Hacker News Reader

Comment by lemmsjid | Hacker News Reader

Why is it laughable to consider that, for example, from the perspective of the large slave population at the time of the Revolution, the event was not so much progress as regress, and signified what was possibly an extension of their slavery? Acknowledging that does not make the founders of the country any less brave or singular, nor does it suggest we should judge them against modern standards, nor does it even remotely cause us to forget the context of the revolution in the course of European political history. Instead it reminds us that behind every great movement there can be and often is great horror.

View on HN

> ... behind every great movement there can be and often is great horror.

Exactly. It _was_ a great movement. It was singular and amazing there were brave people who did incredible things. At the same time: they left a lot of people worse off than they would have been otherwise. Both things are true. It sucks when you want a pure righteous hero to look up to, especially people that ultimately gave us so much. But that's what happened. Nothing honest that we can do looks past that.

> extension of their slavery

First, during the revolution, all slave trade was banned by the new government of the US. And after the war, it became of matter of state jurisdiction: several states went ahead and abolished slavery on their own in less than 10 years following the independence war. Isn't what what you call progress when institutions made it a possibility?

A cynical take on that would be that Jefferson and the other southern aristocrats wanted to limit the supply of slaves so that the value of their estates would skyrocket. I don't actually know much about the time so don't take that musing too seriously.

Stopping the importation of slaves did not stop the growth of slavery by itself. Those born of chattel slaves became slaves themselves from birth.

Right and since Jefferson and others had large estates of the only viable slaves they would dramatically increase the value of each slave on the plantation because there was no longer any outside source.

I would recommend reading about the founding fathers, including Jefferson. Jefferson wrote extensively against slavery and even included as such in the initial draft of the declaration of independence (without going so far as to make it unlawful) - but that was apparently stripped out by the Continental Congress. In 1784 he attempted to pass legislation federally banning slavery - it failed to pass by one vote.

Of course this might seem hypocritical given he indeed did own a substantial number of slaves, but as today the appeal of convenience often outweighs ideology when systems are widespread. For instance Warren Buffet has argued that a larger tax on the ultra-rich would be socially beneficial and I think he certainly does believe that, yet of course he himself does everything he can to minimize his own tax bill in the mean time. On the consumer level, I doubt any of us really support slavery or systems of near slavery yet it rarely stops us from buying Apple products in the near slavery case, or Hershey/Nestle/etc chocolate in the literal slavery case.

On abolition versus the phasing out issue, Jefferson also wrote there. He wanted to phase out slavery and ensure the slaves were skilled, educated, and had sufficient resources to make it on their own. He felt that abruptly abolishing slavery would lead to violence, both from dependent slave owners who would not go peacefully as well as from slaves themselves. He also thought that abrupt abolition would lead to poor outcomes for the slaves as they would set free in a land driven by the merit of the individual with generally minimal to no education, skills, or ability.

To avoid the system you mention where slave owners would simply entrench themselves by 'banning competition', he even proposed the notion of the US government buying slave children for a nominal fee, training them, and then sending them abroad (to Santo Domingo in particular) to make their way as skilled freemen. Essentially, a way to ease the transition from slavery to freedom for slave owners and slaves alike. One must say such a system feels dystopic, yet on the other hand it's interesting to consider whether such an idea would have had a better social outcome in the longrun. The civil war divides of this nation remain to this very day, as does the inequity of the now long distanced descendents of former slaves.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Sl...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

Nestle claims to have a zero tolerance policy toward slavery, see https://www.nestle.com/ask-nestle/human-rights/answers/nestl...

We have zero tolerance for illegal trafficking or slavery. If we find any evidence of it then we report it to appropriate authorities immediately.

I'm curious. Did you expect them to praise and embrace slavery on their website?

Slavery enables companies such as Nestle to source their resources for costs far below what they would have to pay otherwise. They do so while simultaneously condemning slavery and making some token efforts to combat it. Just enough to keep their carefully crafted public relations positive enough that it doesn't effect their bottom line. Though for what it's worth, I doubt that any of Hershey, Nestle, etc actually 'like' slavery, but they love the profits it enables, and that's undoubtedly been the story throughout much of history.

Good points, thanks for the thoughtful response.

I started reading this[1] Wikipedia entry. Troubling.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_in_cocoa_productio...

Thanks for detailed reply.

Can you elaborate your views here?

Why would US independence, let alone one when numerous founding fathers had written against slavery, be seen as 'regress'? The British Empire would not 'abolish slavery' for 65 years after US independence. The reason I put 'abolish slavery' in quotes is because when the British Empire 'abolished slavery', they specifically excluded various territories, as well as all properties under possession of the East India Company. In other words, it was abolished in regions where it was, more or less, convenient to do so. Had the British Empire retained control of what would become the US, history would certainly have played out quite differently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com