Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hello, and welcome to African Elements. In this episode, African American Frontiers (Part 3):
A Tale of Two Revolutions. We look at the two new republics in the western hemisphere
-- the United States and Haiti. As the two fledgling nations forge new frontiers, what
will their independence mean for African Americans? What new dangers and opportunities will Africans
face? What role will Blacks on the frontier play in shaping the course of a new nations?
All that, coming up next.
On September 17, 1787 a group of men -- about
a third of whom were slaveholders -- ratified a document originally premised on a bold declaration
that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with rights of life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. The other two thirds -- at the very least -- indirectly
really reaped the rewards of slave labor. The mental gymnastics required to forge a
nation grounded in notions of liberty and justice for all, while the republic was daily
increasing its reliance on slave labor will be discussed in a later episode. For the purpose
of this discussion, however, it will be sufficient to note that framers of the constitution were
well aware of the contradictions, and from the beginning there were conflicting views
on how the peculiar institution ought to be addressed.
When folks like Samuel Adams began to complain that British colonial policies were making
slaves out of the American colonists, Thomas Paine, who penned the revolutionary pamphlet,
Common Sense, called them out on their inconsistencies, stating, "With what sense of decency or consistency
can you complain of attempts to enslave you while you hold so many and bondage?"
For a variety of reasons, slavery began to phase out in the northern states fairly quickly
after the revolution. Largely because of people like Thomas Paine, the revolutionary ethos
of natural rights, doctrines of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness espoused by Thomas
Jefferson (although not practiced universally) gained far greater traction in the northern
states as opposed to in the southern states where property owning white men saw no contradiction
between their own pursuit of happiness and their denial of liberty to everyone else.
Additionally, African-Americans themselves challenged post-revolutionary America to live
up to its creed of freedom, liberty, and equality by pressing their own claims of freedom through
escape, self-purchase, petitions and successful lawsuits. As a result, slavery began to steadily
phase out even in the Mid-Atlantic States such as Pennsylvania in 1780 and New York
in 1799 which tended to have a greater investment in slavery than did New England states. Eventually
virtually all of the northern states had legally abolished slavery by the 1830s. In Massachusetts
by 1783, free black men who paid taxes were extended the right to vote.
Why did African American's claims of freedom seem to gain more traction in the northern
states? Were the northern states simply more morally enlightened than the southern states?
The answer is largely an economic one, however, I have often observed that one's moral compass
is often aligned with one's economic interests. For example, the Committee for the Abolition
of the Slave Trade formed in 1787 was formed in the United Kingdom. Their numbers and influence
grew until British Parliament passed The Slave Trade Act on March 25, 1807. The Royal Navy,
vigorously enforced the act by establishing the West Africa Squadron in 1808 to patrol
the coast of West Africa, ultimately seizing over a thousand slave ships and freeing 150,000
enslaved Africans who were onboard. The committee for the abolition of the slave
trade was formed largely by a group of evangelical English Protestants who now voiced strong
moral objections to the slave trade. But was it any coincidence that the committee formed
in 1787 – the same year that the Constitution of United States was ratified? Hadn't evangelical
Protestants previously voiced their moral obligation to enslave Africans as a rescue
from barbarism? What changed? Well, one obvious change is that the British North American
colonies were no longer British possessions but colonial competitors. With that largely
economic change, the British moral outlook seems to take a corresponding 180 degree about-face
with regard to slavery, as almost overnight slavery goes from being a moral obligation
to a moral abomination. Likewise, in contrast to the Southern states
which were increasingly turning to slavery to fuel its economic engine, the northern
states were increasingly relying on wage labor. Why would wage labor be preferable to slave
labor? Well, the expense of maintaining a large slave labor force -- that is to feed,
clothe, and house a large number of slave laborers -- would not make sense unless you
have an economy that requires year round labor such as ... say ... a cotton plantation. In
the northern states, a more disposable labor force was desired. For example, if all you
want your laborer to do is unload a cargo ship, it would make much more sense to simply
pay them a set wage, extract the labor you need from them and then you never have to
see that person again (much less provide year-round food, clothing, and housing). Additionally,
there was a steady supply of white ethnic immigrants to supply the cheap labor needs
of the northern states. Far from an economic asset, slavery in the northern context would
prove be a social liability. How would white European immigrants who came to American shores
with high hopes of freedom and economic opportunity react if they had to compete with slave labor?
Might that stir up a resentment of the economic elite which was exploiting their labor? Could
that lead to a replay of Bacon's rebellion as we saw in Episode 4?
Thus, the northern states were framing the morality of slavery around a far different
set of economic interests than were their Southern brethren.
