A struggle over the spoils
George Washington was born in 1732 into a wealthy family of landowners on a 500-acre tobacco plantation in Virginia. He spent his childhood on various family estates, all of which were operated by enslaved labor. When Washington was just eleven years old, his father passed away, leaving him a portion of the family estate, including several enslaved people. From an early age, Washington was immersed in the responsibilities of managing a plantation, surveying land, and recognizing the economic benefits of slave labor. These experiences laid the groundwork for his future in land acquisition and management, culminating in his ownership of the vast Mount Vernon estate. The advantages of his upbringing secured his financial stability and positioned him within Virginia's planter elite, paving the way for his leadership roles in the colonial militia and later in the struggle for American independence, ultimately leading to his becoming the first President of the United States. By the end of his life, Washington's landholdings were estimated to encompass nearly 70,000 acres, or 110 square miles—an area equivalent to the size of Raleigh, the capital and third-largest city of North Carolina by area.
Similarly, another Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, was born in 1743 on a plantation in Virginia to Peter Jefferson, a prominent landowner and surveyor, and Jane Randolph, a member of one of the most influential families in the colony. Growing up on a 5,000-acre estate that relied on enslaved labor, he was exposed early to the harsh realities and inherent privileges of plantation life. His father’s position afforded him an education that few could access, attending the finest schools and being tutored in classical languages, literature, and sciences. This early immersion in a world where land ownership and the exploitation of enslaved people were normalized shaped his worldview and provided a foundation for his later roles in politics and governance. The wealth generated from his family's plantation gave him ownership of over 20,000 acres, or 30 square miles, which is equal to that of Roanoke, VA—the 10th largest city in Virginia by area—and enabled him to pursue higher education at the College of William & Mary, setting the stage for his eventual career as a Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and the third President of the United States.
After the costly French and Indian War, the British government aimed to save money by implementing new taxes and reducing military expenses in the American colonies, in an effort to alleviate the financial strain from the protracted conflict. As part of these measures, they issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which significantly impacted the profit-making endeavors of land speculators like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. This proclamation forbade settlers from claiming or purchasing land west of the Appalachian Mountains, aiming to stabilize relations with Native Americans by halting colonial expansion into their territories. For Jefferson and Washington, both of whom had substantial interests in land speculation and westward expansion, this decree was a severe blow. Washington had invested heavily in land along the Ohio Valley, and the prohibition on settlement effectively devalued these speculative ventures. Similarly, Jefferson's ambitions to expand his landholdings and capitalize on the fertile western territories were stymied, curbing potential profits and limiting economic growth opportunities.
The financial repercussions of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 were significant for both men. George Washington, who had actively pursued land grants and investments in western territories, found his prospects severely restricted, impacting his wealth accumulation and business plans. The prohibition on westward expansion also undermined the potential for developing these lands into profitable agricultural enterprises reliant on enslaved labor, a key component of their economic strategies. Thomas Jefferson, whose vision for agrarian expansion and economic independence hinged on access to vast tracts of western land, faced similar financial constraints. The British-imposed restrictions fostered growing resentment among colonial land speculators and planters, contributing to the broader dissatisfaction with British rule that eventually fueled revolutionary sentiments. The proclamation's impact on their financial aspirations underscored the broader economic grievances that would galvanize Jefferson, Washington, and their contemporaries toward seeking independence from British control.
The Stamp Act of 1765, which imposed a direct tax on the colonies' printed materials, galvanized both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to oppose British policies, with Jefferson's vocal protests and Washington's growing discontent laying the groundwork for their roles in the burgeoning revolutionary movement.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Stamp Act of 1765 were critical in escalating tensions between the American colonies and the British government, setting the stage for the Revolutionary War. The Royal Proclamation, which restricted colonial expansion westward, frustrated land speculators and settlers eager to capitalize on new territories, fostering resentment against British interference in colonial economic aspirations. This discontent was compounded by the Stamp Act, which imposed direct taxes on a wide range of paper goods and legal documents, affecting a broad spectrum of colonial society from merchants to lawyers to everyday citizens. The Stamp Act's imposition without colonial representation in Parliament ignited widespread protests, boycotts, and the formation of the Sons of Liberty, a group dedicated to resisting British policies. These measures, seen as overreaches of British authority, united disparate colonial interests against a common adversary, creating a shared sense of injustice and galvanizing support for the burgeoning independence movement.
