Response to White Paper 138 by Dr Matthew Spalding at the Heritage Foundation By Brother Amfri Umi-Uchechi 6-29-2011 Dr.

. Matthew Spalding, staff@heritage.org <staff@heritage.org> I have often found myself in the position of explaining horrors of almost 400 years of chattel slavery and its vestiges not only in the African American community but in the majority community as well. It is an understatement to say it is a sensitive issue, but nonetheless, it needs to be addressed. I understand that it may be difficult do discuss this issue with a stranger, but your title caught my attention. "How to Understand Slavery and the American Founding" left me asking the question, "To whom is this article written?" In reading this quote from your article, "The slavery compromises included in the Constitution are prudential compromises rather than a surrender of principle," I found it improbable to think that this statement is intended for an African American such as myself. Prudence is care, caution, and good judgment, as well as wisdom in looking ahead. It is highly hypocritical to claim that constitutional compromises concerning slavery were acts of care, caution, good judgment, or wisdom for black people. Indeed, how can legalized dehumanization and the subsequent legalization of murder, rape, child molestation, torture, etc be a prudent act? The compromise certainly did not show care or caution for the African's or their families. It certainly did not show good judgment. No crime shows good judgment as criminality directly opposes all concepts of justice. Nor, could the slavery compromise show wisdom of forethought in that the south still seceded and lead our nation to some of the bloodiest wars that happened on American soil. So, the claim that the slavery compromise was prudential is simply invalid. The premise of your white paper seems to be - "Does the existence of slavery in the context of the

American Founding, its motivating principles, and the individuals who proclaimed those principles make the United States or its origins less defendable as a guide for just government?"
The only way this premise can be correct is if one suspends the notion that the crimes of rape, murder, child molestation, torture, and other acts of terror are no longer crimes. It also has to grant immunity to those who knowingly participated in such crimes. If one can call people who knowingly engage in crimes against humanity just people, than your premise is correct. Other than that, your premise cannot be morally, ethically, or intelligently addressed without considering the crimes against humanity in which America's founders participated. It is clear that you have studied the issue of slavery from a constitutionally historic perspective, but by never mentioning the horrors of the practice itself, my question is, "How can one understand slavery and the American founding without ever brooching over 400 years of the most brutal trauma ever commited against a people?" This is a glaring flaw I continue to find in articles written by those in the majority population. Most in the majority population seem to discount the traumatic impact of slavery not only on Africans and Native Americans but on European Americans as well. Is it implausible for those in the majority population to understand that by participating in the systematic and institutionalized dehumanization of black people, the founding fathers are actually more like Hitler prototypes to the minority population they brutalized? How can one who engages in a process of legalized murder, rape, child molestation, & torture be understood without considering the gross inhumanity and immorality of the American process of chattel? Is it ethical to not consider a rightful demand for reparations without considering the unprecedented traumatic impact that almost 400 years of legalized and systematic use of murder, rape, child molestation, & torture has on a people? How can one honestly say that there is a debate for affirmative action without considering the cost of these 400 years of dehumanization? What amount of "racial quotas", if these truly exist in the real world, can compensate the descendants of these Africans? Now, I suspect that you are a good man and your intent is well meaning, but slave codes (i.e. Virginia & Mississippi) that allowed killing of slaves by masters to go unpunished were ordained under the leadership of our founding fathers. We can pretend to claim the nobility of their words, but how can we

deny the actions in which they were engaged (i.e. Washington extracting the teeth of his slaves to make his dentures or Jefferson having children by his slave Ms. Sally Hemmings). I could go on, but I will save this for a later date should you want to discuss the real issue of race in America not the sanitized version. Published on August 26, 2002 by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.