Their sometimes competing sets of interests would prove to be a challenge throughout the United States constitutional
convention. The southern slaveholding states were ready to bolt if their interests were
in anyway threatened by the United States Constitution. So how did competing interests
deal with this conundrum? In short, they didn't. The result is an almost comical avoidance
of dealing with slavery in any direct way. In fact if one were to do a search of the
United States Constitution one would find that neither do the words "slave" nor "slavery"
appear anywhere in the document. One way in which this challenge was manifest
arose over the issue of representation. State representation House of Representatives was
to be determined by the state’s population – the larger a state's population, the larger
the number of representatives for that state in the House of Representatives. But what
about slaves? Where they to be counted in the state’s population for the purpose of
representation? For the northern states, who clearly wanted to stack the number of representatives
is their favor (and thus further their interests in the House of Representatives), the answer
was clearly, no. For southerners -- who wanted to use the slave population to boost their
representation in the House of Representatives -- the answer was clearly yes. Thus, the infamous
three-fifths compromise was born, which stated that representation "shall be determined by
adding the whole of the number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term
of years and, excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons." So, the
framers dealt with the issue of whether slaves were to be included in this population for
purposes of representation without mentioning the word "slave" in a way reminiscent of a
scene from an Austin Powers film in which Dr. Evil wants Mini Me to leave the room ...
... Alright it’s getting crowded in here. Everyone out! Everyone out! Come on.
Not you, Scotty. Not you, Number 2. Not you, Frau. Not you, Goldmember. Not you guys back
there. Not you, henchman holding wrench. Not you, henchman arbitrarily turning knobs making
it seem like you’re doing something. Ohhh, this is uncomfortable!
Another issue arose over the status of fugitive slaves. What if a slave escaped to a non-slaveholding
state? What would be the status of that slave? Furthermore, how does the convention address
the issue of fugitive slaves without mentioning the word "slave?" Again, their avoidance of
even mentioning the word “slavery” is almost comical. The result is a very strangely
worded clause that reads: "No person held to service of labour in one state, under the
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein,
be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered upon claim of the party
to whom such service or labour may be due." Alrighty then ...
What about the slave trade? What would be the authority of the Congress regarding the
slave trade? And, again, how do we specify congressional authority in this regard without
mentioning the "s" word? The result is another strangely worded clause allowing the slave
trade to continue for at least the next 20 years:
“The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think
proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808."
Vaguely written as the references to slavery were, the rift between north and south was
already so great that the United States Constitution would not have been ratified without them
-- a fact that prompted James Madison to state, “Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of
the Union would be worse.” That the Constitution was so vague on the
issue of slavery left the union with no constitutional means to deal with the issue -- a problem
that would finally come to a head four score and seven years later. In fact, the moment
the ink was dry on the US Constitution, the monumental oversight on the part of its framers
-- the lack of any specific reference to slavery -- ultimately meant that civil war was virtually
inevitable. It was only a matter of time. The first sign of trouble occurred as soon
as a peace deal was ratified with Britain. By the terms of treaty, Britain granted independence
to its 13 North American colonies. The problem, however, was that Britain hand no further
use for the land from the crest of the Appalachians to the Mississippi River that it had acquired
from France as a result of the 7 year's war. So, they threw that in for good measure, and,
almost immediately, the United States doubled its size and created a new western frontier.
Why was this a problem? Well, suddenly we have a large new territory and two emerging
sections – North and South – that would like to see it molded to fit their own competing
interests. So, what will become this new territory? Would
be an extension of the southern slaveholding interests, or will it be a platform for northern
interests to exploit the cheap labor of poor whites whites? Well, we could just consult
the constitution. The only problem is that the Constitution says nary a word about slavery.
It's a problem to United States is going to confront after every territorial acquisition
-- and there is simply no constitutional remedy. It's a problem that can only be resolved through
compromise and delicate balance of northern and southern interests. Obviously, however,
we can see where this is going. Ultimately that balance is going to be upset and the
only way to permanently resolve this issue is through Civil War.
Back to the issue at hand. Thomas Jefferson proposed that slavery should not be introduced
in the entire territory west of the Appalachians. Why would Thomas Jefferson – a man who owned
hundreds of slaves – suggest that slavery should not be introduced on the frontier territory?
Recall our earlier discussion of the nature of frontier in episodes 6 and 7. The frontier
tends to be an attractive place for poor and marginalized folk. As discussed earlier, there
was already a steady stream of poor white ethnic Europeans who were supplying the cheap
labor needs in the northern section. Many of those poor ethnic whites were finding that
it was largely the wealthy who were reaping the rewards of their labor. That could be
dangerous in that it could potentially create another discontented class of poor whites
that may end up revolting against the wealthy. The saftey valve was the frontier.