To make matters worse, Lord Dunmore, the Royal Governor of Virginia, issued a proclamation declaring that any enslaved person who escaped from a Patriot owner and joined the British army would be granted freedom in November of 1775, . This strategic move aimed to weaken the colonial rebellion by both depriving the Patriots of their labor force and bolstering the British ranks with motivated recruits. The proclamation drew hundreds of enslaved men and women to the British lines, where they served as soldiers, laborers, and scouts. While not all who sought freedom under Dunmore's promise succeeded in securing it permanently, the proclamation highlighted the complexities of loyalty, freedom, and survival amidst the broader conflict of the American Revolution. Lord Dunmore's proclamation deeply alarmed colonists like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, as it threatened their economic interests and social order by encouraging enslaved people to escape and join the British side. For Jefferson, it highlighted the growing tensions between British authorities and the American colonies, fueling his resolve to resist British policies. For Washington, it intensified his commitment to the Revolutionary cause, as he saw the proclamation as a direct assault on the institution of slavery and the stability of Virginian society.
The cumulative impact of these policies fueled a growing revolutionary fervor that would ultimately culminate in the colonies' fight for independence in the Revolutionary War.
In June 1776, as the American colonies prepared to declare their independence from Britain, Thomas Jefferson was tasked with drafting the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson, a prominent figure in the Revolutionary movement and a vocal critic of slavery, included a passage in his draft that condemned the institution of slavery. A portion of the original draft read:
"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. . . . He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce."
Despite Jefferson’s upbringing on a plantation, he was a highly educated and intellectually curious person who would eventually became morally opposed to the institution of slavery. His upbringing in Virginia, a society deeply entrenched in slavery, shaped his early acceptance of it as a normal part of life. Over time, Jefferson's extensive reading, philosophical inquiries, and interactions with Enlightenment thinkers led him to recognize the inherent contradictions between the principles of liberty and the practice of slavery. This clause reflected Jefferson's condemnation of slavery and the British monarchy's role in perpetuating the transatlantic slave trade. Jefferson’s inclusion of this line underscored the moral and ethical objections to slavery that some American leaders harbored.
The draft would be edited by a committee including George Washington and Benjamin Franklin (both slave-holders) and other Southern delegates, who were deeply invested in the institution of slavery. The Southern states' economies were heavily dependent on slave labor, and they were adamant about preserving their economic interests.
The Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776, with a unanimous vote from the Continental Congress, with the anti-slavery clause was omitted.
It was signed by 56 delegates from the thirteen American colonies, at least 41 of whom were slave holders. Prominent signers included James Madison, James Monroe, and Benjamin Harrison—all three slave owners that would go on to become President. The document outlined philosophical justifications for independence, which were heavily influenced by Enlightenment ideas, particularly those of John Locke, whose theories provided a philosophical basis for the protection of private property and the functioning of capitalist economies. It asserts the inherent rights of individuals, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and lists grievances against King George III to demonstrate the tyranny of British rule. But, since enslaved individuals were considered property rather than citizens with inherent rights, the Founding Fathers did not extend theoe principles to the enslaved population.
As time went on, however, Thomas Jefferson became more concerned about western states succeeding for expansion west—or worse, the British gaining control of the western reserve with the help of newly freed slaves and the native allies.
On March 1, 1784, he submitted to the Continental Congress the Report of a Plan of Government for the Western Territory. This provision would have prohibited slavery in all new states carved out of the western territories ceded to the national government established under the Articles of Confederation. He proposed to prohibit slavery in both the Northern and Southern territories, including what would become Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The Ordinance of 1784 also proposed to prohibit slavery completely by 1800 in all territories. But, it was rejected by the Congress by one vote due to an absent representative from New Jersey. Jefferson was only able to obtain one southern delegate to vote for the prohibition of slavery in all territories.
On April 23, Congress accepted Jefferson's 1784 Ordinance, which proposed plans for land division and a path to statehood, but removed the clause prohibiting slavery in all the territories.
