themselves, and thought it better for the next generation to solve it.
The only issue with that is the fact it leaves open the opportunity to bend morals just to reach a politically satisfying point. If you walked out to your field and told one of your slaves that the only reason he was doing back breaking labor and being whipped day in and day out all because of colonial unity, he would stare at you with pure hatred and contempt. And holding off on a problem does not make it go away, but usually only makes things worse.
"the facts show that no solution was even 3/4 perfected until later..."
The only reason this was is because of the lack of addressing the issue. The same exact thing is happening today with issues like the environment. No candidate has a clear vision for the future of energy or the world, and they believe just not talking about it and using temporary solutions like offshore drilling will take voters minds off it. We are making the same decisions hundreds of years later because it was deemed alright in years past, and allowed for our country to be founded.
"It didn't make it right, but in this situation, they couldn't have done something feasible at the time."
The only limit to feasibility, I believe, was the limit of their action. Some may have said it was impossible to ever separate from Britain or unite the colonies years before, but it was done. The problem is when liberties are taken and we find ways to go around the issues, we end up building up on political aspects, and swaying away from actual justice. These are taken as normal as time goes on, and the government then forms a sort of immunity from the law, which they consider "good for the people."
"but the fact is that first left the slavery issue out of the constitution which was wrong, but it was right in a sense for politcal reasons."
But if we let politics take merit over morals and righteousness, we end up with the cost of unnecessary lives, legal high ranking criminals, and *ahem* women with less than two years of experience in the Senate with a chance to become the leader of the free world.
P.S.
I'm not saying the country could ever be perfect, and I don't expect any government was or ever will be, but I think if we tried, our country could have been founded on a different stance than it was, and could have perhaps been a different place than it is today.
If the founding fathers could not set the example thamselves, how could anyone really take them seriously? Sure, it was the only thing that would help ratify the Constitution, but if you don't step up and do what is right, things will get worse for all, and in the end hostilities will break out (Civil War). If all men were created equal, why are slaves different? What did white people have that made them better than the rest of the world?
bliu,
I agree with you that the founding fathers did eveything they could to ratify the constitution without destroying their fragile government, but I must disagree with you that they did not do everything their power to correct the mistakes of their predecesors. A necessary evil is still evil,and ignoring the issue of slavery was like signing away those people's lives to a fate worse than death, laced with torture and cruelty. If their decision was really for the best, why did they say that "all men are created equal"?
When I weigh the pro's and con's to having it in there, it appears to me that there are more cons.
Had they supported slavery, there would be the definite problem of getting the Constitution passed, as most of the people supporting it were Southern plantation owners that owned slaves. There would not be as many people sympathizing with the slaves as needed, and it would not be appealing enough for the public's eyes. Had it been added in, we might be owned by the British today. The only way this would be guaranteed to work is if it was hidden away as a secret, but that would be eliminating the whole point of stating it there, and it would be easily noticed anyways.
On the other hand, excluding slavery has made a free country with (almost) equal rights for (almost) all people. As C² said, the country is not perfect. It hasn't ever been and never will be. No human alive today is perfect because everyone makes mistakes. And said mistakes lead to the downfall of societies that otherwise could be close to perfect.
However, the US has done a pretty good job staying together. The slavery issue was mostly resolved, but at the cost of many lives. So many people could have become a great physicist, mathematician, historian, etc. had slavery been abolished sooner, and I know that. We could have been in a much better state, but had about as equal of a chance of becoming another failed nation.
And here is a big problem: had it been in the Constitution, would it really have ever worked? Would people actually have abolished it sooner, later, or at the same time? I think it just would never had passed, and there goes our civilized independence.
So, I believe that it was a good choice. Had they had a very strong promise to do something about it sooner, it would have been a better choice.
It had to be done, there would be no US today if they would of tried to end the issue of slavery. The Civil War would have happened if they did and that would have sucked.
The founding fathers were great political leaders and well respected in America for the sacrifices they made, but the reason I believe they did not address slavery was the fact that they were slave owners them selves and it was their way of life. However I do beleive they were wrong.
I believe that they should have fixed the problem about slavery before the Constitution or in the constitution so that the states would not be so seperated. It would have been better to say something in the Constitution concerning slavery.
It was a mistake but the leaders needed to unify the country and this was the only way to do it. However it did keep lots of people in chains.
I agree with Kaitlin Morris when she says that they should have ended the problem of slavery sooner. If they ended it sooner it would have helped the states to become united sooner.
