The English colonies promoted liberties and rights as well as slavery and racism. During the revolution, a Constitution was written that contradicted promises of liberties and rights preventing slavery until the Civil War.
During the seventeenth century in North America, at the same time that slavery and racism were being engraved in society for Africans, colonies were creating charters to promote and protect the rights of Englishmen. These rights included life, liberty, and property, which were very important to Englishmen as they were denied these basic rights in the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta provided certain important rights such as the ones mentioned before only to nobles. This ...view middle of the document...
The black woman was also more preferential over the English woman. Jordan also stated in his book that during the revolution, Thomas Jefferson feared that the black man would rape the white woman, which would lead to the mongrelization and bastardization of the white race.
With regards to slavery, U.B. Phillips sets the tone for the way we understand this institution in the 1920s, 30s and 50s. He felt that slavery was beneficial to the Negros who were classed as savaged, naked, lacking of morals, uncivilized, and had the mentality of a mule. He also thought that slaves were well fed, clothed, and housed. He said that slavery was not profitable because children, old people, and the cripple could not make a profit for slave owners. To him, runaways were the ones who felt that life was impossible for them and those who were beaten and raped.
Kenneth Stamp contradicted Phillips outlook on slavery in the 1950s when he examined the plantation records. His findings revealed that slaves were not savages and, they did not have the mentality of a mule. They were not well fed, clothed or housed and that slaves were very profitable. He continued to state that that the slaves more likely to run away were house slaves because people who had some freedom wanted all their freedom.
Brazil had more slaves than anywhere else in the Americas. Stanley Elkins said if you compare slavery in Brazil and what slavery would later on become in the United States, slaves had it better in Brazil. This was as a result of Brazil having a strong monarchy in which the King was able to protect his subjects. On the contrary, the English colonies never had a king; hence protection of their subjects was more problematic.
The Monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church of Brazil also played an important role in slavery where a person could approach a friendly priest to negotiate on his or her behalf. This is very similar to a governor of a local province in the U.S. who could appeal to the king on behalf of his subjects. On the flip side, with no monarchy in the U.S. and no Roman Catholic Church, slaves had little say and negotiating powers. This is as a result of the...