World War One started with a random assassination that no one thought would be that big of a deal. It ended up being one of the single most influential events in modern political and military history. In 1772 an English chief justice ruled on a case before his court, a case as seemingly inconsequential as an assassination of an obscure royal family member 143 years later, but whose implications had ramifications that were possibly equally as momentous.
In October 1771, a slave named Somerset ran away from his master, an influential Virginian named James Stewart. Stewart and Somerset had been living in England for only two or three years when Somerset ran away. Before that they had lived in the British colony of Virginia. Slavery was still perfectly legal throughout the British empire, but more and more cases were piling up in British courts trying to clarify exactly how legal slavery was in England, on the island of Great Britain itself. No one was quite sure what the law would say about holding someone against their will. Several cases had been brought to the Court of the King's Bench, the oldest and highest common law court in England, but the chief justice, Lord Mansfield, had always managed to avoid having to rule in any clear cut way about the legal status of runaway slaves. He was always able to convince the owners to let their slaves go free rather than bargain that the courts of England would take the opportunity to outlaw slavery all together.
Feeling betrayed by his long time personal assistant, (not that Somerset would call himself an "assistant") Stewart hired slave catchers who caught Somerset and took him back to a ship bound for Jamaica, where he would be sold off. In his brief time in London, Somerset had made many influential friends. Some of those friends became his godparents and were quick to come to his rescue, bringing Somerset's case to Lord Mansfield and insisting that the captain of the slave ship had no right to hold Somerset, a British subject, against his will. Stewart refused to free Somerset as so many others had done under pressure from Lord Mansfield. The Chief Justice tried to reason with Stewart, warning him that he might not like the ruling if he forced the court's hand into making a clear judgment, but Stewart was being financed and encouraged by the slave traders of the West Indies who had a financial interest in clarifying the legality of their business model throughout the empire (how awful is it to think of the buying and selling of human beings as a legitimate business model?). Stewart's intransigence forced Mansfield's hand. He had to make a ruling.
On June 22, 1772, he did. "The state of slavery is... so odious, that nothing can support it but positive law... I cannot say that this case (or slavery in general) is allowed or approved by the law of England: and therefore the black (Somerset) must be discharged." You had to look up what the phrase 'positive law' meant in order to understand this ruling. Basically, it's the legal version of the status quo, a way of saying that 'it is that way because it's sort of just always been that way.' This ruling had huge ramifications throughout the vast British empire, upon which the sun never set. The Blumrosens say that this ruling is the spark that ignited the American Revolution which makes it even more shocking that you and most other Americans have never heard of it.
It is remarkable that so much hung in the balance over the actions of one man. By running away, Somerset was shaping the course of western civilization. But this was no Alexander, no Napoleon, no Genghis Khan. He was a simple slave, stolen from his homeland and thrust into an alien world. Then again, Somerset was not intending to set off any revolution. He merely wanted his freedom. His case is a reminder that everyday average people really can shape the world simply by doing what they know is right.
In the British colonies in North America, tensions had been mounting as Parliament enacted tax after tax on the colonists only to repeal each successive tax under outraged public protests from the colonists. Throughout the mid 1700's the British government was being seen more and more as a threat to the self-rule the colonists had come to love. Suddenly the highest court in England had described slavery as something so odious that it couldn't be allowed under any laws in England. Not only was the entire economic model of the southern colonies built upon slavery, but many industrialists from the northern colonies relied on the odious institution for their bread and butter as well. After the Somerset decision, colonies which would never have been interested in independence over some paltry taxes suddenly felt their very way of life threatened. When faced with the prospect of independence, everyone who profited from slavery had to ask themselves which they valued more, their identity as Englishmen and subjects of the crown... or the preservation of their very way of life.
As the flames of revolution began to spread, some of the northerners who usually identified themselves as antislavery were willing to compromise their values for the sake of independence. They were also motivated by the pragmatic realization that any law immediately abolishing slavery would inevitably flood the streets and fields of the South with uneducated, physically impressive, freed slaves who might understandably have vengeance on their minds. Not to mention that Massachusetts, the seat of the rebellion while the Continental Congress was in session, was occupied by British forces and under marshal law, so it was imperative that they secure allies in the struggle for independence. Virginia was the wealthiest, most populace, and arguably the most influential of all the colonies. Taking a hard line against slavery would have run Virginia from the conference and insured that Massachusetts would have remained a colony with an English boot on her throat.