I agree with c2 entirely, but mr.max brought up a good point today, when he said that we could have ended up like Europe, and while I don't believe we would have, i think that they were fearful of ending up anything like Britain. The General area of Europe as well.
I agree with Brett Lenz when he said how hypicritical it was to ignore such an important issue in a document ment to bring equality and rights to the people. Even though it says that all are equal and that all have rights, it give absolutely nothing to the slaves which was totally unjust and wrong.
Well yea i thought it was a mistake for the founding fathers to ignore the slave issue because there was alot of cruelty in the act and it had to be dealt with, the sooner the better but they decided not to go against the constitution, making the slaves deal with more harsh years of brutality.
i actually agree with Mr.Gooley for once in my life haha. i feel as though even if slavery wasnt dealt with as quickly as i would have hoped it had, it had to take time. Like Josh said if that wouldnt have been solved, the US would not be what it is today.
The thought that slavery would be required to keep a country from falling apart is sickening but it was also true. The fact of the matter is slavery as Andrew Jackson says it was a "Necessary Evil." If we had attempted to abolish slavery we might have been driven into a civil war even sooner. Leaving us vulnerable to attacks from Britian. They would have jumped at the chance to get back at us in an weakned state. Even though extremley wrong and inhumane our country may not have survived without this act.
I think the whole thing was very hypocritcal,the constitution says that we are all created equal and yet they still had slaves. what did white people have that slaves didnt? Even though the slavery problem was resolved i cant help but think about all the slaves that had to suffer. It makes me sad, even thought the founding fathers were well respected they should of put there foot down and thought about the slaves and how they treat them.
They made a very good decision by not bringing up slavery. If they had brought up slavery it could have started a civil war just after they became a nation. Britain could have looked at this as an opportunity to recapture the colony. The nation was weak at the time and bringing up an important issue like slavery could have torn the country apart.Even though slavery was a very important issue of the time, they would have made a grave mistake if they brought it up.
Of course we all love to say that we would have tried to end slavery. If you think about it the colonists had slaves longer than we have had computers. If the fouinding fathers had called for such a radical change, it would be as if W banned computers. Just as we need computers, the southerners needed their slaves. If the founding brothers went against slavery it would have caused an uproar from the south. Their economy was so dependant on these workers. Of course slavery was bad but it needed to eventually abolished, doing it all at once would not have worked. The founding fathers did the right thing.
I think that the founding fathers made the right decision in evading the issue. if they didn't, there was no way that the constitution would have passed. Yes obviously I agree that slavery was an extreme injustice, but if the northern states tried to outlaw it at a national level they would have made the colonies more isolated and destroyed any hope of stronger unity from each other. Try to think about it this way: if the decision was up to you, can you honestly come up with a solution that would be better for the majority of the population? If you tried to outlaw it you would run the risk of never ratifiying the constitution. All of this, not to mention the secession of the south, when the country was not nearly stable enough to afford a civil war.
I agree with Mr.Jenkins, America just came out of a war and was going through an economic depression. There was so much change going on that the colonists were not yet ready to get rid of their workers. Ending slavery so sone would have weakened the colonies even further.
I believe that slavery is unjust and immoral overall. I wished that they would have abolished it before or incorporated it into the Consitution so our country could have been more organized in that matter. I understand that some people tried to stop this trade, but their failures led to the grave effect of many lives suffered and lost. I know that by putting a stop to slavery at the wrong time would have cause many problems, but by keeping it also led to even bigger conflicts including war.
I agree with Kayleigh because this was a huge issue and I think that our founding fathers did not address is seriously enough and some were just too concerned about their reputation and what the states and citizens thought of them. Their mistake took many lives away and leaves a grave and tragic mark on our history.
I think that in the event that slavery was addressed, our country would not be the same as it is today. I look at it as being the horrible thing that it was, but also I see that the slaves back then were just as important as the men who later signed away their lives on the Declaration of Independence, for example. Though the circumstances were different, the sacrifices the slaves made helped determine the outcome of today.
I believe that the better decision was made to not address the problem of slavery when the constitution was being signed. although it was a moral issue, i think that the represenatives not addressing the issue then was a wise decision to keep the fragile colonies together in one unified nation.
Excellent analysis and discussion. I'm proud of the work and thought you put into this. Full credit for everyone who blogged. Look forward to more in the future.
I agree with Bensen (i think thats how u speel it?) that people in congress did lend their support to the slavery cause, there just wasnt enough of a majority to really do anything.
