America’s Original Sin https://www.foreignaffairs.

com/print/1121412

Home > America’s Original Sin

Tuesday, December 12, 2017 - 12:00am

America’s Original Sin
Slavery and the Legacy of White Supremacy
Annette Gordon-Reed

ANNETTE GORDON-REED is Charles Warren Professor of American Legal History at

Harvard Law School and Professor of History at Harvard University.

The documents most closely associated with the creation of the United States—the
Declaration of Independence [1] and the Constitution [2]—present a problem with which
Americans have been contending from the country’s beginning: how to reconcile the values
espoused in those texts with the United States’ original sin of slavery, the flaw that marred the
country’s creation, warped its prospects, and eventually plunged it into civil war. The
Declaration of Independence had a specific purpose: to cut the ties between the American
colonies and Great Britain and establish a new country that would take its place among the
nations of the world. But thanks to the vaulting language of its famous preamble, the
document instantly came to mean more than that. Its confident statement that “all men are
created equal,” with “unalienable Rights” to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” put
notions of freedom and equality at the heart of the American experiment. Yet it was written by
a slave owner, Thomas Jefferson [3], and released into 13 colonies that all, to one degree or
another, allowed slavery.

The Constitution, which united the colonies turned states, was no less tainted. It came into
existence only after a heated argument over—and fateful compromise on—the institution of
slavery. Members of the revolutionary generation often cast that institution as a necessary evil
that would eventually die of its own accord, and they made their peace with it to hold together
the new nation. The document they fought over and signed in 1787, revered almost as a
sacred text by many Americans, directly protected slavery. It gave slave owners the right to
capture fugitive slaves who crossed state lines, counted each enslaved person as three-fifths
of a free person for the purpose of apportioning members of the House of Representatives,
and prohibited the abolition of the slave trade before 1808.

As citizens of a young country, Americans have a close enough connection to the founding
generation that they look to the founders as objects of praise. There might well have been no
United States without George Washington, behind whom 13 fractious colonies united.
Jefferson’s language in the Declaration of Independence has been taken up by every
marginalized group seeking an equal place in American society. It has influenced people
searching for freedom in other parts of the world, as well.

Yet the founders are increasingly objects of condemnation, too. Both Washington and
Jefferson owned slaves. They, along with James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew
Jackson, the other three slave-owning presidents of the early republic, shaped the first
decades of the United States. Any desire to celebrate the country’s beginning quickly runs into
the tragic aspects of that moment. Those who wish to revel without reservation in good
feelings about their country feel threatened by those who note the tragedies and oppression
that lay at the heart of this period. Those descended from people who were cast as inferior

1 of 5 12/11/2018 13:52
America’s Original Sin https://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/1121412

beings, whose labor and lives were taken for the enrichment of others, and those with
empathy for the enslaved feel insulted by unreflective celebration. Learning how to strike the
right balance has proved one of the most difficult problems for American society.

WHY SLAVERY’S LEGACY ENDURES

The issue, however, goes far beyond the ways Americans think and talk about their history.
The most significant fact about American slavery, one it did not share with other prominent
ancient slave systems, was its basis in race. Slavery in the United States created a defined,
recognizable group of people and placed them outside society. And unlike the indentured
servitude of European immigrants to North America, slavery was an inherited condition.

As a result, American slavery was tied inexorably to white dominance. Even people of African
descent who were freed for one reason or another suffered under the weight of the white
supremacy that racially based slavery entrenched in American society. In the few places
where free blacks had some form of state citizenship, their rights were circumscribed in ways
that emphasized their inferior status—to them and to all observers. State laws in both the so-
called Free States and the slave states served as blueprints for a system of white supremacy.
Just as blackness was associated with inferiority and a lack of freedom—in some jurisdictions,
black skin created the legal presumption of an enslaved status—whiteness was associated
with superiority and freedom.

The historian Edmund Morgan explained [4] what this meant for the development of American
attitudes about slavery, freedom, and race—indeed, for American culture overall. Morgan
argued that racially based slavery, rather than being a contradiction in a country that prided
itself on freedom, made the freedom of white people possible. The system that put black
people at the bottom of the social heap tamped down class divisions among whites. Without a
large group of people who would always rank below the level of even the poorest, most
disaffected white person, white unity could not have persisted. Grappling with the legacy of
slavery, therefore, requires grappling with the white supremacy that preceded the founding of
the United States and persisted after the end of legalized slavery.