The frontier offered these poor whites cheap land and an opportunity to acquire wealth
-- that is unless those poor whites have to go head to head with slave labor. That is
the reason that the last thing these poor whites want to see out on the frontier was
slavery. Thomas Jefferson recognized that fact and was perfectly happy to see those
poor whites out on the frontier where they would be out of sight and out of mind. It
turns out that slavery would have ruined that dynamic.
The South, of course, had other plans. The increasing profitability of slave labor made
the expansion of slavery to the west inevitable. So here we have our first crisis of the post-revolutionary
period. What to do? In this case the crisis was resolved by extending the Mason-Dixon
line to the Ohio River. It was determined the territory north of the Ohio River be opened
up to non-slave holding interests while Slavery was allowed to expand inthe territory south
of the Ohio River west to the Mississippi. So, the crisis was averted in the Ohio Valley
frontier ... for now, but, again it's easy to see where this is going.
The continued expansion westward, the competing interests between north and south over the
western frontier, and the failure of the nation’s founders to provide any constitutional means
of addressing the issue of slavery is going to put the country on a collision course toward
Civil War. As we will see, the further west we expand, the closer we get to war.
Ironically, the Haitian Revolution is going to play a critical role in shaping the United
States Frontier as it relates to African Americans as well as heightening tensions between slaveholding
and non-slaveholding interests. Only a few hundred miles from US shores, turmoil was
erupting in France's wealthiest colony - Saint-Domingue, which produced 60 percent of the world's coffee
and 40 percent of the world's sugar imported by France and Britain.
Due to widespread absentee landlordism, the slave population outnumbered the white population
by about 10 to 1, and under the leadership of Toussaint L'Overture, the slaves staged
a slave revolt between 1791 and 1804. On January 1, 1804, the former colony's independence
was officially declared and the second independent republic in the Western Hemisphere - the result
of the world's most successful slave uprising - came into being as the territory was renamed
after its indigenous Arawak name, "Haiti." The impact of the Haitian Revolution was far
reaching. The most immediate impact occurred on April 11, 1803. With the impending loss
of its wealthiest colony, Napoleon had no further need for its large holdings on the
American mainland. In a fit of disgust, he reportedly exclaimed, "Damn sugar, damn coffee,
damn colonies ... I renounce Louisiana forever!" Therefore, when then President Thomas Jefferson
sent emissaries to France to negotiate for New Orleans, to their complete surprise and
astonishment, France agreed to hand over the whole of the Louisiana Territory for a mere
$15 million. Despite initial concern over the constitutionality
of the Louisiana Purchase, the territory was ceded to the United States – and in one
fell swoop, the territory of United States doubled in size. The constitutional concerns
were many, but chief among them was the simple question of what to do with the territory.
Would it be opened up as a free territory or to slaveholding interests? Well, we could
consult the U.S. Constitution. The only problem is the constitution doesn't say a mum word
about slavery. Here we go again! What to do? This particular question with regard to the
Louisiana territory was resolved in 1820 when Missouri was ready to apply for statehood.
To maintain the balance between free and slaveholding state’s interests, it was determined that
Missouri would be admitted as a slave state and to have the southern boundary of Missouri
be extended in the Louisiana territory (just as the Mason-Dixon line had been extended
to the Ohio River in the Ohio valley region). The territory to the north of that line would
be opened up for non-slaveholding interests while slavery would be allowed to expand in
the territory south of the line. Additionally, to provide numerical balance between the slaveholding
and non-slaveholding states in the senate, a new non-slaveholding state had to be admitted
into the union. Thus, the northern part of the state of Massachusetts was severed to
create the state of Maine. So, crisis averted – for now. But as you can see, you got a
long way to go and a lot of territory to hash out before this is finished. The Missouri
compromise, however, was yet another impact of the Haitian Revolution on the United States
which indirectly led to the westward expansion of slavery on the frontier.
Another impact of the Haitian Revolution had to do with the United States disposition toward
slavery itself. The Revolution sent shockwaves throughout the Western Hemisphere. Many of
those fleeing the conflict came to US shores with tales of carnage and bloodbath. Many
in the United States – particularly those in the south – were understandably fearful
of a slave revolt taking place only a few hundred miles from US shores, especially since
there were already places in the south where slaves outnumbered whites. This fear based
reaction prompted southerners to enact harsher slave codes.
