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