Not too long after, serving as the American Minister to France, Jefferson witnessed the early stages of the French Revolution, a period marked by radical social and political upheaval. Observing the revolution’s intensity and violence, Jefferson became acutely aware of the potential for similar unrest in the United States. The stark contrast between the American Revolution’s relatively orderly transition and the chaotic upheavals in France highlighted the fragile nature of democratic institutions. Jefferson’s experiences led him to wonder how societal divisions and discontent could destabilize the young republic in America. At the same time, he recognized that the institution of slavery, despite its moral and ethical implications, was deeply entrenched in the Southern economy and social structure. Jefferson believed that, while slavery was a profound injustice, its continued existence might help to maintain cohesion among the states by providing economic stability and a unifying factor in the face of potential internal conflict and external pressures. Slavery’s expansion would yield a more unified government and a stronger economy.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787, held in Philadelphia, was comprised of a group of 55 delegates, most of whom were wealthy merchants, lawyers, and slaveholders that gathered to write a Constitution for he newly formed country outlining the fundamental principles and framework of the government. The convention was concerned with economic stability, property rights, and governance structures of the new nation. Delegates again drew heavily from the ideas of the protection of life, liberty, and property from Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke. The primary objectives were to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, to mitigate the inflation caused by money and bond printing needed to fund the Revolutionary War, low commodity prices, a lack of national currency, and an inability to effectively govern as individual states pushed for westward expansion without regulation. Debates often centered on creating a strong federal government capable of regulating commerce, levying taxes, and protecting property rights, while also balancing the interests of large and small states. Personal freedoms, which would b amendments to the original Constitution, would later be more explicitly addressed with the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791.
During the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers were divided over how to address slavery in the new Constitution. Northern delegates, who were increasingly moving toward abolition, sought to limit or abolish slavery, while Southern delegates, who relied on slave labor, wanted to protect their economic interests and maintain their social order. During the drafting of the Constitution, several Southern delegates, including those from South Carolina and Georgia, vehemently opposed any language that criticized slavery. They argued that such language would undermine their economic interests and alienate crucial allies in the Southern colonies.
The contentious debates over slavery were epitomized in series of compromises that shaped the structure of Congress. The resulting "Great Compromise," also known as the Connecticut Compromise, established a bicameral legislature with two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Representation in the House was based on population, giving larger states like those in the North more influence, while the Senate provided equal representation for each state, giving smaller states, including those in the South, an equal voice.
To address disagreements over how to count enslaved people for representation and taxation, the Three-Fifths Compromise was introduced. This agreement determined that each enslaved person would be counted as three-fifths of a person when apportioning seats in the House of Representatives and for direct taxes. This compromise was a critical factor in balancing the interests of both Northern and Southern states, ensuring that Southern states had greater representation while still recognizing the contentious nature of slavery in the new nation.
The Three-Fifths Compromise had far-reaching effects on American politics. By inflating the population count of Southern states, the compromise increased their representation in the House of Representatives. In the 1790s, this translated to an additional 15-20 seats in Congress for Southern states, which strengthened their ability to shape national policies in favor of slavery. Four of the first five United States Presidents would be slaveholders from Virginia, and eight out of the first twelve presidents would be slaveholders. These early years shaped the foundations of the country with slave-holding landowners creating the policies and procedures that the United States still follows today.
At that time, the Southern colonies, particularly Virginia and Maryland, were the leading producers of tobacco. Slave labor was crucial for the success of these farms and the growing economy based off of free labor. In 1750, there were about 150,000 enslaved people in Virginia, which constituted roughly 40% of the population. By 1775, this number had grown to around 200,000. In the colonies as a whole, 500,000 (20%) of 2.5 million inhabitants were slaves. By the early 1800s, four out of every five people who came to the New World from the Old World came from Africa.
At the time, the East India Company, which accounted for half of the world's trade, was the primary supplier of cotton around the world. By 1766, cotton cloth constituted more than 75% of the company’s total exports as it began to replace tobacco was the world’s leading cash crop. Over the next 50 years, tobacco would fall out of favor as it faced declining profitability due to soil depletion and fluctuating market demand while the global demand for cotton rose.
At the same time, a successful slave revolt in the French colony of Saint-Domingue in the Caribbean led to the establishment of Haiti as the first independent black republic. Sparked by the brutal conditions of slavery, a massive slave uprising in the northern region of the colony rose against their colonial masters, eventually defeating Napolean’s French forces, undermining his plans for French colonial dominance in the New World.
Facing significant economic strain due to the ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Caribbean, the cost of maintaining French territories in North America, and the loss of income from Saint-Domingue, Napoleon decided to sell the Louisiana Territory to the United States. U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, interested in acquiring land to facilitate westward expansion and secure American control over the Mississippi River, negotiated the purchase, which cost the United States $15 million, and effectively doubled the size of the nation.
