just when I thought I was going to have a productive day of grading after two lackluster days, there's some Twitter stuff going on about political economy of slavery that maybe doesn't *demand* my attention, but sure is important, I think.
The connection of slavery and limited government / anti-tax / anti-tariff / strict constructionism on the Constitution in the South is fairly well known among historians but I did want to provide some evidence in the form of quotes from William Freehling
This is not to say that contradictions are absent -- all ideologies have contradictions. Still, I think the limited government - slavery connection was very well apparent in the South, and still has long-term consequences as @arielronid recently talked about in his Slate article
Big picture: debates in the antebellum South about taxation, majority rule, the Constitution, tariffs, etc, are almost always informed by and influenced at their core by desires to protect slave property. @arielronid@joefrancis505
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. THREAD. Why is anti-statist resistance to federal support for health insurance, vaccines, voting rights, environmentalism, women’s rights, and collective bargaining so prevalent in the American South?
As I argue here a major reason lies in the region’s history of slavery.
2. This thread was inspired by a response to @arielronid's excellent article in Slate. For years I had known about the slavery—limited government relationship but now I wanted specific, verifiable proof in the primary sources. slate.com/news-and-polit…
3. The passages below show that in the U.S. context proposals for limited government, states’ rights, and low taxes were often intertwined with and shaped by a desire to preserve slavery and racial hierarchy, often in contrast to more egalitarian and majoritarian proposals.
2. My thoughts here are organized into four larger themes:
1) the research 2) why I wrote this article 3) Some points about evidence and interpretation 4) the revisions
3. THEME #1: THE RESEARCH. This article is the product of many years of research, writing, and revision. This is not abnormal for publishing in a peer reviewed journal but for those of you who are unfamiliar with academic publishing, you might wonder, why did it take so long?
2. The topic of Murphy’s article is the Nesbitt Manufacturing Company, an iron factory near Spartanburg, South Carolina. She uses the business correspondence of Alabama investor, enslaver, and industrialist, Franklin Elmore, located in the Library of Congress.
3. This company used slaves as assets in sophisticated ways, mainly by:
a) hiring slaves as workers in the factory
b) using these same slaves to purchase company stock
c) pledging the slaves as collateral for loans
There isn't a day that goes by that I wonder to myself, where did we go wrong?
There are lots of valid responses. The 1980 election is one because we're still suffering the consequences.
But I can't shake the feeling that Bush v. Gore was where it all went wrong.
Try to imagine a counterfactual where Bush doesn't become president. Do we have a 9/11? Maybe. Do we have a war in Iraq and torture? Probably not. Do we get Roberts and Alito. No. Do we get a housing/insurance bubble? Tough to say.
I think about Bush v. Gore because it was the SCOTUS boldly and unabashedly inserting itself into the political process. It had been political before but not in the same way. SCOTUS was delegitimizing itself by functioning as the arm of FoxNews.
THREAD. With the protests against stay-at-home orders mushrooming across the U.S., journalists and pundits are making comparisons to the Tea Party protests of 2009-2010. It's worth revisiting what many historians concluded about the Tea Party.
The national debt had indeed gone up during these years. TARP, Medicare Part D, tax cuts, foreign wars, the ACA all contributed. There was an (in)famous rant by Rick Santelli on CNBC that supposedly coined the phrase.
Was the Tea Party a genuinely grassroots movement that erupted spontaneously or was it concocted from above by wealthy billionaires?
It's impossible to give a definitive answer. Certainly Americans for Prosperity may have amplified a pre-existing phenomenon.