Consider, by contrast, what might have happened had there been Irish chattel slavery in North
America. The Irish suffered pervasive discrimination and were subjected to crude and cruel
stereotypes about their alleged inferiority, but they were never kept as slaves. Had they been
enslaved and then freed, there is every reason to believe that they would have had an easier
time assimilating into American culture than have African Americans. Their enslavement
would be a major historical fact, but it would likely not have created a legacy so firmly tying the
past to the present as did African chattel slavery. Indeed, the descendants of white indentured
servants blended into society and today suffer no stigma because of their ancestors’ social
condition.

That is because the ability to append enslaved status to a set of generally identifiable physical
characteristics—skin color, hair, facial features—made it easy to tell who was eligible for
slavery and to maintain a system of social control over the enslaved. It also made it easy to
continue organized oppression after the 13th Amendment ended legal slavery in 1865. There
was no incentive for whites to change their attitudes about race even when slavery no longer
existed. Whiteness still amounted to a value, unmoored from economic or social status.
Blackness still had to be devalued to ensure white superiority. This calculus operated in
Northern states as well as Southern ones.

CONFEDERATE IDEOLOGY

The framers of the Confederate States of America understood this well. Race played a

2 of 5 12/11/2018 13:52
America’s Original Sin https://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/1121412

specific and pivotal role in their conception of the society they wished to create. If members of
the revolutionary generation presented themselves as opponents of a doomed system and, in
Jefferson’s case, cast baleful views of race as mere “suspicions,” their Confederate
grandchildren voiced their full-throated support for slavery as a perpetual institution, based on
their openly expressed belief in black inferiority. The founding documents of the Confederacy,
under which the purported citizens of that entity lived, just as Americans live under the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, announced that African slavery would form
the “cornerstone” of the country they would create after winning the Civil War. In 1861, a few
weeks before the war began, Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, put
things plainly [5]:

Despite the clarity of Stephens’ words, millions of Americans today are unaware of—or
perhaps unwilling to learn about—the aims of those who rallied to the Confederate cause.
That ignorance has led many to fall prey to the romantic notion of “the rebels,” ignoring that
these rebels had a cause. Modern Americans may fret about the hypocrisy and weakness of
the founding generation, but there was no such hesitancy among the leading Confederates on
matters of slavery and race. That they were not successful on the battlefield does not mean
that their philosophy should be ignored in favor of abstract notions of “duty,” “honor,” and
“nobility”; Americans should not engage in the debate that the former Confederates chose
after the war ended and slavery, finally, acquired a bad name.

It has taken until well into the twenty-first century for many Americans to begin to reject the
idea of erecting statues of men who fought to construct an explicitly white supremacist society.
For too long, the United States has postponed a reckoning with the corrosive ideas about race
that have destroyed the lives and wasted the talents of millions of people who could have
contributed to their country. To confront the legacy of slavery without openly challenging the
racial attitudes that created and shaped the institution is to leave the most important variable
out of the equation. And yet discussions of race, particularly of one’s own racial attitudes, are
among the hardest conversations Americans are called on to have.

This issue of the Confederacy’s legacy was made tragically prominent in 2015, when the white
supremacist Dylann Roof [6] shot 12 black parishioners in a church in Charleston, South
Carolina, killing nine of them. History had given the worshipers in Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church every reason to be suspicious of the young man who appeared at their
doorstep that day, yet they invited him in to their prayer meeting. Although they had, Roof
said, been “nice” to him, they had to die because they (as representatives of the black race)
were, in his words, raping “our women” and “taking over our country.” Their openness and
faith were set against the images, later revealed, of Roof posing with what has come to be
known as the Confederate flag and other white supremacist iconography. The core meaning
of the Confederacy was made heartbreakingly vivid. From that moment on, inaction on the
question of the display of the Confederate flag was, for many, no longer an option. Bree
Newsome, the activist who, ten days after the shooting, scaled the flagpole in front of the
South Carolina State House and removed the Confederate flag that flew there, represented
the new spirit: displaying symbols of white supremacy in public spaces was no longer
tolerable.

And those symbols went far beyond flags. Monuments to people who, in one way or another,
promoted the idea of white supremacy are scattered across the country. Statues of
Confederate officials and generals dot parks and public buildings. Yet proposals to take them
down have drawn sharp opposition. Few who resist the removal of the statues openly praise
the aims of the Confederacy, whatever their private thoughts on the matter. Instead, they raise
the specter of a slippery slope: today, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee; tomorrow, George
Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Yet dealing with such slopes is part of everyday life. The

3 of 5 12/11/2018 13:52
America’s Original Sin https://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/1121412

problem with the Confederacy is not just that its leaders owned slaves. The problem is that
they tried to destroy the Union and did so in adherence to an explicit doctrine of slavery and
white supremacy. By contrast, the founding generation, for all its faults, left behind them
principles and documents that have allowed American society to expand in directions opposite
to the values of the South’s slave society and the Confederacy.