This is ridiculous! Of course they should have fought to keep slavery in the constitution. It's not something you can just forget about. It was a huge issue, and they shouldn't have left it out. They could have put something simple about it in there, but they didnt do squat. So what if the constitution didnt pass right away, they could have improved it later or something. They didnt fight for what they believed in.
I agree with C Eddy. All men is everyone, not just those they wish to consider "men".
I'm going to agree with Robert. He makes a very valid point on the fact that we were incredibly weak and the fact that we had been trying so hard to break away from England didn't help any.
What I really disagree on though is the fact that they remained silent about it. If they would've adressed the fact that slavery did indeed need to be abolished and they would discuss the abolition after they got a little bit stronger of a standing it would've made the whole ordeal a lot shorter and in turn would let the slaves actually have rights and be allowed to own property ages before they actually could.
I don't know, the whole thing is messed up. If they just fought it like Cole says, than it would have been more than just a rejected draft, it would be a continually rejected draft because the south would not wont to lose slavery. If the first draft was rejected, its not like that would end the issue, it would put more stress on the topic, but obvously waiting till we were stronger wasnt to good either, cause even after bout a century or so, when we were stronger and the issue was brought up, it started a civil war. I think the best they could have done was let the states decided, and than try to find ways to take away the dependence of slaves in the south so when abolishment come it wouldnt have been to big of a hit. But that idea oly really works on paper
wow u guys! many interesting and thought provoking points have been brought up. all i can do is agree with...everyone
yes i do believe that the institution of slavery is wicked and evil. the idea of taking another human being, our brothers, and degrading them to worthless beasts is...sickening
with that said, i agree with the quote, slavery was a "necessary evil". by this i mean to say that the issue of abolishing slavery was rightly left out of first ratifications of the constitution.
sure, slavery could have been addressed and a system could have been worked out to free the slaves and still ensure economic stability of the colonies
but the founding fathers overlooked this opportunity to ensure lasting stability or at least UNIFY the already weak colonies. think about it... how could one group agree on any issue if they weren't a unified group already?
my point is, by setting up a constitution that the representatives and colonies agreed to follow, then debates and laws could be passed to abolish slavery
--what good would any laws do to stop slavery if some of the colonies weren't going to follow them
in a way, the constitution "tied" the colonies down to following what laws would be passed in the future.
--what good are prison cells if you have no escaped convicts to fill them with?
in the same way, the constitution's first job was to ensure lasting unification within the colonies. once the individual states agreed to a lasting government and body of laws, then they could start to debate and discuss moral issues of slavery
America is not perfect. through time, our nation has been shaken apart by social and economic rifts
---the civil war, most likely was inevitable, slavery was such a large part of america's economy that it wasn't abolished until a great war came along.
i still believe it was better to wait until the country was more unified through the constitution to begin to talk about the problems with slavery.
Dan, if you said that out loudd, Id have to start a slow clap.
Im completely agree with what Dan says, it was a horrible thing, but it was nesicary to keep. THe silence was needed to make this country work
Wow, Maggio, you make a great point.
Even though it helped unify the colony's, don't you think something more could have been done? I mean, they could have made a few comprimises with slavery, at least, but they didn't try anything with it after they told them that slavery wouldn't be mentioned in the constitution.
Our Founding Fathers were great and smart men who could've acomplished so much more with slavery.
well at least some states got rid of it. Its better than keeping completely quite about it
i dont who to agree with, i want to agree with dan cause he brings up such good points that slavery was a horrible thing but it was a nesscary evil that had to be done to help unify the colonies. its just still dumb how to me how the founding fathers wanted to get rid of slavery, but had slaves themselves. i understand the situation, but its still hypocritical to me
Ok, so I can only partly agree with Dan. I realize they thought it was needed to unify the colonies, but waiting didn't seem to help much. The nation still split because of slavery, and yes it was restored, but who says that the country wouldn't have been able to mend itself back in the late 1700s?
Dan,
I thought you expressed very well what I was thinking before in reference to bringing the states into the Union and then debating moral rules.
curtisb,
You agreed with DMaggio and said that "the silence" was needed, but I would disagree. although it could be debated that they couldn't include the issue of slavery in the Constitution, after those years of all ready being the US, they could have fought against it. The Constitution was already written, that wasn't going to change, but they could have started to make an effort in the Congress later instead of keeping SILENT
well i think they should have addressed the issue of slavery. Although we had just got out of the war. The economy was bad and we needed out southerns to get back to producing our countries main money maker. The south had a good point, sure lets abolish slavery but then tell us what are we supposed to do? Give us an alternative. The slaves were needed to help with the labor. However it still wasn't right or fair to them, they were people too and should have been treated as an equal.
