Ethical Considerations of Slavery by Benjamin Banneker

Slavery shook the roots and morals of the United States from its creation to it’s 20th century endeavors. Despite one of the country’s foundational principles being “all men are created equal”, there was assigned socioeconomic merit to maintaining a slave population. Unable to foresee an appropriate or effective change in this abject situation, Benjamin Banneker appealed to Thomas Jefferson, one of the most respected and trusted men in the country, bringing to question not only him but ultimately classical American morals on slavery. Benjamin Banneker’s appeals bring in historical and biblical allusions that fuel the emotional appeal and logic of his argument which are combined with a professional but adamant tone that tie in his respect for Jefferson as well as criticisms of his inactions.

To begin with, Banneker uses a historical allusion to the American revolution in order to imbue feelings of empathy well as pride which help build the logic behind the abolition of slavery. He sets up an implicit parallel between the current slaves or his “brethren” and the people who thought against the “British Crown [that] [reduced] [them] to a State of Servitude” (3-5). Banneker is able to set up a logical argument as well as appeal on a personal and emotional level to Jefferson in one fell swoop. Banneker is able to inductively argue that the people fought against their servitude to the British and thus the American people must now fight against the servitude of African Americans to the white population. He goes on to flatter Jefferson by referencing how Jefferson “clearly saw into the injustice of a state of slavery” and “publicly held forth [the] true and valuable doctrine” (20). Banneker is able to appeal to Jefferson through personal experience as Jefferson was a founding father who worked to establish the new country that formed as a result of the revolt against Britain. By establishing the connection to the Declaration of Independence, Banneker places at least part of the responsibility of upholding the morals on which the country was founded on onto Jefferson. This is intended to both flatter Jefferson as well as introduce a need for guilt in the idea that Jefferson once saw slavery for what it was and knew it best but now has let his sights fall short of that fact.

Throughout the first part of his letter, Benjamin Banneker maintains a professional tone that conveys his respect and admiration of Jefferson in order to establish a favorable dialogue. Banneker treads lightly with repetitive phrases that begin with “Sir” such as “Sir suffer me” where he repeats the formality in order to lead into his main argument while maintaining his demonstration of respect for Jefferson. In reference to the Declaration of Independence, a work which Jefferson was part of, Banneker names it “worthy to be recorded and remembered in all succeeding ages” (21). The persisting formality and the direct praise aimed at Jefferson are intended to provide the foundation of favorable feelings between the two in the dialogue, for Banneker must soon lead into the difficult and direct topic of the injustice that is slavery.

Banneker begins the more candidate part of his letter and uses Biblical allusions to illustrate how freedom is related to God’s will and how Jefferson has, by allowing slavery to continue, disregarded God’s will. Christians believe that God decided the rich and the poor and the rights of all men. Banneker references this idea when he states that it is “pitiable that although [Jefferson] [was] so fully convinced of the benevolence of the Father of mankind” he is condoning slavery in the form of “groaning captivity and cruel oppressions” (35). Using the reference to the Bible draw on the uniting christian standards and faith that is shared, Banneker strengthens the logic of his argument. In previous paragraphs, the secular reasons against slavery were established when he discussed the American Revolution itself and the Declaration of War doctrine, however by bringing in religion Banneker has touched the major points that are basics of society morals and values. It would be in the natural duty of someone like Jefferson to reexamine an action or inaction that goes against the will of God. Banneker once again refers to the Bible when he proposes a first step to the solution for slavery. Banneker proposes that people should follow in the advice of Job, a righteous man who endured much suffering in the Bible, and learn to “put [their] soul into [the souls of the oppressed]” or basically imagine what it would be like to be treated as they are. This reference to the Bible and to the Christian values of love and love for thy neighbor contributes even more the argument logic as well as to the emotional impact on a fellow christian.

In the last third of the letter, Banneker’s tone quickly shifts from his proper and adorning tone to one of candid criticism. Following his initial discussion of the success of Jefferson, Banneker begins to address the downfalls in “that [Jefferson” should at the same time be found guilty of [the] criminal act which [he] professedly detested in others” (40). This strategy of praise followed by criticism is meant to crease a sense of guilt in Jefferson. In the most respectful way possible, Banneker instills the notion that Jefferson should know better than to do what he is doing for “[his] knowledge of the situation of [Banneker’s] brethren is too extensive to need a recital” (42). Jefferson’s extensive role in establishing the doctrine of equality and the pursuit of happiness made him a primary representor of justice and fairness. However, Jefferson is still condoning slavery despite seeing the treatment that the colonial Americans had to endure. Banneker candidly notes this idea of Jefferson needing to assume responsibility for his doctrine and his values for the American people.

The combination of allusions and dynamic tone led to the continued strengthening of Banneker’s argument. The more experiences he could pull from that united the American people as one, the more cohesive and applicable his argument became. In a succinct format, Banneker was able to respectfully convey his opinion without harshly accusing and scolding Jefferson or the government.