Liberty & Slavery (2016)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liberty & Slavery: The Paradox of America’s Founding Fathers is a documentary film which premiered in 2016.

 

The title explains the topic: how can America’s Founding Fathers claim they are fighting for freedom, when they refuse to abolish slavery and when some of them are actually slave-owners?

 

Here is some basic information about this film:

 

** Writer and director: A. Troy Thomas

** Narrator: not listed

** Available on Tubi TV

** Language: English

** Subtitles: English

** Run time: 85 minutes

 

THE PARTICIPANTS

More than forty persons are interviewed in the film. I will mention all participants, even though the list is quite long. Here are the names in alphabetical order:

 

** David Azerrad – Director, Simon center for Principles and politics, The Heritage Foundation

 

** H. Robert Baker – Associate Professor of History, Georgia State University

 

** Richard Beeman – author: Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor (2013)

 

** Sara Bon-Harper – Executive Director, James Monroe’s Highland

 

** Doug Bradburn – Founding Director, Fred W. Smith National Library, George Washington’s Mount Vernon

 

** Catherine Braxton – Descendant of slaves, Drayton Hall Plantation

 

** Walter Brueggemann – Emeritus Professor of the Old Testament, Columbia Theological Seminary

 

** Lonnie Bunch – Director, Smithsonian National Museum, African American History and Culture

 

** Richard Cooper – Interpretive Services Manager, National Underground Railroad Freedom Center

 

** Christian Cotz – Director of Education, Montpelier Foundation

 

** Alisha Cromwell – PhD Candidate – Topic: The Role of Enslaved Women in the Southern Economy

 

** Léonce Crump, Jr. – Lead Pastor, Renovation Church, Atlanta, Georgia

 

** Julian Dangerfield – Executive Director, Shalom Outreach, Dale City, Virginia

 

** Carolyn D. Davis – Assistant Professor, Morehouse College

 

** Christa Dierkshiede – Historian, Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello

 

** Joseph Ellis – author: Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (2000)

 

** David Eltis – co-editor, Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database

 

** Sara Georgini – Assistant Editor of the Adams Papers, The Massachusetts Historical Society

 

** Rod Gragg – author: The Pilgrim Chronicles (2014) and My brother’s Keeper (2016)

 

** Carter C. Hudgins – President and CEO, Drayton Hall Preservation Trust

 

** Kat Imhoff – President and CEO, Montpelier Foundation

 

** Eric R. Jackson – Professor of History, Northern Kentucky University

 

Caroline Keinath – Deputy Superintendent, Adams National Historical Park

 

** Thomas S. Kidd – Historian – author: Patrick Henry: First among Patriots (2011)

 

John Kukla – author – Former Director, Red Hill, Patrick Henry National Memorial

 

** Allan Kulikoff – Professor of History, University of Georgia

 

** Edward J. Larson – Professor of History – author: The Return of George Washington, 1783-1789 (2014)

 

** George W. McDaniel – Emeritus Executive Director, Drayton Hall Preservation Trust

 

** India Meissel – National Council for the Social Studies

 

** Harry L. Reeder – Senior Pastor, Briarwood Presbyterian Church, Birmingham, Alabama

 

** Jim Reimann – Editor, the updated version of My Utmost for His Highest by Oswald Chambers

 

** Travis Ricketts – Professor of History, Politics and Government, Bryan College

 

** David Rutledge – Professor of Religion, Furman University

 

** K. Carl Smith – author - founder of Frederick Douglass Republicans

 

** Rick Starr – Park Ranger, Independence National Historical Park

 

** Mary V. Thompson – Research Historian – author of the website: George Washington’s Mount Vernon

 

** Ken Turner – Associate Professor of Bible Studies, Bryan College

 

** Carl Westmoreland – Senior Historian, National Underground Railroad Freedom Center

 

** Henry Wiencek – author: Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and his Slaves (2012)

 

** Tolivar Wills – Senior Pastor, St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, Georgia

 

** Nicholas Wood – Cassius Marcellus Clay Fellow, Yale University

 

Old clips and old photos are used between the talking heads in many documentary films. Since the topic of this film is an event which happened more than two hundred years ago, this is not possible here.

