Comments (21)

• Louis

  Is it possible that Mason may not have been contradicting himself at all? Rather than reading his quote to mean he approved of slavery but not the free competition thereof, it seems like it could be read differently.

  He seems to be saying that he wished all slavery would have been ended. Everywhere else in the world besides the US before and after, slavery was ended peacefully and former slave owners were compensated. Perhaps he was saying that he wanted slavery ended with this end in mind and that since the Constitution fell short and didn't accomplish this, the next best thing is to secure property rights. Property rights were the important thing and since slaves were going to continue to be property, rights to them were as important as rights to any other form of property. What he feared ended up happening. Since property rights concerning slaves were not protected, it led the South to be aggreved when the North began making it a practice to assist runaway slaves.

  I think we can continue to give Mason credit for his positions and not think he had some serious character flaw outside his otherwise coherent foundations for our country.

  Published: April 17, 2006 9:36 AM

• jeffrey

  Yes, but if you read the quotation carefully, he seems to be calling for the federal Constitution not to merely leave the issue alone but to specifically protect the right of owners to their slaves--a situation that would have drawn the federal government into a massive enforcement effort of huge proportions, one that would have turned the entire country into a giant prison camp for blacks. Talk about big government! Is there another way to read this? It doesn't seem so to me. To be clear, Mason doesn't seem to be advocating that the Constitution take a passive attitude toward existing slavery but rather take positive action to enforce property rights in slaves. He complains specifically that "there is no clause in the Constitution to secure" slavery.

  Published: April 17, 2006 9:49 AM

• Arne Mortensen

  Such strong language ("hypocrisy of the juxtaposed arguments is mind-boggling") for an imputation is mind-boggling. On the one hand, restricting the slave trade on moral grounds is a laudable activity; on the other hand, strengthening property rights also is a laudable activity. Tying the two together to impute a base and self-serving motive is a leap too far for me to make with the evidence at hand. The fact that George Mason argues both in one session suggests to me a conclusion contrary to hypocrisy. Can anyone believe that a man so sharp and principled could demean himself in such way?

  Published: April 17, 2006 9:53 AM

• N. Joseph Potts

  Mason said (correctly, I feel) that increases in the numbers of slaves would weaken the polity, ergo no further imports. But he didn't address "natural increase" - the breeding of slaves, as it were. I should think this also would qualify as "weakening," for which ONE solution might have been manumission of every slave child reaching a certain age. I believe this was done in some of the dozens of countries that (peacefully) discontinued the institution of slavery.

  The public choice litmus reads positive to my eyes when applied to the whole of Mason's prescriptions.

  Published: April 17, 2006 9:56 AM

• Paul Edwards

  This is fantastic history!

  George Mason saw the slave trade as “diabolical in itself� and “disgraceful to mankind� and yet complains that “they have not secured us the property of the slaves we have already�.

  LOL! Not even the slave market escaped the attention of protectionists who saw the potential for personal gain that a domestic cartel in their line of business could bring them.

  I hope at least the man who could smell a rat, Patrick Henry, was a consistent abolitionist.

  Published: April 17, 2006 12:00 PM

• Paul Edwards

  "...restricting the slave trade on moral grounds is a laudable activity; on the other hand, strengthening property rights also is a laudable activity. Tying the two together to impute a base and self-serving motive is a leap too far for me to make with the evidence at hand."

  Arne,

  You've got to dispute the accuracy of the quotations attributed to Mason to dispute the disturbing conclusions regarding Mason's motives.

  Protection of "property ownership" in slaves is HARDLY property rights protection. It's the opposite. That is just over the top. For anyone to refer to the slave trade as “disgraceful to mankind�, and yet whine that property in slaves is not secured is just too out there. What a hoot.

  I'm afraid there was no such "moral ground" on which Mason criticized the importation of slaves. It was for his own greedy immoral reasons. And what else is new? Such people always turn to legislation, or in this case, the constitution itself, in order to obtain such an advantage. Classsic!

  Published: April 17, 2006 12:17 PM

• C. Joseph

  I have to agree with Arne and Louis on this one. The argument about protectionism is clever and, perhaps, accurate. But there is probably more to the story. Without more context to this debate it's hard to tell either way.

  However, one could argue that clearly defining rights of property in slaves at the national level would yield a host of benefits which, like protectionism, are only visible after serious thought and reflection.

  For one thing, the imposition of national regulation of property in slaves would accustom slave holders to federal jurisdiction, a jurisdiction that would continue to oppose and phase out slavery. Instead of a war, then, that ushered in a new era of big government, we might have had a federal government or private groups offer to buy the freedom of a dwindling number of slaves with slave holders willing to sell at "reasonable" rates with the knowledge that slavery would be abolished at some point.

  But this is a rough draft. I can't help but sense there is more to the story awaiting to be discovered.