In 1774 the First Continental Congress issued their Declaration on the Rights of the American Colonies. John Adams himself penned the fateful Article IV of the Declaration which declared colonial independence from Parliament's power, but not yet from the authority of the king. It was Adams' attempt to marry northern complaints of "taxation without representation" to the southern fears that Parliament would soon outlaw slavery, and Adams knew full well that Parliament would never accept it. He was right. Parliament was outraged by the Declaration and Article IV was the thing that assured that there would be a War for American Independence, and it was a direct result of the abolitionist John Adams trying to reconcile southern fears for the preservation of slavery with the rest of the colonies' desire for independence.
Within weeks, British forces were doing more than merely occupying Boston. They sought out colonial weapons caches and ammunition depots, beginning with those at Lexington and Concord. The bloodshed there, the shot heard 'round the world, made it clear that a Second Continental Congress would need to be assembled.
This Second Continental Congress would be the one to not only issue the Declaration of Independence, but also establish the Articles of Confederation, the first government of the United States. After the war ended and the revolution had birthed a new nation on this continent, the Articles proved too weak to hold the states together as a nation. The Articles of Confederation failed specifically because they created such a weak central federal government in favor of more powerful individual sovereign state governments. There was no concept yet in the newly formed United States of any American national citizenship, so the citizens of each state thought of themselves as Virginians or Georgians first, not Americans. Each state would retain its sovereignty in every situation... except one.
Each state was free to determine the legality of slavery within its borders, but the southerners who were founding the new nation insisted that they be guaranteed that slaves would be considered property even in states that outlawed the odious institution.The last thing they wanted was to visit a free state and have their slave run away claiming that the slave master had no legal claim to keep him in bondage against his will. Even though it was antithetical to their states rights mantra, the representatives from the slave states insisted that the free states recognize that slaves were property, not human beings. This was a direct result of the Somerset case in England four years before.
In 1787 the Constitutional Congress which had been called to replace the Articles of Confederation almost ended in a complete dissolution of the entire union. Tradition teaches that the main point of contention was a disagreement between the larger states and the smaller ones about whether representation in the new government would be equal or whether it would be based on population count (their compromise is why we have a Senate and a House of Representatives). The Blumrosens contend however, that the real issue was actually a fight between the slave states and the free states over the fate of land west of the Appalachians. Virginia had claimed the vast area for itself for future settlement, while the New England states insisted that the area be set aside for themselves and that slavery be declared illegal in these northwestern territories. In the end the northern states won. Slavery was declared illegal above the Ohio river. The lines of the future Civil War had been drawn and it was now only a slow march to the inevitable ctatstrophic bloodshed.
No one single thing can truly be christened as the single event that sparked the American Revolution, not even an extremely influential court case. But "Slave Nation" reminded you that, when considering the causes, and seeing past the inspiring rhetoric, we should all remember how important slavery was to the founding of the United States. The generation that Americans would come to refer to as our Founding Fathers were wrestling with an idea that seems today to be completely absurd, the notion that people could be property. But part of why that's such a ridiculous concept today is because of the very ideals those men introduced and the very language they used in becoming the founding fathers. And that's an inspiring thought. The Blumrosens reminded you that we should be just as free to mold the values of this nation to the realities of our day as the founders were free to shape a nation under the social influences of their own. Goodness can still come out of something evil. Inspiration can be found even in the darkest of moments. Perfection is not a prerequisite for greatness.
On to the next book!
P.S. As much as you love Thomas Jefferson, you also find him an epic disappointment. He said so many incredible things and illuminated countless wonderful ideas but he owned and sold human beings as property. Screw the morals of the day. He did it and he should have known better specifically because he was so enlightened! But the Blumrosens reminded you that Jefferson left the word 'property' out of the Declaration of Independence specifically because he knew that putting it in there could be used to defend slavery. If he had said "...Life, Liberty, and Personal Property" instead of "the Pursuit of Happiness", one of the founding documents of the nation would easily have been interpreted as sanctifying the evils of slavery for much longer than the 1860's. So, maybe you could cut old Thomas some slack from now on. Maybe re-read the last three sentences of this review occasionally.
No comments:
Post a Comment