The constitution was not, nor is perfect. But what makes it great is its ability to adapt to the current political situation. This is why the constitution has succeded. It was not a very effective document when it was first drafted, but it was America's starting off point. It allowed the Americans to start running their country and not worry about how to run their politics. Now I am getting a little off topic. If the Founding Fathers would have addressed the problem of slavery so early after the Revolution, there would have probaly been a civil war. There was no way slavery was going to able to be abolished so soon in the countries life. For one, the country needed money, and the countries biggest source of income was agriculture, and what was the major workforce for agriculture? It was slavery of course. So getting rid of slavery might have caused a civil war, it WOULD have probaly crippled our young nation's economy and would have probaly set our country back at least 20-50 years. If that would have happened, would we have been able, or willing to spend $2 million dollars on the Louisiana Purchase an expand our country past the Mississippi? Who knows, who knows. Carpe Diem my peeps!!!
The constitution was not, nor is perfect. But what makes it great is its ability to adapt to the current political situation. This is why the constitution has succeded. It was not a very effective document when it was first drafted, but it was America's starting off point. It allowed the Americans to start running their country and not worry about how to run their politics. Now I am getting a little off topic. If the Founding Fathers would have addressed the problem of slavery so early after the Revolution, there would have probaly been a civil war. There was no way slavery was going to able to be abolished so soon in the countries life. For one, the country needed money, and the countries biggest source of income was agriculture, and what was the major workforce for agriculture? It was slavery of course. So getting rid of slavery might have caused a civil war, it WOULD have probaly crippled our young nation's economy and would have probaly set our country back at least 20-50 years. If that would have happened, would we have been able, or willing to spend $2 million dollars on the Louisiana Purchase an expand our country past the Mississippi? Who knows, who knows. Carpe Diem my peeps!!!
ZSanchez,
First of all, you made your post twice. I suggest deleting one. Also, you make a interesting point about how it may have crippled our economy, but then again, hindsight is 20/20. Also, after the civil war, our economy didn't utterly collapse even though we had great expenditures and the slaves were no longer slaves. The South was incredibly hurt during the Civil War and it left its scars, but those who were enslaved didn't just pack up and leave. They had no place to go and thus became tenant farmers and the only pockets that got hurt were the farmers who lost land to the former slaves.
Honestly I feel the founding fathers did the wrong thing by not addressing slavery. First off, me being an african-american and having to hear about the sufferings and hardships my ancestors went through is something i don't like. Secondally, if they would have addressed it back then America would have avoided such things as the civil rights movement and black riots.
I agree with nam11 for the simple fact that he shares the same feelings i do towards the brutality in slavery. We both agree that it should have been addressed and outlawed in that time period.
At the time, they beleived it was the right decision for them to make. Slavery was a major part of their economy, and a major part of their everyday life. The southern states would not have ratified the Constitution if the Founding Fathers would have abolished slavery, and leave them with no laborers. As I look back now though and analyze the situation more closely, I believe they should have abolished slavery then. They obviously knew it was morally wrong and should have dealt with the situation as soon as they could, instead of leaving the problem to future generations. The Founding Fathers allowed the southern states to continue to depend on slavery for far too long.
I agree with Kaitlin Morris when she said they should have dealt with the issue of slavery so they could "put an end to it sooner". It would have been very difficult to have the Constitution ratified, but I believe the leaders back then would have been able to unite the colonies.
I think that over all there was really no right decision that the Founding Father's could have made because no matter what there were grave consequences for both.
If slavery had been abolished right away the southern states would have been infuriated and left the union. There would be no United States of America because they would have never united. We would not have the great nation that we do today.
On the other hand, the position that the delegates did take hurt thousands of innocent people and took way too many lives.
In the end a Civil War was inevitable as well; if not for one reason...the other. There is no possible way that everyone can agree and be happy about a national decision.
Although it is easy for me to look back from the perspective i have today and judge the Founding Fathers and say they made the wrong decision by not addressing slavery right away, I honestly think they made the best decision they could with the knowledge they had. They were just coming from a huge war where man after man sacrificed his life for independent and united colonies. It would almost be disrespectful to then go and undo everything they had just fought so hard to gain.
