The United States must urgently reevaluate the language surrounding slavery and enslavement, moving away from racially charged terminology that obscures the truth of these historical injustices.

When individuals attempt to rationalize the institution of slavery in America, whether for scholarly purposes or casual chats, they often cite the long history of slavery worldwide. However, this perspective can trivialize the severity of American slavery. Additionally, references to white individuals who were enslaved can dilute the profound impact that the forced migration of African peoples has had on their descendants.

It is crucial to recognize that slavery was a pivotal issue in American history, particularly in its contribution to the Civil War. Yet, some progressive white Americans may hesitate to confront the brutal realities faced by enslaved individuals, even if they acknowledge the connection between slavery and the conflict. Conversely, many people, contrary to popular belief, argue that the war stemmed from states' rights, and they may choose to voice these opinions or keep them private. In a Washington Post article titled, “Many Americans Don't Believe Slavery Caused the Civil War,” John Sides examined prevalent views regarding slavery in the U.S. He quoted John Kelly, former chief of staff to Donald Trump, who stated in an interview:

“I would assert that Robert E. Lee was a noble individual. He prioritized loyalty to his state over his country, a belief that was more relevant 150 years ago. Today, we see things differently. However, the inability to compromise was a key factor in the Civil War, and individuals of good conscience on both sides took stands based on their beliefs.”

Statements like this tend to glorify the humanity of those involved in the institution of slavery and the war while neglecting the inhumanity directed at enslaved individuals. The suggestion that a “lack of ability to compromise led to the Civil War,” along with references to “good faith individuals on both sides,” should resonate painfully with anyone who understands that the enslavement of human beings was never a matter of compromise.

In a bid to clarify that Kelly's comments reflect a military perspective rather than that of the average American, Sides referenced Washington Post journalists Greg Jaffe and Anne Gearan, who noted that many military officials disagreed with Kelly’s statements, asserting that his views stem from a limited understanding of the conflict that does not represent the general public.

Reflecting on opinions about the causes of the Civil War during its 150th anniversary in 2011, Sides cited various polls revealing that many Americans do not view slavery as the primary cause of the conflict. According to the Pew Research Center, 48% attributed the war to states' rights, while 38% pointed to slavery. Other polls showed similar results, with many respondents prioritizing states' rights over slavery. A CNN/ORC poll provided a different angle, asking respondents what they believed motivated secession from the Union, revealing that 54% identified slavery while 42% cited states' rights. These findings suggest that a significant portion of the American populace does not regard slavery as the central issue of the Civil War.

This disconnect may be rooted in generations of educational biases that have shaped perspectives on historical events. Much of what people learn about this nation's history is filtered through educational systems that have been influenced by racism and white supremacist ideologies. Furthermore, it is possible that many white Americans do not fully grasp the gravity of the term "slavery," leading to a lack of emotional engagement with its history beyond a sanitized narrative of a romanticized Southern past. A deeper understanding of the true horrors of slavery might prompt a more serious consideration of its implications.

In contemporary discussions, scholars and others exploring the semantics of these terms often view the use of “enslaved persons” and “enslavement” as a matter of political correctness, similar to how other terms with more neutral connotations are treated. Efforts to redefine these terms are underway, as seen on the National Park Service's page concerning the Underground Railroad and the language of slavery, which is being revised to provide more accurate and contextual terminology. They explain that their redefinition process aims to discuss slavery, freedom, and the Underground Railroad more truthfully. For instance, they define “slave” as:

“…a term commonly used to describe an enslaved African American, but it implies that the individual's identity was primarily that of property rather than as a human being. It may also suggest acceptance of enslavement as an identity. Furthermore, it overlooks the presence of the enslaving individuals or groups whose violent enforcement sustained the system of slavery. The National Park Service uses the term ‘slave’ only when necessary within a historical context, opting for ‘enslaved person’ as a more comprehensive choice.”

The term “enslaved person” emphasizes the acts of coercion, brutality, familial separation, and death inflicted by those who perpetuated these atrocities.

A close analysis of grammatical structures within this discourse reveals that the suffix “-ry” transforms the word “slave” into a noun describing a state or condition. However, this does not adequately capture the historical events of slavery, which should be seen as actions rather than mere states of being.