The lands acquired stretched from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains and from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border including all of modern day South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana. The newly acquired land, encompassing over 828,000 square miles, provided fertile ground for the expansion of cotton and other cash crops that relied heavily on slave labor.
In 1819, the United States would acquire Florida from Spain and, in 1845, it would annex Texas. All of these acquisitions contained lands superbly suited for cotton agriculture. Simultaneously, the U.S. government drove tens of thousands of Native Americans west of the Mississippi River through forced relocation, like the Trail of Tears from 1838-1839 as part of policies like the Indian Removal Act of 1830. By 1850, 67% of cotton grew on land that had not been part of the United States half century earlier.
In that time, the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney revolutionized the growing cotton industry in the Southern states and new Louisiana Territory. The device made it possible to process cotton quickly and efficiently, leading to a boom in cotton cultivation that was made possible by slave labor.
After the invention of the cotton gin, Cotton production in the United States increased from 1.5 million pounds of cotton in 1790 to 35 million pounds by 1800, 167 million pounds by 1820, and 2.28 billion pounds by the eve of the Civil War. By 1860, cotton accounted for approximately 60% of all American exports, just 5 million bales of cotton, each weighing approximately 500 pounds. This production volume represented 75% of the world’s cotton supply. The total value of enslaved individuals in the South was estimated at $3 billion, representing about 20% of the total U.S. wealth.
The expansion of cotton production, as a result, reinvigorated slavery and led to an enormous shift of slave labor from the upper and lower South. From 1790 to 1860, the enslaved population in the United States grew dramatically. In 1790, there were about 700,000 enslaved individuals. By 1860, this number had increased to nearly 4 million. Enslaved labor was a critical component of the cotton economy, enabling the extensive cultivation and processing of cotton. This growth was driven by both natural increase and a massive domestic slave trade that developed to support the new Cotton Empire, as the importation of enslaved Africans was banned in 1808 by Thomas Jefferson.
This domestic slave trade grew due to the rape, systematic breeding, and sale of enslaved individuals. Enslaved women were subject to sexual violence and coercion by their owners, a grim aspect of the system that was often overlooked in broader discussions of slavery. Enslaved women frequently faced sexual exploitation by their owners and other white men. This violence was not only a means of exerting control but also a way to increase the number of enslaved individuals through forced reproduction. Records indicate that the children of these exploitations were often subjected to the same harsh conditions as their mothers, perpetuating the cycle of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings, with whom he had several children—Harriet, Beverly, Madison, and Eston—who were born into slavery and were considered property under the law.
To meet this growing demand for enslaved labor, slaveholders also engaged in the systematic breeding of enslaved people. By the early 19th century, estimates suggest that the domestic slave trade involved approximately 60,000 enslaved individuals annually. Breeding practices were designed to maximize the number of enslaved people born into captivity, thus ensuring a steady supply of labor. Historical records indicate that, on average, enslaved women were expected to give birth every 2 to 3 years. This frequent reproduction was driven by the economic incentives of slave owners who sought to increase their labor force.
Enslaved people were considered property, and so their value was significant, and domestic slave trade became a significant economic enterprise in itself. Between 1820 and 1860, over one million enslaved individuals were forcibly sold and relocated from the Upper South to the Deep South. A prime field hand could be worth $1,000 to $2,000, which would be equivalent to tens of thousands of dollars today. Increasing the number of enslaved people through breeding was seen as a profitable investment.
As the country’s land doubled and slaves were raped, bred, bought, and sold, cotton production became increasingly profitable. The demand for cotton, now the world’s most traded and valuable commodity, skyrocketed. Between 1800 and 1860 cotton production increased 500-fold from 4 million bails to 2 billion bails per year. At that time, approximately 90-95% of cotton sold in Liverpool, the world’s largest cotton market, came from the Southern United States.
