Chattel slavery in America produced the apotheosis of the "runaway." The best known of these freedom seekers were Frederick Douglass and Kunta Kinte, the mythologized ancestor of the late Alex Haley, author of
Roots. If slavery is America's "original sin" or the contradiction that detractors of America's founding principals say makes specious the arguments of Locke, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Hutcheson, Montesquieu, et al, then examining the motivations of the most esteemed slaves has relevance since they were at the brunt end of the despotism.
Were runaways unconcerned with the plight of the downtrodden? Were they advocates of forced labor? The murder of innocents? What were their motivations? What drove them?
According to Haley, Kunte Kinte was from the village of Juffure in what is now the state of Gambia in West Africa. He had known freedom. He was not opposed to common effort, he grew up with it and saw its benefits. He grew up under the authority of a father, mother, grandmother and village elders and was subsumed in a culture where effort was shared. It was however, voluntary! The movie makes clear that the young Kunta did not have to follow the wisdom and guidance of his elders but he would be allowed to suffer the consequences as he approached maturity. He grew up in liberty.
Would he and Douglass have agreed with Hutcheson that all men are created equal? In a memorable line in the movie
Roots, Kunta Kinte lifts his infant daughter Kizzy to the star spangled night sky and says to her "Behold the only thing greater than yourself." What was that "thing?"
Roots makes it plain that Kunta was a devout believer in God. As Douglass put it, "One and God make a majority." Is it safe to assume that Douglass and Kinte would have agreed with Hutcheson that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights - not those bestowed or negated by man?
What is it that the slave wanted? To be cared for? Wasn't it in the slave owner's interest to care for their slaves? Of what use was a slave that was hungry, sick or vulnerable for lack of shelter or clothing? So, according to those who oppose America's founding principals, shouldn't the slave have been content with the owner's care in exchange for their labor? Why should the slave desire to own themselves and the result of their effort when all that they needed was provided? The slave had to be at odds with John Locke, if we are to believe those who dismiss the relevance of natural law to the success of the American experiment. Locke's argument that all men are entitled life and property which secured their right to liberty, should not then be desired by the slave.
Let's be clear, not all slaves desired to leave their captivity or bondage. Given their upbringing, many were conditioned to fear life beyond the influence of the oppressor, which is understandable. What about our heroes, why wouldn't they desire the comfort of the the master's housing, health care, food, etc? What was the difference between their state and the state of their owners? The slave had no right to control their being or what they produced. What guaranteed that right to their owners?
Locke in looking at two forms of government saw tyranny in monarchy or executive government that retained all sovereign rights to itself, granting rights at the discretion of the ruling elite. The slave owner, in contrast to the slave had the right to own. Marx didn't go any further than this relationship in his historical analysis where he concluded that the history of man is the struggle between classes. Because he stopped at these relationships and dug no deeper, he failed to understand why the relationships exist and therefore, everything that followed his flawed premise was in complete error.
The very thing at the heart of what Marx wanted was to eliminate the very thing that would free the slave and secure his ability to exist as an equal; private property rights. If the primary objective of government is to protect life and property rights, then liberty is secure. The slave owner was free to dispose of his property. The slave was capable of no such disposition because he had no rights with respect to ownership.
Would Frederick Douglass voluntarily exchange 63% of his labor in exchange for promise from his master for shelter, clothing, food and medical care? Would Kunta Kinte voluntarily give up 63% of his time to his master because his master made some claim about his labor making the earth hot? Would either of them voluntarily give up time or labor to benefit those, who like themselves work but were required to make no such sacrifice? Would the runaway support a government that coerced its people at gunpoint or would they support a government that ensured that all exchanges were voluntary?