Freedom's Progress?: A History of Political Thought,
by Gerard Casey
Slavery is
now universally (and rightfully) regarded with revulsion…
This thought should be kept in mind while reading this
post. Two key takeaways: first, just because I write about slavery
does not mean I am supportive of the institution (amazingly, such things need
to be stated); second, the key words in the statement above are “is now.”
Casey offers that slavery is one of the oldest and longest lasting
institutions known to man. He cites Thomas Sowell, who offers that
slavery was virtually universal throughout the world for thousands of years.
No great religion or great teacher condemned the practice;
Christianity was not alone in this regard. John Vincent writes,
“even slaves did not wish for slavery to end….” Now, one who only sees the
American experience from two centuries ago cannot stomach this thought; a read
of Casey suggests that they are looking at history in the wrong direction.
Perhaps there is no region on earth that at one time did not
harbor the institution. “Probably there is no group of people whose ancestors were not
at one time slaves or slaveholders,” according to “the historian of slavery,”
Orlando Patterson.
I modify this: probably
there is no group of people whose ancestors were not at different times both
slaves and slaveholders. I feel I am standing on quite safe ground when I
suggest that every single one of us has blood ancestors that were both victim
and perpetrator in just about any atrocity one can fathom. Here
again, tough to stomach when one is looking at history the wrong way.
The lex talionis recommends an eye for an
eye. It is considered by many to be a crude reform of revenge today,
if not barbaric. Yet, when introduced, it was a tremendous moral
advance. The previously accepted practice was for twenty or even one
hundred eyes for an eye. Just so for slavery:
…when [slavery] began, it
represented a moral advance on the previous custom of killing, torturing and
sometimes eating prisoners taken in war.
When looked at this way…one must say slavery was an improvement
to being eaten. Even the slave would likely agree, as Vincent
suggests. Augustine also noted this aspect of slavery when compared
to what came before. Yes, it is not fashionable, but fashionable and true are often two
totally different things.
Casey considers slavery in Greece and Rome, offering that there were
many types of slavery: debt bondage, clientship, peonage, helotage, and
serfdom. Chattel slavery, however, is of a different sort. A
serf, for example, still had a measure of legal personhood; he held certain
legal rights. From my earlier reading, I recall: a serf could marry
and had the right to stay married and keep his family; a serf could own
property and pass it on to his heirs; a serf had access to
courts. The chattel slave held nothing of the sort; his rights were
like that of any other piece of property, nothing more.
Some slaves were better off than the free people of
Rome. Again, I recall reading elsewhere that during the slow
downfall of Rome and the advance of the Germanic tribes, many “free” Roman
citizens voluntarily gave themselves to the invaders as slaves; this option
offered an improvement to what was available under Roman rule.
Other than Aristotle, no prominent thinker of the time offered a
defense of or even a statement about slavery. None was offered
because none was expected: slavery was the norm not just of European society,
but, it seems, globally. At least Aristotle felt some need to
mention the practice: given his views on ends and purpose, it seems this was
unavoidable. Yet Casey offers that Aristotle’s defense was less than
convincing, certainly given Aristotle’s own philosophical framework.
Slavery also existed among the Hebrews. Christians,
as noted, made little immediate impact on the institution; one can point to
many passages from Paul and Augustine that are, in fact, to the
contrary. Like others in the region and globally, to early
Christians, it sees, slavery was accepted as a normal
practice. Perhaps the more appropriate question: why, after perhaps
1800 years, did the church begin to protest this institution?
As Thomas Sowell notes, for centuries before the origin of
slavery on the North American continent, Europeans had enslaved other
Europeans, Asians had enslaved other Asians, and Africans had enslaved other
Africans.
It wasn’t racism that gave rise to slavery; racism became a
convenient tool used by slavery’s supporters to defend the institution when all
other support disappeared.
Conclusion
To bring this full
circle, consider that history progresses in only one direction no matter what
modern sensibilities might wish. Citing Sowell:
“North Africa’s Barbary
Coast pirates alone captured and enslaved at least a million Europeans from
1500 to 1800, carrying more Europeans into bondage in North Africa than there
were Africans brought into bondage to the United States and to the American
colonies from which it was formed. Moreover, Europeans were still
being bought and sold in the slave markets of the Islamic world, decades after
blacks were freed in the United States.”
The march through history
goes only one way, and for much of that march slavery was considered quite a
normal practice – and an improvement on the alternatives. Wishing
otherwise doesn’t make it so.