Thus cotton, driven by slave labor, drove U.S. expansion enabling the young country to grow from a narrow coastal belt to a vast, powerful nation with the fastest growing economy. The explosive growth of profits and wealth under this new capitalism led to an struggle over the spoils and how they should be shared, or not.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a pivotal legislative agreement designed to resolve the contentious debate over the expansion of slavery in the United States. By admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, it maintained a delicate balance between free and slave states in the Senate. The compromise also established the Missouri Compromise line, delineating future territories where slavery would be permitted or prohibited based on their geographical position. While it temporarily alleviated some tensions, the compromise ultimately entrenched the division between free and slave states, setting the stage for future conflicts, like the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed the settlers of the Kansas and Nebraska territories to determine through popular sovereignty whether they would permit slavery or not. This meant that the residents of each territory would vote to decide the legality of slavery within their borders. The Act was intended to facilitate the construction of a transcontinental railroad and promote westward expansion, but it instead inflamed sectional tensions. The idea of popular sovereignty led to a rush of both pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers into Kansas, hoping to influence the outcome of the slavery vote, which resulted in widespread violence and conflict. Ultimately, this shattered the tenuous balance between free and slave states that had been maintained by previous compromises, such as the Missouri Compromise. The violent confrontations in Kansas, known as "Bleeding Kansas," demonstrated the inability of legislative compromises to contain the sectional conflict over slavery, and highlighted the deepening national divide and the failure of political solutions to address the moral and economic issues surrounding slavery.
These acts further polarized the North and South, contributing to the collapse of national political parties and the rise of sectional parties like the Republican Party, which opposed the expansion of slavery. The increasing tension and violence over the issue of slavery in the territories made it clear that a more fundamental resolution was necessary, setting the stage for the secession of Southern states and the eventual outbreak of the Civil War.
The Civil War resulted in a dramatic loss of power and economic stability for the Southern states, primarily due to the dismantling of the Cotton Empire. This downfall can be attributed to several interconnected factors: the end of slavery, the destruction of infrastructure, economic dislocation, and the subsequent shift in economic and political power.
The most immediate and profound impact of the Civil War on the Southern states was the abolition of slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in 1865, formally ended the institution of slavery, which was the cornerstone of the Southern economy. The Cotton Empire, which had thrived on the exploitation of enslaved labor, was dismantled overnight. In 1860, the South’s economy was primarily agriculture, with manufacturing contributing only 10% of the region’s economic output compared to 40% in the North. This imbalance highlighted the South’s dependence on cotton and its inability to diversify economically, leading to a dramatic decline in the economic power of Southern planters.
The transition from a slave-based economy to a free labor system was fraught with challenges The sudden loss of enslaved labor led to a severe labor shortage on Southern plantations. Formerly enslaved individuals, now free, were no longer bound to work under coercive conditions, and many sought better opportunities—often times beating out poor whites for the same job, as newly freed slaves were more knowledgeable about agriculture, more productive, and willing to work for lower wages.
Labor shortages significantly affected cotton production, which plummeted from 5.1 million bales in 1860 to just 3.8 million bales by 1865. The immediate post-war period saw a sharp decline in the Southern economy. The collapse of the cotton industry led to a broader economic downturn. By 1870, Southern per capita income had dropped to about 50% of the national average, reflecting the extent of the economic damage. This had a profound impact on poor whites in the South, who now found themselves without substantial resources or political influence. Many poor whites experienced severe economic hardships as their livelihoods were disrupted by the destruction of war, inflation, and the collapse of the Confederate economy. After the war, the social and economic disruptions exacerbated by the conflict left many poor whites struggling to rebuild their lives in a drastically changed and impoverished region.
The competition for jobs fueled racial tensions and resentment among poor whites. Many poor whites, who were struggling with their own economic hardships, viewed freed African Americans as a threat to their limited job opportunities and social status.
Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers played a profound role in shaping the institution of slavery through their contributions to the Constitution, the formation of the United States federal government, and the beginnings of a capitalist superpower. The Three-Fifths Compromise, a critical agreement reached during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, significantly impacted the balance of power in the United States. By allowing Southern states to count three-fifths of their enslaved population for purposes of representation and taxation, the Compromise granted disproportionate political influence to slave holding states in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. This imbalance of power enabled the South to protect and expand the institution of slavery, embedding it deeply into the fabric of American society and economy.
Their foundational decisions during the Constitutional Convention, while establishing principles of liberty and equality, also reflected and perpetuated the contradictions and inequities inherent in a nation that simultaneously pursued freedom and maintained the institution of slavery. Through this institution of slavery, enslaved African Americans built what would come to be the United States and its dominating capitalist economy, in ways both obvious and hidden.
