American history always symbolizes the controversy of viewpoints and diversity of religion movements. The brightest written argument is the book “American slavery, American freedom: The Ordeal of colonial Virginia” by Edmund S. Morgan. The book witnesses the close alliance between the establishment of freedom rights in Virginia and the rise of slavery movement which is considered to be the greatest contradiction in American history. That crucial statement was consistently grounded by Morgan’s numerous arguments.
In Morgan’s opinion, Virginia colony could be compared with Utopia place where slavery was considered to be a mere labor work of people that were addicted to “Protestant Ethics” of Max Webber. Consequently, the government refused to acknowledge the fact of suppression of human inherent rights and freedoms. Instead, they compare slavery with an honorable service to the welfare of the upper levels of the society. Moreover, people were consciously working since they considered it to be their duty to cultivate Virginia’s land. Further on, the inhabitants of the Brutish colony did not express a burning desire to change their ways of life and slaves were considered to be a profitable and beneficial property. Later, servitude was officially accepted.
Morgan’s argument concerning the existence of slavery is proved by the idea the acknowledgment of racism of Virginia of that time. In other words, racism was the trigger point that facilitated the official introduction of slavery. In addition, Morgan makes a tangible accent of an enormous interest of Virginia’s colonists to gain high profits by means of slaves. According to Morgan’s strong belief, the rise of liberty and freedom and the existence of slavery was “central paradox of American history” from seventeenth to nineteenth century. To support the idea, the author examines different levels of society and illustrates the inevitable union.
Viewing generally the book, it is hard to omit the fact that Morgan’s study of that paradox is mostly connected with the history of Virginia where he simply describes Virginia colonial experience. Here, he shows that the recognition of slavery did not necessarily have to be an inherent part of English colonization. Thus, the writer brightly portrays how American history was shaped relying on the event taken place in Virginia. More grave conflict arises in Morgan’s failure to explain the slave-base welfare of Jefferson and Washington defending freedom and owning slaves simultaneously (Kevin R. Hardwick & Warren R. Hofstra, 2003, p. 52). To my mind, the strong point in depicting the facts lies in its transparency where they are identified as rather persuasive and provoking but still too generalized and judgmental.
Considering arguments mentioned above, it is hard to distinguish the actual relations between these two incompatible phenomena. Nonetheless, Morgan’s attempt to assign the history of the British colony to American history was quite successful. It explains by the fact that slavery and oppression prevailed and considered to be the dominant features of American history. That perpetuated topic has grounded its traces in the history of Virginia. In general, Morgan’s interpretation of the history of the United States is rather provoking and disputable and has many points left for further discussion. A thorough examination needs the point that concerns the actual attitude of Americans to the slavery problem. However, the drawbacks of ideas are mostly focused on Morgan’s prejudiced attitude to the colonists and to the problem of slavery.