David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In 1824, when two preachers from Southern Illinois squared off against each other to run for a Senate seat, both agreed that some forms of slavery were bad. The debaters agreed that “unmerited, involuntary, perpetual, absolute, hereditary slavery [was] contrary to, and a violation of the principles of nature, reason, justice, policy, and scripture.” Such a thoroughgoing condemnation of slavery leaves one wondering whether they believed ordinary slavery was acceptable. Was it only when slavery was simultaneously “unmerited, involuntary, perpetual, absolute, and hereditary” that it violated the many dimensions of goodness? If, for example, some circumstance of enslavement entailed only some of those attributes, was it then acceptable? Would slavery be acceptable if it was simply not perpetual, or simply not hereditary? The point is a simple one: when one condemns slavery by such an accumulation of negative attributes, it opens the possibility that society may tolerate slavery if it lacks simply one of these deplorable attributes. Thus, the preachers diluted their condemnation by modifying the subject with five different objectionable attributes. Thirty years after the preachers debated the nature of slavery's ills, the Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery, period. (It also banned involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime.) However, over the 150 years since the Amendment's enactment, the conventional interpretation of the blanket prohibition of slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment seems to have devolved into the totality of the worst conditions of slavery extant in antebellum America. My goal in this article is to sketch a much broader interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment, an interpretation of our aspirations of freedom in a carefully delimited, but expansive, rather than a restrictive, fashion. This is more than simply a rhetorical or grammatical exercise; it is fundamentally conceptual.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Fred Ablondi (2009). Millar on Slavery. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 7 (2):163-175.
Wolfgang Hoben (1974). Slavery and Humanitarianism. Studies on Ancient Slavery. Philosophy and History 7 (2):240-242.
Anita L. Allen (1994). Book Review:Between Slavery and Freedom: Philosophy and American Slavery. Howard McGary, Bill E. Lawson. [REVIEW] Ethics 104 (4):898-.
Simon Roberts-Thomson (2008). An Explanation of the Injustice of Slavery. Res Publica 14 (2):69-82.
Katharine Lawrence Balfour (2005). Representative Women: Slavery, Citizenship, and Feminist Theory in du Bois's "Damnation of Women". Hypatia 20 (3):127-148.
Jane Duran (2010). Slavery in Global Context. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (1):61-69.
Maurice S. Lee (2005). Slavery, Philosophy, and American Literature, 1830-1860. Cambridge University Press.
Ariela J. Gross, When is the Time of Slavery? The History and Politics of Slavery in Contemporary Legal Argument.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #779,360 of 1,906,923 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,570 of 1,906,923 )
How can I increase my downloads?