I agree with Robin Hong. The Founding Fathers were very hypocritical. They were all talk. I don't completely agree with Brandon, though, because although Civil Rights movements and black riots would have been avoided, there would have been just as critical problems such as territory issues of a non united country, currency crisis, and economic disaster for the entire South.
I have to say I still think that they should have fought vehemently against it. Even If we did end up as 13 l separate countries I don't think life would be much different today. I think what would have happened is that America would have been divided into two countries, and eventually be brought together by something similar to the civil war.
For more Cole-ness Check out my blog...www.kohldulas.tk
I think that is was somewhat Ignorant of them to ignore the issue of slavery in the constitution because I don't think that it was fair.In the constitution they say all men are created equal.Our founding fathers wern't stupid, so they must have understood that the blacks were humands just like everyone else, I believe they knew what they were doing was wrong, yet they refused to admit it and walked with their tails tucked under,like a scared dog.On the other hand,What if it was included.If we didn't have slavery we probably would have shribbled up as a country in our early years.Tobacco,wheat and rice were some of the things that kept our country from running out of gas.It reminds me of animal testing. It's wrong to test on animals,becuase they are living creatures like us, but we need it in order to keep on coming up with new treatments.vaccines for polio and rabies were done throgh animal testing. and penecilin too. These tests have samed millions of lives.If you looked at a picture of animal testing it's sad,because you know they are probably in pain when the person took the picture. I'm sure if u looked into a slaves eyes, you would find that same scared sorrowy look.(didn't mean to compare slaves to animals)wow. that sounds really bad.:X. My point being even though it was wrong,slaves were the ones who were backstage making sure that there was always monkey in the countries pocket. They were one of the TRUE heros of this country. But what if we didn't have slaves in this country, I don't feel like it would be the.......
"United States of America" It would be totally different. Nothing that happened in our history would have happened.Everything we do now, affects our future.We probably would have been overun by another country,and then what? who would we be then? You might have not even been born due to that.And what can you say to that?
I think that is was somewhat Ignorant of them to ignore the issue of slavery in the constitution because I don't think that it was fair.In the constitution they say all men are created equal.Our founding fathers wern't stupid, so they must have understood that the blacks were humands just like everyone else, I believe they knew what they were doing was wrong, yet they refused to admit it and walked with their tails tucked under,like a scared dog.On the other hand,What if it was included.If we didn't have slavery we probably would have shribbled up as a country in our early years.Tobacco,wheat and rice were some of the things that kept our country from running out of gas.It reminds me of animal testing. It's wrong to test on animals,becuase they are living creatures like us, but we need it in order to keep on coming up with new treatments.vaccines for polio and rabies were done throgh animal testing. and penecilin too. These tests have samed millions of lives.If you looked at a picture of animal testing it's sad,because you know they are probably in pain when the person took the picture. I'm sure if u looked into a slaves eyes, you would find that same scared sorrowy look.(didn't mean to compare slaves to animals)wow. that sounds really bad.:X. My point being even though it was wrong,slaves were the ones who were backstage making sure that there was always monkey in the countries pocket. They were one of the TRUE heros of this country. But what if we didn't have slaves in this country, I don't feel like it would be the.......
"United States of America" It would be totally different. Nothing that happened in our history would have happened.Everything we do now, affects our future.We probably would have been overun by another country,and then what? who would we be then? You might have not even been born due to that.And what can you say to that?
In one sense they did and in the other they didnt. They did because if they wouldnt of ignored it, the fighting between the north and the south would of split the country in two (Wich is a bad thing). But the again they shouldnt of assumed that it would of died out on its own, they later found out in the census that it was actually growing. I think it was the right thing to do. You know, they had a tough desition to make and choose the lesser of two evils. It was a hard but necessary decision.
This is definately one of those controversial questions people debate for YEARS, kind of like, "does a locker slamming shut make noise when no one is around to hear it?"
But do these questions have right answers? I think this question in particularly can be answered correctly with a yes and a no.
Yes,the founding fathers did make a correct choice because if these prominent leaders had made the choice of addressing the issue of slavery in the Constitution, it would have definately resulted in a separation of the union (the south and the north). This is a significant loss because we would not be in the same America as we know it to be today.
However, it is important to look at this from the slaves standpoint and through moral values, slavery is WRONG. The African Americans were, just as they are now, people just like anybody else and deserved to be treated like citizens. To say that the slaves who were working day in and day out, sacrificing their time and lives to rice plantations, all the while being treated like animals was worth it: that all that torment they personally went through was eventually resolved and led to the America as we know it, is just plain selfish.
Post a Comment