Takaki Chapter 3

In chapter 3 of his book A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, Ronald Takaki introduces "The Giddy Multitude." His thesis of the chapter is that the definition and practices of slavery changed to suit the increased needs of the upper class for agricultural labor in early America.

Takaki starts off explaining that agriculture was the primary driver for the upper class (or the Capitalists as explained buy Johnson) to expand their wealth in America. The desire of the upper class, and specifically those in Virginia was to increase profits by bringing in and utilizing slaves. Initially a large percentage of slaves were indentured servants from Ireland. Eventually more Africans slaves were brought over and, relations between the black slaves and the indentured white servants threatened the stability of landowners as stated on p.55. The upper class landowners who had representation in the Virginia Legislature would have laws passed that drove a wedge between the common ground found by African slaves and Irish indentured servants. Eventually slavery reached critical status to the profitability of agriculture and the wealth of the upper class. White indentured servants fell out of favor and were no longer necessary or desirable for agricultural work. Takaki goes into depth about the injustices the slaves suffered at the hands of their exploiters. Over time the general view of black slaves by the upper and lower classes changed from one of modest tolerance to a view that blacks were mentally inferior to whites. Thomas Jefferson’s views on the issue are documented in this chapter. In summary he did not care for the institution of slavery; however he supported and engaged in it regardless of his views.

Did Jefferson truly care about slavery? I think that Jefferson saw slavery as an economic issue first and foremost. His heart seemed to be telling him that slavery was wrong and his mind was clearly trying to find an equitable solution. History would seem to suggest that he recognized this at the time he was drafting the Declaration of Independence. As most in the upper class of the day he is willing to engage in the practice of slavery because it was legal, and as a farmer it was certainly the profitable thing to do. But sadly I agree with Takaki that he was really contributing to the problem by not making a real concerted effort to roll back the institution. This dilemma makes men like Jefferson seem to be ordinary mortal men.

Every generation seems to leave at least one big unresolved issue for the next. The Founding Fathers left slavery, and later generations as well the nation as a whole would pay a heavy price for their missteps. It is easy to cast judgments on the Founding Fathers from the present that they made possible, and criticize them for not doing more about the institution of slavery. It is clear to me that what they were doing (specifically building a nation based on unproven principals of liberty and justice) was unfathomably difficult, and the issue of slavery had morphed over time into another unfathomably difficult issue to resolve. The text doesn’t really change my perceptions of the Founding Fathers but it does put the events of our countries history in perspective. Takaki does have a clear and valid argument that more could indeed have been done, but conspicuously minimizes these ancillary facts.