Breen and Innes v. Morgan: The Argument of “Slavery and Freedom” “Slavery is an American embarrassment.” This is something, T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, and Edmund Morgan (and all Americans since the abolishment of slavery) agree on. The Breen and Innes book, Myne Owne Ground talked about the social structure of Virginia, which was based on the ownership of land and property more so, than race. Whereas, Morgan’s article “Slavery and Freedom”, laid into “the American paradox,” which is explained by “the rise of liberty and equality in this country was accompanied by the rise of slavery [of blacks].” This does not mean they completely contradict one another, but instead shows the unfortunate direction Virginia took by the 1700s.
Breen and …show more content…
He suggests that the Virginia Dynasty, and especially Thomas Jefferson, were hypocrites, though at the time society did not see it that way. Morgan questions how the elites of Virginia could demand liberty and equality yet still own a slave.2 In a lot of ways, “Americans bought their independence with slave labor,” the wealthy became wealthy by the work slaves did on their plantations. Unlike the Breen and Innes, Morgan suggested that the possibility of a biracial community was absurd; that what happened in Northampton was a fluke. One-fifth of America’s population was enslaved,9 and it was not an issue of society until the mid-1800s. Morgan stated, the elites considered their black slaves as property rather than a person; this meant slaves had “no opportunities, no liberties, and no control over their own lives.” This allowed the large plantation owners to maximize their economic profits because the slaves had to do work or were threatened with violence. Not only did the elites use slaves, but also lower class whites were utilized and seemed to be a problem for them. This fear of working landless whites, lead to the definition of freedom becoming “the ability to own property.” John Locke, another Virginia elitist, believed the landless poor should be taught a trade, beginning at the age of three, whether it be knitting or spinning. The elite feared the idea of not being the exclusive, and put up walls in order to stay at the
Breen and …show more content…
He suggests that the Virginia Dynasty, and especially Thomas Jefferson, were hypocrites, though at the time society did not see it that way. Morgan questions how the elites of Virginia could demand liberty and equality yet still own a slave.2 In a lot of ways, “Americans bought their independence with slave labor,” the wealthy became wealthy by the work slaves did on their plantations. Unlike the Breen and Innes, Morgan suggested that the possibility of a biracial community was absurd; that what happened in Northampton was a fluke. One-fifth of America’s population was enslaved,9 and it was not an issue of society until the mid-1800s. Morgan stated, the elites considered their black slaves as property rather than a person; this meant slaves had “no opportunities, no liberties, and no control over their own lives.” This allowed the large plantation owners to maximize their economic profits because the slaves had to do work or were threatened with violence. Not only did the elites use slaves, but also lower class whites were utilized and seemed to be a problem for them. This fear of working landless whites, lead to the definition of freedom becoming “the ability to own property.” John Locke, another Virginia elitist, believed the landless poor should be taught a trade, beginning at the age of three, whether it be knitting or spinning. The elite feared the idea of not being the exclusive, and put up walls in order to stay at the