According to Vocabulary.com, the words “slavery” and “slave” trace back to the Latin “sclava,” meaning ‘Slavonic captive,’ a reference to the enslavement of Slavic peoples in the 9th century. The term “sclave” appeared in English around 1290, while the original Slavic spelling “slave” emerged in English by the 1500s. The Bible contains some of the earliest accounts of slavery, detailing stories of bondage, escape, and re-enslavement.

Although this essay does not focus on the origins of slavery or the motivations behind the war, understanding the historical evolution of terminology is vital for appreciating its significance today. Engaging with the semantics of slavery can clarify its relevance within the current educational landscape.

What distinguishes “Slavery” from “The Enslavement”? How important are the initial capital “T,” the prefix “en-,” and the suffix “-ment” in altering the context, connotation, and understanding of the event? Is it necessary to capitalize “The” to validate its expression? To address these queries, we must first recognize the importance of these grammatical elements.

The APA recommends capitalizing “T” when “The” is the first word in a title. Some organizations capitalize “The” in any context, as it signifies a proper name and suggests a special distinction, elevating the subject matter. The use of a capitalized “The” indicates that everything following it is significant, which should not be overlooked.

The prefix “en-” is defined as follows:

“To cause (a person or thing) to be in the place, condition, or state indicated by the stem; specifically, ‘to confine in or place on’ (enshrine; enthrone; entomb); ‘to cause to be in’ (enslave; entrust; enrich; encourage; endear); ‘to restrict’ in the manner named by the stem, often implying enclosure or complete confinement.”

Given the root word “slave,” the implications of the prefix “en-” are profound. Adding the suffix “-ment” denotes “a state, condition, or quality or the result or product of an action.”

Thus, “Enslavement” conveys an action and event of notable significance, marked by the heinous act of confining and restricting individuals. “The Enslavement” and “enslaved” are terms that carry far greater weight than simply using “slavery” and “slave,” especially considering the millions commodified and dehumanized throughout history, particularly in the Americas. The term “slavery” fails to encapsulate the depth of the human experience shattered by these historical events, highlighting the need to treat “Enslavement” with the gravity it deserves rather than trivializing it as just another historical occurrence.

In a 2015 Slate Magazine article titled “Slave or Enslaved Person?”, Katy Waldman explored the terminology, noting the scholarly debate over its passive connotation versus its potential to emphasize the atrocities of racialized bondage. Citing an academic from a humanities forum, she reported:

“Slave is reductive and static, failing to capture reality. Enslaved individuals are … complex human beings.”

This assertion suggests that the term “slave” inadequately describes the multifaceted humanity of those it references, reducing individuals to a simplistic, nonhuman noun that perpetuates the violence of slavery on a linguistic level.

Is this merely a semantic issue, or is there a more insidious agenda at play? Given the racial dynamics in the U.S., where seemingly neutral language is often sanitized to protect white sensibilities while obscuring the realities faced by Black individuals, it is understandable why this topic remains contentious and is typically reserved for academic discourse. The tendency among many Black individuals to dismiss slavery as an inconsequential part of history could stem from the term's linguistic disconnect from present realities.

Perhaps the associations linked to “slavery” or “slave” evoke the deprivation of humanity rather than the lived experiences of those it describes. In a society where white supremacist ideologies frame slavery as merely a “peculiar institution,” the term “The Enslavement” restores the focus to the perpetrators of these atrocities rather than the victims. Just as systemic racism complicates language and discourse, so too does white supremacist ideology prefer to obscure the realities of bondage and dehumanization rather than acknowledge the responsibility for these historical actions.

Ultimately, the historical existence of slavery, or the fact that some white individuals were also enslaved, pales in comparison to the reality of human beings forcibly brought from their homeland, dehumanized, commodified, and subjected to brutality. It is high time for the United States to liberate its semantics and cease engaging in racially charged linguistic manipulation that seeks to obscure and diminish these profound injustices.

Sources: [1] Washington Post Article by John Sides, “Many Americans Don't Believe Slavery Caused the Civil War.” [2] National Park Service Language of Slavery. [3] Origin of the Term Slave. [4] First Appearance in English. [5] Definition of the Prefix “En.” [6] Definition of the Suffix “-ment.” [7] Slate Article by Katy Waldman, “Slave or Enslaved Person.”