But African slavery!

[mprotsenko]

"Don't criticize American slavery exclusively - there was African slavery too!"

That's an argument that is pretty popular nowdays. A knee-jerk reaction is to toss it aside as classical both-side-ism (and I don't think that this reaction is a wrong one).

However, this argument deserves to be looked at more closely. Indeed, there WAS African slavery - so this argument is basically saying:

- When it comes to slavery, the United States' foundational ethics and morals were not better that the ones of African tribes and early feudal states.



Not exactly a compliment. As you keep adding context, and remember things like:
- chattel slavery,
- race as the basis for slavery,
- institutional decisions like "3/5 of a person"
- and others

...you cannot help but rephrase this conclusion:

- When it comes to slavery, the United States' foundational ethics and morals were noticeably worse that the ones of African tribes and early feudal states.

Comments

[tijd]

the United States' foundational ethics and morals

The foundational ethics of equality ("all men are created equal") allowed the nation to reinvent itself twice: in 1860s after the civil war and in 1960s after the civil-rights reforms.

Abraham Lincoln to Congress on the 4th of July in 1861:

Our adversaries have adopted some declarations of independence in which, unlike the good old one penned by Jefferson, they omit the words "all men are created equal." Why? They have adopted a temporary national constitution, in the preamble of which, unlike our good old one, signed by Washington, they omit "We, the People," and substitute "We, the deputies of the sovereign and independent States." Why? Why this deliberate pressing out of view, the rights of men, and the authority of the people?
This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life. Yielding to partial and temporary departures from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existence we contend.
Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled,--the successful establishing and the successful administering of it. One still remains,--its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners of a war.
http://historytools.davidjvoelker.com/sources/lincoln-messages.html

Understanding this history has been a continuing battle among the American conservatives, as exemplified by the disagreement between Harry Jaffa ("Equality as a Conservative Principle") and Melvin Bradford ("The Heresy of Equality") from 1970s https://puppet-djt.livejournal.com/158782.html

[mprotsenko]

The foundational ethics of equality ("all men are created equal") allowed the nation to reinvent itself twice: in 1860s after the civil war and in 1960s after the civil-rights reforms.

I cannot help but notice the common theme, connection the foundation and both reinventions - namely, the duality of the ethics ("equality, but not for all").

You quoted Lincoln - an iconic quote of a great man. However, there is another - less glamorous! - side of his views:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-4th-debate-part-i/

I guess there is more digging to be done even on the progressive/liberal side...

[tijd]

There is a lot of context to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Whether Lincoln truly believed in what he said or was simply pandering to the audience and defending himself against the attacks by Douglas, he was able to argue that abolishing slavery is a matter of fundamental principles and not personal preference.

That is the conservative argument for equality, as explained by Jaffa, and that is why the Supreme Court was able to uphold the principle of equality when it was extended to civil rights.

[mprotsenko]

You can say: "Principles of equality were upheld by the Supreme Court to strike down segregation and oppression".

You can also say: "Principles of inequality were upheld by our government for one hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed."

Those statements are not mutually exclusive.