Having Tough Discussions about Slavery

I suppose by now you have all heard that the Florida Board of Education passed new standards that requires the teaching of slavery in middle school to include “how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” You can read about it HERE and HERE and HERE. Critics are calling this a “big step backward” because it suggests to some that Florida is teaching kids that slavery was good for slaves because it taught them skills. Now, if anyone is interested you can read the Florida State Social Studies Standards for 2023 HERE. I think you will see, if you read the standards in full, that Florida takes a pretty comprehensive look at the institution which includes such multi-faceted topics as slavery in the U.S. Constitution, slave resistance, the systemic strengthening of slave codes, the growth of race-based slavery, abolition, and the sectional contention over slavery that led to the Civil War. I read the standards, and I do not see anything suggesting that slavery was “good” for slaves. The problem is, out of context, people might read it that way. Below is the clause currently under the microscope:

The truth is, of course, there were indeed enslaved people who possessed certain skills in any number of specialized roles. And…they might have used these skills to somehow better their lot. The “hiring out” system, for example, might have presented slaves with some opportunities as noted HERE, and the “task system” - unique to the Sea Islands in the southeastern coastal regions - provided opportunities for slaves to use their agricultural skills to supplement their diets or generate income as noted HERE. There are numerous other examples of individual slaves utilizing their skills to improve their own lives or even resist the slave system. Indeed it stands to reason that despite the realities of slavery, enslaved people would seize on any chance they could to somehow better their circumstances. To suggest otherwise would be to deny human agency.

But…they were still slaves - human property deprived of any real sense of “liberty” as understood by free Englishmen and eventually set forth by the founders, existing as part of a race-based caste system developed early in the history of British North America. This is also included in the Florida Standards:

Slaves resisted the institution as it became deeply and permanently entrenched in the social and economic structure of the southern United States and slave holders threatened to spread the institution beyond where it existed. This is also included in the Florida Standards:

And as we all know, many in the United States, both black and white, saw slavery as morally bankrupt and sought to eradicate it, while southern slaveholders fought to preserve the institution. This is also included in the Florida Standards:

Without this context, it might seem that simply stating something along the lines of “slaves learned skills and got to improve their lives” could invoke the antebellum pro-slavery notion - see John C. Calhoun - that slavery was a positive good, not only for the slaveholder, but for the slaves as well. Or worse yet, it might conjure the old idea that slavery was a benign institution, as was the typical scholarly take - see U. B. Phillips - until at least the middle of the twentieth century.

The BIG GIANT POINT HERE is that CONTEXT is EVERYTHING. And it seems to me that some folks are taking a single line from the Florida Standards out of context and running with it to gain political traction.

Is Florida really teaching that slavery was good for the slave because they got to learn skills? Or, are they teaching that the institution was highly varied from place to place and over time? Are they teaching that slavery was good for the slave? Or, are they teaching that the institution was deeply entrenched in southern society, served as one of the most salient contentious issues in United States history, and ultimately provided primary catalyst for the Civil War? The deal is this: discussing the institution of slavery in American history classrooms can be tough. But is it possible that Florida is doing its best to provide a comprehensive curriculum?

By itself, the statement in question might read problematic, but in the context of the whole document, it makes a lot more sense. And in all honesty, after reading the standards carefully, there are some things that I personally would change. But let’s be fair, Florida is not teaching its middle schoolers that slavery was a good thing. I suspect that the dedicated history teachers in Florida will see it that way as well and teach the whole history - not just a single sentence.

With compliments,

Keith