Those slave codes make more sense in light of our discussion in Episode 5: Healing as
Resistance, when one considers the modes of African survival slaves adopted in the Western
Hemisphere and the foundation they created in laying the groundwork for revolt. Recall
that the Africans taken to the Americas represented a wide variety of ethnic groups. Vodou, thus
represented an adaptation and modification of West African religion that blended the
various groups and could serve as the ideological glue that would unify the various groups and
hold the revolt together. Recognizing this, the practice of vodou was quickly banned throughout
the south. Also, if you recall the integral role that
music played in prayer, healing and spirituality, it's easy to understand why drumming was also
outlawed. In addition, laws were enacted that forbade Blacks from congregating in groups
of three or more, movement was restricted by allowing slaves to travel only with written
permission from the slave owner and travel at night was restricted.
Southerners had good reason to fear that the slave revolt would spread to the United States.
Of the three major slave conspiracies in United States -- Gabriel Prosser (1800); Denmark
Vesey (1822); and Nat Turner (1831) -- all in some way invoked the Haitian Revolution.
When one recalls that many of the slaves entering the United States came by way of the Caribbean
(as discussed in Episode 6), it becomes easier to understand yet another of the impacts of
the Haitian Revolution -- Thomas Jefferson's ban on the international slave trade. The
tales of slaughter Haitian refugees brought to the United States make it obvious why Jefferson
would no longer desire to see Caribbean slaves imported into the U.S., but newly arrived
slaves from the African continent were also known to be higher risk in terms of revolt.
Thus, then President, Thomas Jefferson imposed a ban on the international slave trade effective
January 1, 1808 (the moment it was constitutional permissible).
The impact of the ban was devastating for African-Americans in United States. With Eli
Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793 – a machine that quickly and easily separated
cotton fibers from their seeds – the South became even more dependent on plantations
and slavery, and cotton producing 54% of the U.S. gross national product by 1860. Accompanying
that was a nearly fourfold increase in cotton production by 1850 as the slave population
ballooned to 3.2 million. The increasing number of slaves and increasing economic importance
of the institution of slavery combined with the closing of the international slave trade
gave rise to one of the most horrific aspects of slavery itself -- the domestic slave trade.
With the domestic slave trade, slaves were trafficked from within the United States (typically
the upper South) to the plantations of the Deep South. In an increasingly important business,
slaves were literally bred for sale. As author, Angela Davis, explains in her book, Women,
Race & Class, Black women bore the brunt of the wholesale exploitation of Black Slaves.
In describing the mechanisms that removed gender from the equation with regard to slavery,
she explains how Black women were considered genderless with regard to slaveholders, while
at the same time they could be exploited sexually. To understand this, it's necessary to review
the difference between gender and sex. While sex is purely the biological difference between
men and women, gender is the difference in social roles based on, but not the same as
those biological differences. They are the social scripts that say women's roles are
confined to the home (cooking, cleaning, and rearing children) and proscribe women as "the
weaker sex" while men's roles are largely outside the home (wage earning, providing
for, and protecting the family). So, to say that under slavery, black women
were genderless, is to say that black slave women were not confined to the home, but were
working alongside black women. Far from being considered the "weaker sex," Black women were
expected to work the same amount of hours, and bear the same physical burdens alongside
black men. Likewise, Black men were also genderless in that they were not in a position to provide
materially for their own families (but that of the slave owner), and were in no position
to protect family members from physical and *** abuse.
That Black women could still be exploited sexually (that is, for their biological capacity
to bear children) adds and extra layer of burden for Black women. Black men, for example
are biologically incapable of the experience of working all day in a cotton field while
8 months pregnant (or just after having borne children). Black men were also biologically
incapable experiencing being whipped with cowhide while 8 months pregnant. Thus, while
men were also exploited sexually as "stallions" forced to impregnate "breeders" for sale in
the growing slave empire, they didn't bear the same biological burdens that black women
did. The results were abysmal in the truest sense.
In addition to the commodification of *** of African American women, came the wholesale
breakup and destruction of families, as individual members were sold off one by one to feed the
growing market in the South. Yet, as we saw in Episode 5, life will find a way and new
modes of survival would be adopted in order to help Black slaves adapt to even this atrocity.
The culture that is: the beliefs, practices, and modes of being that came out of slavery
would later be described by W. E. B. Du Bois as "The Souls of Black Folk."
That’s it for this episode. You can see everything you’ve seen here as well as the
entire archive of episodes at my website www.africanelements.org. You can also join the discussion on our Facebook
Group African Elements. I'm Darius Spearman. Thank you for watching.