The entry of the United States into the empire of cotton was so forceful that cotton cultivation in American South quickly began to reshape the global cotton trade, catapulting the new country to a leader of capitalist markets. As the nation expanded westward, conflicts over the spread of slavery into new territories intensified, exacerbating sectional tensions. These mounting tensions, coupled with the South's economic dependence on slavery, led to the secession of Southern states and the outbreak of the Civil War.
By the end of the war, Abraham Lincoln had proposed a payment of $400,000,000 to the South in order to recover from lost labor after the slaves were freed. The equivalent value of $400,000,000 in 1865 would be approximately $51.31 billion in 2024, adjusted for inflation.
The racism embedded in the U.S. Constitution, exemplified by the Three-Fifths Compromise and the design of the Electoral College, has had enduring effects that contribute to institutional racism and the marginalization of Black Americans today. The Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person for legislative representation, inherently dehumanized Black people and entrenched a political system that favored slaveholding states that continue to influence policies today. The Electoral College, partly a product of this compromise, continues to skew political power in favor of less populous states, many of which have legacies of systemic racism. Not once in the 200 years after the formation of the Electoral College did the person who won the popular vote lose in the Electoral College. But, in the last twenty years, it has happened twice, and it almost happened in 2004, had John Kerry won Ohio, and again in 2020, had Donald Trump gotten only 7,000 more votes. No other country in the world has a political system where the person who loses the popular vote does not win an election.
The 1787 decision to give each state two senators was also a failure. At the time, the population of Virginia, the most populated state, was only 9 times that of Delaware, the least populated. Today, the population of California is 68 times that of Wyoming. Yet, they both get represented by two senators. In the last session of congress, there were 50 democrats and 50 republicans, but the 50 democratic senators represented 40 million more people. That’s nearly 70 times the population of Wyoming. This imbalance means that millions of people from highly populated states, which happen to be states where freed slaves migrated toward, have significantly less influence in the legislative process compared to residents of smaller states, where enslaved populations typically left. Such a system challenges the principle of equal representation, raising concerns about the fairness and equity of the Senate's structure.
The systems set in place by the Founding Fathers, for example the Electoral College, are inherently unfair to specific demographics, particularly Black Americans, as they disproportionately dilute their voting power and exacerbates existing inequalities in the political system. States with smaller, often predominantly white populations have a higher per capita influence in presidential elections, while the votes of Black Americans in more populous states carry less weight. This imbalance is further compounded by tactics rooted in the post-Reconstruction era, such as gerrymandering, where district lines are manipulated to dilute the voting power of Black communities, and voter suppression tactics, including intimidation and restrictive ID laws, that have been refined and adapted in modern times to more subtly but effectively disenfranchise Black voters. Together, these systems, designed long ago, have been reinforced to perpetuate a cycle of disenfranchisement, ensuring that the political system continues to cater to the interests of more privileged demographics while systematically undermining equitable representation for Black Americans. Ultimately, this disenfranchisement manifests in contemporary disparities, such as unequal access to quality education, healthcare, housing, and employment opportunities. Institutional policies and practices, from redlining to mass incarceration, are rooted in these historical injustices, maintaining cycles of poverty and marginalization that disproportionately affect Black communities. Thus, the foundational racism of the Constitution and the economic imperatives of capitalism have created enduring barriers to racial equity and social justice.
Switching to a popular vote or a ranked-choice voting system could significantly address racial disparities in voting and create a more equitable U.S. by mitigating some of the systemic issues perpetuated by systems like the Electoral College. A popular vote system would ensure that every vote counts equally, regardless of the state or district in which it is cast. This would diminish the disproportionate influence of smaller, less diverse states and make the electoral process more representative of the national electorate. For Black Americans and other marginalized groups, this means their votes would carry the same weight as any other, helping to counteract historical disenfranchisement. A popular vote might encourage broader voter participation by emphasizing that every vote has a direct impact on the outcome. This could help combat voter apathy and disenfranchisement, particularly in communities that have historically felt marginalized by the Electoral College system. Gerrymandering thrives in a system where electoral districts are manipulated to favor one party or demographic over another. A shift to a popular vote would reduce the impact of district-based manipulations, as the focus would be on aggregating total votes rather than winning specific districts. This could lead to fairer, more representative political outcomes and less emphasis on geographic-based voter suppression.
