As part of my recent deep dive into philosophy and political economy, today’s audiobook is The Federalist Papers, and man…I really wish they’d teach The Federalist Papers in more detail in civics class, because Hamilton, Madison, and Jay are very up-front about their desire for an American empire and their suggestions for making one. They’re not even subtle.
Madison is such an absolute hawk. He’s all like “The democratic-republicans think we shouldn’t have a standing army, but if we don’t maintain a peacetime army then how are we gonna use the threat of force to bully our neighbors into compliance? Or finish doing genocides on the natives? And what if someday we need to kill a whole bunch of our own citizens and establish a police state? Betcha didn’t think about that!”
I try to avoid commenting overmuch on pop culture negatively or taking a dump on people’s favorite media but I swear to God if anybody from the Hamilton fandom comes on this post all like “Oh there go my faves being drama queens again :3” then I’m gonna come to your house and tar and feather you and force you to move to Kentucky.
These people were goddamn animals.
In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least objectionable among the practicable rules, and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the convention. All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. “We subscribe to the doctrine,” might one of our Southern brethren observe, “that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property. The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist no. 54
So yeah. I’ll help you with the tar and feathering.
That passage in particular is… complicated. Hamilton’s argument is less that slave shouldn’t be viewed as people, and more that Southern slaveowners were perfectly willing to call slaves “people” when it came to things like determining population for governmental seats, but “property” for things like. Rights, and freedoms, and stuff. The man himself was nowhere near perfect, but he was an abolitionist.
“This is in fact their true character.” is a glaringly unambiguous statement
“Like, yeah they’re people, but we can still own them.”
I dunno how you interpret that any way but “Wow fuck this asshole.”
It’s far more than just they’re people but we can own them. There is a blatant contradiction between the admission that their ‘master’ can chastise them in their body whenever they damn well feel like it (by the capricious will) and the later claim that they’re life and limbs are protected from harm, that I guess is meant to balance out the next little gem:
Although they can be ‘chastised’, and sold, and ordered around, etc, they can be prosecuted if THEY commit any kind of violence.
When it comes to they’re having rights, they’re degraded to below human ranks and likened to “irrational animals”. Property. But when it comes to having the option to throw them in jail (despite the fact prisoners did force labor, that hardly seems like a consequence that would satisfy many prosecutors – just a guess) or execute them (I’m guessing that one was more common – guess again), they’re people and responsible for their actions.
Slavery was fucking disgusting. Historical figures, regardless of what else they did, do NOT get a pass. You like some accomplishment by Random Early Important American but he had slaves and/or approved of slavery? Fine, like the accomplishments, but also be very clear that that person’s stance on slavery WAS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DISGUSTING. If they’re not known to have ever changed it and actively tried to make reparations, it is UNFORGIVABLE. Whatever they accomplished is still there. But it was done by a monster and it’s not right to deny it.
And before anybody tries to call any of these analyses “anachronistic” or otherwise tries to resort to “well, they were a product of their time”:
John Brown
Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I submit; so let it be done!