It is not surprising that colleges and universities, ideally the site of inquiry and intellectual
contest, have grappled most prominently with this new national discussion. Many of the most
prestigious American universities have benefited from the institution of slavery or have
buildings named after people who promoted white supremacy. Brown, Georgetown, Harvard,
Princeton, and Yale have, by starting conversations on campus, carrying out programs of
historical self-study, and setting up commissions, contributed to greater public understanding
of the past and of how the country might move ahead. Their work serves as a template for the
ways in which other institutions should engage with these issues in a serious fashion.

RECONSTRUCTION DELAYED

For all the criticism that has been leveled at him for the insufficient radicalism of his racial
politics, Abraham Lincoln understood that the central question for the United States after the
Civil War was whether blacks could be fully incorporated into American society. Attempting to
go forward after the carnage, he returned to first principles. In the Gettysburg Address, he
used the words of the Declaration of Independence as an argument for the emancipation of
blacks and their inclusion in the country’s “new birth of freedom.” What Lincoln meant by this,
how far he was prepared to take matters, will remain unknown. What is clear is that
Reconstruction, the brief period of hope among four million emancipated African Americans,
when black men were given the right to vote, when the freedmen married, sought education,
and became elected officials in the South, was seen as a nightmare by many white
Southerners. Most of them had not owned slaves. But slavery was only part of the wider
picture. They continued to rely on the racial hierarchy that had obtained since the early 1600s,
when the first Africans arrived in North America’s British colonies. Rather than bring free
blacks into society, with the hope of moving the entire region forward, they chose to move
backward, to a situation as close to slavery as legally possible. Northern whites, tired of “the
Negro problem,” abandoned Reconstruction and left black people to the mercy of those who
had before the war seen them as property and after it as lost possessions.

The historian David Blight has described how the post–Civil War desire for reconciliation
between white Northerners and white Southerners left African Americans behind, in ways that
continue to shape American society. The South had no monopoly on adherents to the doctrine
of white supremacy. Despite all that had happened, the racial hierarchy took precedence over
the ambitious plan to bring black Americans into full citizenship expressed in the 13th, 14th,
and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. In a reversal of the maxim that history is written by
the victors, the losing side in the Civil War got to tell the story of their slave society in ways
favorable to them, through books, movies, and other popular entertainment. American culture
accepted the story that apologists for the Confederacy told about Southern whites and
Southern blacks.

That did not begin to change until the second half of the twentieth century. It took the
development of modern scholarship on slavery and Reconstruction and a civil rights
movement composed of blacks, whites, and other groups from across the country to begin
moving the needle on the question of white supremacy’s role in American society.

Since then, black Americans have made many social and economic gains, but there is still far
to go. De jure segregation is dead, but de facto segregation is firmly in place in much of the
country. The United States twice elected a black president and had a black first family, but the

4 of 5 12/11/2018 13:52
America’s Original Sin https://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/1121412

next presidential election expressed, in part, a backlash. African Americans are present in all
walks of life, up and down the economic scale. But overall, black wealth is a mere fraction of
white wealth. Police brutality and racialized law enforcement tactics have shown that the
Fourth Amendment does not apply with equal force to black Americans. And the killing of
armed black men in open-carry states by police has called into question black rights under the
Second Amendment. To understand these problems, look not only to slavery itself but also to
its most lasting legacy: the maintenance of white supremacy. Americans must come to grips
with both if they are to make their country live up to its founding creed.

Copyright © 2018 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.

All rights reserved. To request permission to distribute or reprint this article, please fill out and
submit a Permissions Request Form. If you plan to use this article in a coursepack or
academic website, visit Copyright Clearance Center to clear permission.

Source URL: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-12-12/americas-original-sin

Links
[1] http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
[2] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
[3] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1990-03-01/thomas-jefferson-and-american-foreign-policy
[4] https://www.amazon.com/American-Slavery-Freedom-Edmund-Morgan/dp/039332494X
[5] http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html
[6] https://www.gq.com/story/dylann-roof-making-of-an-american-terrorist

5 of 5 12/11/2018 13:52