Student Question
How did views on property rights restrict slaves' freedom in the social contract?
Quick answer:
Views on property rights severely restricted slaves' freedom within the social contract, as African-Americans were legally considered property rather than citizens. This lack of recognition denied them civil liberties and legal rights, including the ability to own property, move freely, or seek legal recourse. The social contract, which involves sacrificing some freedoms for government protection of rights, did not apply to slaves, leaving them without legal protections or autonomy.
Before the end of the Civil War and the establishment of the 13th-15th Amendments to the Constitution, African-Americans were viewed as property. For this reason, they were not afforded the civil liberties that all Americans enjoyed under the Bill of Rights. Since they were not considered citizens, or persons for that matter, slaves did not have legal rights. This is especially true of slaves in the late 17th and 18th Centuries when slave codes were more firmly established.
When you speak of a social contract, you are essentially discussing how you give permission to take away certain freedoms so that the government may protect important natural rights. In other words, while you forfeit your freedom to harm another person, or take his property, in return you are granted safety and security for the government. No such protections existed for slaves in the United States. Slaves could not own guns for protection and could not sue their masters in court for damages. Slaves were not even granted the freedom to move from place to place or legally marry. Because slaves were viewed as property, like a horse or mule, they were not participants in the social contract.
Get Ahead with eNotes
Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.
Already a member? Log in here.
References