  Published: April 17, 2006 10:14 PM

• averros

  Mmm... why would anyone claim that slave ownership is bad, anyway?

  Here's an example of good slave ownership: let's say a murderer has negotiated with the family of his victim that instead of hanging he'll be sold to slavery (i.e. enters into a binding transferable contract with the "slaveowner" giving the owner the right to extract labour by means of physical restraint and punishment, with the clause that in case of violation of the contract the original right to kill this criminal is restored) and the proceeds from such sale will be paid to the family of his victim.

  Both the criminal and the family benefit (the criminal is alive, the family got at least something beyond mere moral satisfaction, and the society gets benefit of both reduced killing and results of the former criminal's labour).

  Would anyone argue against protection of property rights in this kind of slave ownership?

  Slave ownership is not good or bad, it is a morally neutral property right.

  What is NOT morally neutral is the way that right is acquired. If it is by some voluntary exchange (as in the example above), it is ok. If it was by coercion or fraud, then it is bad and morally repugnant -- just as the historical slavery was.

  And, of course, children of the slaves can not automatically be slaves - they have given no consent, so treating them like slaves is an aggression against them.

  There are other reasons why people may choose to sell themselves to slavery - for example: in exchange for unaffordable life-saving medical treatments; for the benefit of their families; or in exchange for the life-long care, protection, and ability to have the attention of the adored man (very much like the seriously old-fashioned Christian family, or, in the secular version of it, the "24/7" Dominance/submission, considered to be a part of the modern-day BDSM).

  Saying that a person has no right to sell his own body into the service of another person is just as against the notion of the liberty as saying that the person has no right to buy a piece of rope (it can be used to hang oneself, right?)

  By the way, I do own a slave. She's real smart and beautiful, and wears her collar with a pride. She asked me to take ownership of her, in no uncertain terms, many years ago, and I hope she never had a reason to regret it. Commitments like that work both ways, and this is no newfangled "today we're married, tommorrow see you in court" mockery of what the real marriage once was.

  So, please, don't confuse slavery (which can be OK) and enslaving (which is not).

  Published: April 17, 2006 10:54 PM

• Reactionary

  "In my 38 years as an economist, I have encountered many specious protectionist arguments, none as brazen as Mason's. It was protectionism at its worst."

  Sloppy, politically correct hyperbole.

  C. Joseph's analysis is much better. The context of the times was that negroes were considered barely educable savages who were only entitled to what was granted them by their betters. More enlightened times have revealed the moral and logical shortcomings of this prejudice. Anarchists join their Marxist brethren in condemning Mason for a position that, given the culture and politics of the time, was in fact consistent.

  Published: April 18, 2006 9:52 AM

• Josephine Bass

  I think a little info about George "The Distinguished Stateman" is in order here. Consider that his ancestors had been in Virginia by 1650 and that Virginia (and Georgia) when a colony had petitoned the King to stop the importation of slaves proving that the weakening of the states had been a long time worry; and the first slave for life (property rights)resulted from a court case in Virginia, abt 1649 filed and won by a free black man. Furthermore if you read Fogel's "Time On The Cross" you have to realize that owning slaves was no bed of roses, caring for them form cradle to grave, and at the same time protecting your investment.

  
  "George was born at Doeg's Neck Plantation at a house known as Newtown overlooking what is now called Gunston, Planters of Virginia By Pamela C. Copeland and Richard K. Macmaster Published for the Board of Regents of Gunston Hall by the University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. [ page 56 ][:CIT] and 233[:CIT]."

  Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography, Volume II, I--Fathers of the Revolution: George Mason son of Colonel George Mason, of Stafford county, and Ann Thomson, his wife, daughter of Stevens Thomson, attorney-general of Virginia, was descended from an ancestor of the same name. who came to Virginia about 1651. He was born at Doeg's Neck, Stafford county (now Fairfax), in 1726, and was educated at private schools. He was a member of the Ohio Company in 1749, and during the French and Indian war was active in providing supplies to Braddock's army. He was a member of the house of burgesses in the assembly of 1758-1761. His time was, however, chiefly employed in the occupations of a planter.

  In 1750 he married Ann Eilbeck, daughter of William Eilbeck, who had removed from Whitehaven, Cumberland county, England, to Maryland. He was an intimate friend of Washington, and, as a means of securing a repeal of the British revenue bill of 1767, he drew up a plan of non-importation, which was offered by Washington in the house of burgesses and adopted by that body in 1769.

  One of its sections pledged the planters to buy no imported slaves after November 1, of that year. In 1773 he wrote a tract, "Extracts from the Virginia Charters, with some remarks upon them"--an argument on the inviolability of the Virginia territory westward of the Alleghanies by virtue of the charter granted by Charles II. in 1676. At a meeting of the people of Fairfax county, July 17, 1774, he recommended a congress of the colonies, and urged non-intercourse with the mother country. His resolutions were sanctioned by the Virginia convention, and in 1774 were substantially adopted by the first Continental Congress. In 1775 Mason was a member of the Virginia convention, but declined election to Congress for family reasons. He served on the committee of safety; and was author of the famous declaration of rights and plan of government adopted by the Virginia convention of 1776. In 1777 he declined a seat in the Continental Congress.

  1787 he sat in the convention to frame the Federal constitution and took a leading part, favoring election of the president directly by the people, for a term of seven years, with subsequent ineligibility. He opposed the provision of the constitution prohibiting the abolition of the slave trade until 1808, denouncing slavery as a source of national weakness and demoralization. He opposed other features of the constitution as dangerous, and with Patrick Henry stood against its ratification, the two insisting upon a number of alterations, and upon a bill of rights. Some of these amendments were subsequently adopted by Congress, and are embodied in the present constitution. Mason was chosen one of the first United States senators, but declined, and spent the remainder of his days at "Gunston Hall," where he died, October 7, 1792.

  Wrote the Declaration of Rights with Patrick Henry. Written at the Virginia Convention in 1776, that became the basis for the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. His statue,with those of Jefferson, Henry, Lewis, Marshall and Nelson, stands at the base of the Washington Monument at Richmond, Virginia.

  
  

  Published: April 18, 2006 11:24 AM

• George T. Kysor

  averros, isn't voluntary slavery an oxymoron?

  Published: April 18, 2006 11:29 AM

• Paul Edwards

  I like clever discussions by smart people. But when it obscures the topic beyond our ability to grapple with it, it is simply counter productive.

  1. We're talking about the kind of slavery where the slaves were aggressed against; they were not aggressors and the situation was not voluntary.

  2. Such language as “diabolical in itself� and “disgraceful to mankind� suggests to me that there was some clear recognition of the nature of slavery at that time. I don't buy that "lovers of freedom" back then did not recognize the contradiction between slavery and a fight for human dignity and liberty. The thought that this insight can be seen as too subtle or obscure to be painfully obvious even back then is so outrageous that it really pisses me off.
  

  Published: April 18, 2006 11:41 AM

• Josephine Bass

  As a side note this is ironic, George's grandson murdered by a slave. I am glad George wasn't alive to see it.

  Gerard Alexander MASON b. ABT 1794 son of Thomas Mason and Sarah Barnes Hooe.
  Death: 1849 in Woodbridge Estate, Prince William Co., Virginia, 1849 Found slain by his own slave.

  Published: April 18, 2006 12:44 PM

• Marcus Aliginseis

  It's disappointing mises.org would publish this potty little defamation of one of the greatest men of all time. If Mason was a mere commercialman-hypocrite who talked his book, he could never have drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights which declares all men are by nature equally free and independent. This Constitution denied that implicitly, yet, as Mason pointed out, did not secure uniformly within the Union the property in the labor of man which it countenanced. Had Mason been heeded and this defect cured then one way or the other, we would have been spared the disastrous, proto-communist revolution which history has labelled the American civil war.

  Published: April 18, 2006 2:08 PM

• T. Norman Van Cott

  Following Mason's comment that I quoted in the article, another delegate to the Virginia ratification convention, George Nicholas, said about Mason: "At the same moment it [the Constitution] is opposed for being promotive and destructive of slavery." In addition Madison said that ending the slave trade would mean the "the slaves of Virginia would rise in value." Both statements appear on page 456 of the Elliot volume.

  Published: April 18, 2006 3:16 PM

• Paul Edwards

  All who can't bear to see Mason singled out on this question, take heart. In answer to Mason's concerns about "property rights" (ha), here is Madison:

  "...Congress cannot lay such a tax on slaves as will amount to manumission. Another clause secures us that property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to any of those states where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws; for the laws of the states are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this Constitution, "no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor shall be due." This clause was expressly inserted, to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them."

  Let's all give thanks to the architects of the Constitution for being so far-sighted and true to the objectives of liberty. LOL.

  Published: April 18, 2006 3:17 PM

• averros

  George T. Kysor --

  averros, isn't voluntary slavery an oxymoron?

  Well, it is not (I have seen more than a few people who have choosen that for themselves). Note that a conventional marriage in Europe of as recently as 200 years ago does qualify as slavery by the modern lights -- the wife was literally a property of her husband, couldn't own property, etc. There's little doubt that most marriages back then were voluntary affairs.

  It is not that uncommon even today... I found one interesting (though admittedly unscientific) survey here:
  http://www.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=3255824334
  There are more than 400000 members (most in US) of http://www.bondage.com -- none of them would bat an eye at the phrase "voluntary slavery".

  All slavery is in some sense voluntary (as Etienne de la Boetie has pointed out).

  The meaning of the word (as defined by the modern dictionaries) is being bound in servitude as a property of slaveholder. This can be bad or good, depending on how that state of the things came to be, as my earlier examples show.

  What is bad is enslavement - the act of making a slave out of unwilling human.

  Confusing slavery and enslavement is, basically, the same as confusing property and theft.

  Liberty of owning yourself is not yours if you cannot sell yourself. If some outside group of people claim that they have some right to control how you use your property - it is not your property anymore.

  The axiom of self-ownership absolutely requires that slavery should be considered permissible. A voluntary-entered kind of slavery, of course.

  The modern state laws do not recognize property rights of a slaveholder - no matter how these rights were acquired. But to people who do not recognize legitimacy of the democratic states, and, consequently, of the state laws, what the state law says is irrelevant.

  Published: April 18, 2006 7:35 PM

• P.M.Lawrence

  Perhaps a bit of historical background is in order, to show how attitudes changed from the beginning of the European slave trade up to the end of the 18th century.

  When the Portuguese first started buying slaves from Africa, there was already a slave raiding process going on. Its target was young women, who were taken into domestic slavery and boosted the size of the winning tribe or clan.
  The rest were "bycatch", too dangerous to release and of no use in themselves. So male captives were routinely killed.

  This meant that - at first - the purchase of slaves rescued them from certain death. But probably by the late 17th century, and certainly by John ("Amazing Grace") Newton's time, the slave trade was driving the raiding and contributing to human misery.
  Nevertheless, throughout much of the slave trade people consoled themselves and satisfied their consciences with two things: that they were rescuing Africans for a better life (false by then, and also ignoring the middle passage);
  and, that the slaves would receive a better spiritual environment and would be exposed to Christianity (true as far as that goes, but not the sort of Christian values we would apply today).

  By the end of the 18th century, perceptive people had recognised the horrors fed by the slave trade itself, like raiding with its human suffering and the inhumane transportation, but they had not come to see any difficulty with the condition of slavery as such. That is, they could see the problems caused by inhumane masters, but those could be fixed, whereas they didn't see the discontent of a free spirit in chains.
  The masters on the one hand had few free spirits among the slave born, since they were brought up that way,
  and on the other hand they were constantly fed reinforcing signals for their own position which they did not see as coming from people seeking not to get hurt further.
  As for the physical discomforts of poor food and lodging - well, the slaves were observably better off that way than the free poor in Europe.

  So there was no hypocrisy in George Mason's position at all. He simply failed to recognise any iniquity in either the continued holding or in the conditions of slaves.
  And, as I have remarked elsewhere, manumission would have been a poisoned chalice to slaves who had nothing left once they were worked out; slaves have rebelled against the threat of involuntary emancipation, and wise slave laws forbade it. George Mason could see that the barbarities of the slave trade should end, but he saw no barbarities in mere slaveholding that could not be cured by proper management and attention to detail, best provided by paternalistic masters.

  Finally, as far as slave taxes go, the suitable level for those would have been whatever matched the costs of slave patrols etc. To expect the North to return slaves for nothing, or to expect taxes on non-slaveholders to fund the spillover costs of slavery, would have been to subsidise that particular species of property beyond its economic value.
  

  Published: April 18, 2006 10:35 PM

• George T. Kysor

  You, averros, claim. "liberty of owning yourself is not yours if you cannot sell yourself." But isn't that ony empty rhetoric when, having sold oneself, one loses all liberty?

  Published: April 18, 2006 10:55 PM

• Mark Sunwall

  "Averros" (whoever he is, probably not Ibn Rashid) has opened up an avenue of thought which I doubt any "libertarian" will be able to deal with adequately on the basis of legal-political ratiocination. Once one gets into the world of philosophical anthropology or human ontology one gets into very murkey waters indeed! Randian man (or woman) who strives relentlessly for freedom with the surity of a needle pointing to magentic north is nothing more than a mythic construct, although one which has been, and will continue to be, put to excellent rhetorical uses. Hegel knew the interface between psychology and sociality better, with his master/slave dialectic etc. But then libertarians don't read Hegel because they think his dialect is the same as that of Marx. The more the pity since there is great wisdom to be found in the "right kind" of dialectic. (N.B.:Hegel's kind is logo-ontological). But that, of course, is ontology not politics. Political concepts must of necessity be asymetrical and dogmatic, and nobody, I dare say not even our brash Mr. Averroes, is likely to go marching to the barracades under the subtle but oxymoronic banner of "servilo-libertarianism"!

  Published: April 19, 2006 12:19 AM

• interestedguy

  Very interesting read. Sorry I don't have much more to add. A lot of great opinions and viewpoints already covered just about everything.

  Published: September 2, 2009 2:35 PM