 

What can the director and his crew do to illustrate the account of historical events? Here is the answer:

 

# 1. They use contemporary drawings and paintings.

 

# 2. They use new clips which show a beautiful green landscape and large mansions built by slave-owners which are still standing today, such as Drayton Hall and Monticello.

 

# 3. They use modern actors to reconstruct some historical scenes. African Americans portray African slaves, while white actors portray a slave-owner and his family.

 

PART ONE

THREE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

Several historical documents are presented and discussed in the film, including the following:

 

# 1. The Declaration of Independence (1776)

 

# 2. The American Constitution (1787)

 

# 3. The Bible

 

While it is obvious to include the first two documents in a discussion of liberty and slavery, the choice of the third document is odd.

 

The Founding Fathers were Christians, but the country which they invented was based on the separation of church and state. The new state was a secular state, so what is the reason for including the Bible?

 

When you are searching for inspiration and guidance, you may of course turn to any document in the world. But why should you allow yourself to be controlled and dominated by a religious document which is more than two thousand years old, when you are trying to establish a secular state?

 

The Bible is not written by one author. It is a collection of documents written by many authors. Supporters of slavery can find something to support their case in the Bible. Supporters of abolition can find something to support their case in the Bible.

 

If you search long enough and hard enough, you can find support for almost any point of view in the Bible. In other words: the Bible is not relevant here; it has no place in a discussion about liberty and slavery in America.

 

There are more than forty participants in this film. But not one of them makes the obvious statement about the Bible. Not one of them says: the Bible is not relevant for this discussion, because the American society is based on the separation of church and state.

 

PART TWO

THREE GOOD CHANCES

Looking at the early American history, we can identify at least three moments in time when supporters of abolition could and should have acted. Unfortunately, they failed to do so.

 

While the southern slave-owners were stubborn and refused to give in, the northern supporters of abolition were flexible and allowed the southern slave-owners to get what they wanted (almost) every time.

 

The first moment = 1776

While the Declaration of Independence was written, there was a good chance to get rid of slavery. Unfortunately, it did not happen.

 

Some of the Founding Fathers were opposed to slavery. Some of them even made this fact clear, but when the southern supporters of slavery refused to discuss this topic, the supporters of abolition backed down.

 

The Declaration includes the famous passage:

 

“All men are created equal.”

 

This passage should not be taken at face value. It is a coded message. What the Founding Fathers really wanted to say is this: 

 

“All white men who own property are created equal and they should run the country.”

 

The hidden implication of the coded message is that all others are excluded: poor whites, women, African Americans, and Native Americans.

 

The second moment = 1787

While the American Constitution was written, there was a good chance to get rid of slavery. Unfortunately, it did not happen.

 

This time, the supporters of abolition tried to use a new approach. They suggested that the problem could and should be divided into two different issues:

 

** The first issue is the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, that is the import of slaves from Africa.

** The second issue is the institution of slavery within the United States.

 

The northern delegates wanted to make a deal: we will set a deadline for the first issue. If you agree to this, we will not ask for any changes of the second issue.

 

No deadline.

 

No restrictions.

 

The southern slave-owners wanted to seem flexible, so they said they were ready to accept this proposal.

 

What about the deadline? What kind of deadline were southern slave-owners prepared to accept? How many years did they want to continue their import of slaves from Africa?

 

Five years? No! This was not enough! Ten years? No! This was not enough! Twenty years is what they wanted. And this is what they got.

 

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was allowed to continue until 1807. From 1 January 1808, this operation had to stop.

 

Why did the northern supporters of abolition allow this deal to happen? They probably assumed that once the import of slaves came to an end, slavery was going to die out by itself.

 

They were wrong. The southern slave-owners were probably well aware that this assumption was wrong. They knew that a male and a female slave could and did have children who were born as slaves.

 

By the year 1800, the American slave population did not need to be supported by import of new slaves from Africa. The slave population within the US was able to reproduce itself (and even to expand):

 

** In 1820, the number of slaves in the US was 2 million

** In 1840, the number of slaves in the US was 3 million

** In 1860, the number of slaves in the US was 4 million

 

In 1787, the question of slavery was also raised when the delegates were planning how to set up a parliament, known as the US Congress.

 

The American parliament was going to have two chambers. The upper chamber (the Senate) would have two members for every state, no matter the size of the state, no matter the size of the population in the state. This principle was accepted by all.

 

The lower chamber (the House of Representatives) was based on a different principle. In the House, a state with a large population would have more seats (and thus more influence) than a state with a small population.

 

This principle was also accepted by all. But one important question divided the delegates: how to measure the size of the population?

 

The southern delegates wanted to count all adults in the state, not only free white citizens but also the black slaves. The northern delegates objected to this idea. They said: the slaves are not citizens. They cannot vote. How can you include them in the population?

 

The southern delegates had a devious plan. The black slaves were not free citizens; they could not vote, but the southern delegates still wanted to include them when counting the population in order to secure more seats and more influence in the House!

 

In the end, a compromise was found. The southern states were allowed to count the slaves, but one slave counted only as three-fifth of a white person. One slave was 60 percent of a free person!

 

This time the southern delegates did not get everything they wanted, but they were still able to get most of what they wanted. While the southern delegates were stubborn, the northern delegates were flexible. The northern delegates allowed the southern delegates to get (most of) what they wanted.

 

The third moment = 1820

In the beginning of the 19th century, there was a good chance to get rid of slavery. Unfortunately, it did not happen.

 

While the northern states had (one by one) abolished slavery, the southern states had no intention of doing the same thing.

 

At that time, the number of free states and slave states was fifty-fifty. What was going to happen, when a new territory wanted to join the union?

 

If the new state was a free state, supporters of abolition were going to have a majority in the Senate. If the new state was a slave state, supporters of slavery were going to have a majority in the Senate.

 

In this situation, the supporters of abolition could and should have insisted that while slavery was established in some states, it could not be allowed to expand when new states were admitted. The southern politicians objected. As always, they were stubborn, while the northern politicians were flexible.

 

A compromise was found in 1820: two new states had to enter the union at the same time. A free state and a slave state. This deal, known as the Missouri Compromise, which means that the delicate balance in the Senate was maintained, shows that southern slave-owners got what they wanted one more time.

 

The southern states had so much power in Congress that they were able to compel the northern states to work for them and support the southern system of slavery.

 

This began in 1850, when Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act. According to this law, a slave who escaped from the south to the north was no longer safe there.

 

Law enforcement officers of the north had to arrest an escaped slave and hand this slave over to the south. A law enforcement officer who failed to do this would be punished.

 

An ordinary citizen who helped an escaped slave avoid capture would also be punished.

 

When this law was passed, slaves who escaped from the south had to cross the north and go all the way to Canada in order to be safe.

 

PART THREE

NOBLE PRINCIPLES

The Founding Fathers are highly respected by many Americans. These Americans say the Founding Fathers were wise and talented. These Americans want to protect and defend the reputation of the Founding Fathers.

 

They say slavery was found in many places; they say slavery was an old institution; they say there was (almost) no opposition to slavery at the time, and therefore it is not fair to blame the Founding Fathers for ignoring this question.

 

This claim is not true. The Quakers were opposed to slavery. This fact is actually mentioned ca. 43 minutes into the film, but only briefly. And the case is not explored.

 

If it had been explored, the director could have mentioned a document which supports abolition written by Quakers in 1688; almost one hundred years before the Declaration of Independence!

 

The Founding Fathers were wise and talented, but they were not flawless. They were human beings and they had flaws. One fatal flaw was allowing the institution of slavery to continue after the American Revolution.

 

In a revolution, all traditions are subject to discussion and review. No tradition is allowed to continue just because it is a tradition. What were the basic principles on which the American Revolution is based?

 

# 1. Colonialism? One country controlling and dominating another country? No! We cannot have that! Out with it!

 

# 2. Monarchy? A king ruling the people? No! We cannot have that! Out with it!

 

# 3. Nobility? People who are born to have power and privilege? No! We cannot have that! Out with it!

 

Instead of these old concepts - colonialism, monarchy, and nobility - they proposed three noble principles; they demanded freedom, equality and justice for all.

 

It sounds good. It sounds great. But the reality was quite different:

 

** Slavery (buying and selling human beings) was an old tradition. It was allowed to continue.

 

** Sexism (men controlling and dominating women) was an old tradition. It was allowed to continue.

 

** Racism (white people having more rights than blacks and Native Americans) was an old tradition. It was allowed to continue.

 

What was the result of this? What was the inescapable consequence? When the Founding Fathers created the new state, they established rules and regulations which violated the very principles on which the new state was supposed to be founded!

 

There are more than forty participants in this film about the paradox between liberty and slavery, but not one of them explains how the Founding Fathers resolved this paradox. 

 

Not one of them says what actually happened: 

 

The Founding Fathers abandoned their professed ideals about freedom, equality and justice for all. Instead, they created and maintained a state which continued horrible traditions such as slavery, sexism, and racism.

 

PART FOUR

REVIEWS AND RATINGS

What do reviewers say about this film?

 

On IMDb it has a rating of 72 percent which corresponds to 3.6 stars on Amazon.

 

On Amazon there are at the moment 51 ratings, 28 with reviews. The average rating is 4.2 stars, which corresponds to a rating of 84 percent.

 

Here are the details:

 

5 stars = 68 percent

4 stars = 13 percent

3 stars = 4 percent

2 stars = 2 percent

1 star = 13 percent

 

As you can see, the majority is positive: 81 percent offer four or five stars. But a significant minority is negative: 2 percent offer only two stars and 13 percent offer only one star.

 

CONCLUSION

What do I think about it? I have already indicated that I am not impressed by this film. At this point I want to add one more reason to criticize this film: the number of participants is too high.

 

The number is more than forty. Granting each participant one minute, it takes more than 40 minutes to allow all of them to appear once.

 

All clips with a talking head are short. In my opinion, they are too short. Only one or two sentences are allowed. After that, the person speaking is cut off.

 

There is no need to have so many participants. It must be described as overkill. A lower number is better. If you have 10-20 participants, the viewer can get a chance to know them and recognize them when they return.

 

A lower number of participants means that each participant has a chance to elaborate and explain his or her case instead of issuing a soundbite.

 

What is my conclusion? In my opinion, both ratings mentioned above are too high. This film is not great; it is not even good; it is average. This is why it deserves a rating of three stars (60 percent).

 

REFERENCES

 

# 1. Documentary films

 

** The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow

Four episodes

2002

 

** Up from Slavery

Seven episodes

2011

 

** Slavery by Another Name

Director: Sam Pollard

2012

 

** Emancipation Road

Seven episodes

2014

 

** The Long Shadow

Director: Frances Causey

2017

 

** The Uncomfortable Truth

Director: Loki Mulholland

2017

 

# 2. Books

 

** Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph Ellis (2000)

 

** Slavery by Another Name by Douglas A. Blackmon (2008)

 

** Patrick Henry: First among Patriots by Thomas S. Kidd (2011)

 

** Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves by Henry Wiencek (2012)

 

** Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor by Richard Beeman (2013)

 

** The Return of George Washington, 1783-1879 by Edward J. Larson (2014)

 

** The Pilgrim Chronicles by Rod Gragg (2014)

 

** My Brother’s Keeper by Rod Gragg (2016)

 

*****

Liberty & Slavery:

The Paradox of America's Founding Fathers

(2016)

 

*****