As for the Cotton Empire and the creation of capitalism in America, as Ta-Nehisi Coates argues in his essay The Case for Reparations, “the wealth gap between Black and white Americans is not merely a result of individual failings, but of centuries of deliberate and calculated policies designed to keep Black people at a disadvantage.”
Data underscores this disparity: according to the Federal Reserve, the median net worth of Black households was $24,100 in 2019, compared to $189,100 for white households, highlighting a staggering racial wealth gap exacerbated by discriminatory practices such as redlining and unequal access to education and employment. Additionally, a 2021 report by the Institute for Policy Studies found that if Black Americans had the same wealth accumulation trajectory as white Americans, they would have accumulated an additional $14 trillion in wealth over the past few decades. Reparations would serve as a necessary step towards addressing these historic injustices, providing financial redress and paving the way for a more equitable society.
Maybe the best example of the long-lasting economic impacts of slavery is a recent study that found a link between slavery and Congressional wealth. Legislators whose ancestors owned 16 or more slaves have an average net worth nearly $4 million higher than their colleagues without slave-holding ancestors, accounting for factors like age, race, education. The median net worth of the 535 members of congress was $1.28 million, however legislators whose ancestors enslaved 16 or more individuals had a $3.93 million higher net worth compared to legislators whose ancestors were not slave owners.
A 2021 Pew Research Poll found that views of reparations for slavery vary widely by race and ethnicity, especially between Black and White Americans. Around three-quarters of Black adults (77%) say the descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. should be repaid in some way, while 18% of White Americans say the same. There are also notable differences by partisan affiliation. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, views are split: 48% say descendants of enslaved people should be repaid in some way, while 49% say they shouldn’t be repaid. By comparison, only 8% of Republicans and GOP leaners say these descendants should be repaid in some way, and 91% say they should not.
When Americans are asked about the legacy of slavery’s effect on Black people today, 58% of the overall public says this affects the position of Black people in American society at least a fair amount, with 28% saying it affects them a great deal. Four-in-ten U.S. adults say the legacy of slavery has not much or not at all affected the position of Black Americans in the country today. As with views of reparations, racial and ethnic differences on this question are notable. Black Americans (85%) are more likely than Hispanic (64%) and White (50%) Americans to say the legacy of slavery affects the position of Black people in the U.S. a fair amount or a great deal. The partisan gap on this question is also wide. More than eight-in-ten Democrats (82%) say the legacy of slavery affects Black people in the U.S. a fair amount or a great deal, more than 50 percentage points greater than the share of Republicans who say this (29%).
Effective reparations can encompass a range of strategies that target various areas of need and opportunity. The $51.3 billion dollar reparations proposed by Abraham Lincoln to the South could instead today be used for funding for scholarships, grants, and educational programs can enhance academic achievement and career prospects for Black students, addressing disparities in educational access and quality; providing targeted tax credits and income supplements for Black families can help alleviate immediate financial burdens and address income disparities; investments in healthcare, including funding for community health centers, mental health services, and preventive care, can improve overall health outcomes and address longstanding disparities in medical access and treatment; supporting affordable housing initiatives can counteract the effects of historical redlining and segregation, ensuring that Black families have access to safe, stable, and quality housing; offering grants and low-interest loans to Black entrepreneurs can help stimulate economic development within Black communities, creating job opportunities and fostering business growth. Investing in infrastructure improvements in under-served neighborhoods—such as better transportation, public facilities, and parks—can enhance quality of life and economic vitality; supporting community development initiatives that address local needs, from recreational facilities to community centers, can strengthen social cohesion and provide essential services; enacting laws and policies that address racial disparities in criminal justice, employment, and housing can help dismantle systemic barriers and create a more equitable environment; funding programs that educate the public about the history of racial injustices and support the preservation of cultural heritage can foster greater understanding and reconciliation; providing resources and programs that enhance financial literacy and planning can help Black families build and sustain wealth over time.
Instead, Black Americans can expect underfunded schools, lower graduation rates, and less access to advanced coursework and extracurricular opportunities, higher rates of unemployment, lower home ownership and higher rates of homelessness, higher rates of arrest, incarceration, and harsher sentencing compared to white individuals, higher rates of uninsured individuals, less access to healthcare and lower quality healthcare, significantly higher infant mortality rates, and a life expectancy five years lower than white individuals.
