Yes, we have so much knowledge and a foundation of history to learn from. 
Yet here we are engaged in a war in which people are dying for Oil. If that 
is not foregoing morality for economic interest, I don't know what is. So 
what have we learned from history?

Anita


>From: [log in to unmask]
>Reply-To: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history         
>      <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Madison's slaves (and black descendants?)
>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:15:08 -0400
>
>I would imagine that most of us who teach Virginia history have read Henry 
>Wiencek's book on Washington.  I've read it--indeed, I've taught it.  But 
>even to the extent that men like Washington, Mason, Jefferson, and so on 
>acknowledged the evil of slavery--and he is quite right that they did--they 
>also knew well that their constituents would not follow them on the issue.
>
>I disagree that the Founding was determined solely on matters of interest.  
>Yes, in the heat of argument, and when it served his purposes, Rutledge 
>said so.  But its simply ludicrous to suggest that Madison, Mason, Wilson, 
>Sherman, Livingston, Dickenson, Ellsworth, and so on spent all that time 
>arguing solely over matters of economic interest.  There was quite a bit of 
>principled debate going on in the convention--but when it came to slavery, 
>they were willing to compromise along lines of economic interest.  That 
>fact right there tells us something important about how those men 
>prioritized the morality of slavery.  While many of them, including some 
>southerners and some slave owners, agreed that slavery was wrong, too many 
>of them also agreed with Patrick Henry, for whom "convenience" overwhelmed 
>conviction.
>
>As a matter of political calculation, the Founders knew that they not only 
>had to craft a constitution, they also had to produce a frame of government 
>that had some potential to be ratified by their constituents.  And when we 
>look at the statements of the people who ratified the Constitution, its 
>quite clear where they stood on the matter.  Kaminski argues that by 1787, 
>whatever window had earlier existed to abolish slavery was firmly shut--and 
>in my view he is correct.
>
>I agree very much that we should be critical of those men--like George 
>Mason or Thomas Jefferson--who acknowledged the evil of slavery and 
>nonetheless did nothing about it.
>
>But to some degree that is the easy part.  Much more difficult is to ask 
>ourselves, "what would have to be true about the society in which I live, 
>that *I* might behave as Patrick Henry behaved?"  What has to be so, about 
>the world in which I live, that *I* might be complicit in evil?  
>Acknowledging evil, and then failing to confront it, is a rather human 
>thing to do.  The harder task in front of us, it seems to me, is to 
>understand the humanity--the essential "like me-ness"--of men like 
>Rutledge, or Pinckney.  And, in as much as *those* men were far more 
>typical of the enfranchised men of the south who exercised citizenship in 
>the period, in understanding the Rutledges and Pinckneys, we come close to 
>understanding the society in which most slaves lived their lives.
>Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
>Department of History
>James Madison University

_________________________________________________________________
Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN 
http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm