Posted on 02/06/2015 1:09:02 PM PST by wtd
I bet you think I'm kidding.
I'm not.
The first thing we need to understand is Ben Franklin was petitioning Congress for the abolition of slavery in the USA:
Author, "Theodore Parker" wrote “Historic Americans” in which he describes founding father, Benjamin Franklin, abolitionist extraordinaire, quoting the koran in defending his abolition petition to Congress
You see the young nation in its infancy. “Hercules in his cradle, “ said Franklin; but with a legion of the mystic serpents about him. If the rising sun shines auspicious, yet the clouds threaten a storm, long and terrible. “
Page 33
VI. Franklin, an old man of eighty-four, is making ready to die. The great philosopher, the great statesman, he has done with philosophy and state craft, not yet ended his philanthropy. He is satisfied with having taken the thunderbolt from the sky, bringing it noiseless and harmless to the ground; he has not yet done with taking the scepter from tyrants. True, he has, by the foundation of the American state on the natural and inalienable rights of all, helped to set America free from the despotism of the British king and Parliament. None has done more for that. He has made the treaty with Prussia, which forbids privateering on land or sea. But now he remembers that there are some six hundred thousand African slaves in America, whose bodies are taken from their control, even in time of peace – peace to other men, to them a period of perpetual war. So in 1787, he founds a society for the abolition of slavery. He is its first President, and in that capacity signed a <...>
Page 34
petition to Congress, asking “the restitution of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage;” asks Congress “that you will step to the very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men.” This petition was the last public act of Franklin, the last public document he ever signed. He had put his hand to the Declaration of Independence; to the treaties of alliance with France and Prussia; to the treaty of peace with Great Britain, now he signs the first petition for the abolition of slavery. Between 1783 and 1790 what important events had taken place! For three years he had been President of Pennsylvania, unanimously elected by the Assembly every time save the first, when one vote out of seventy-seven was cast against him. He had been a member of the Federal Convention, which made the Constitution, and, spite of what he considered to be its errors, put his name to it. Neither he, nor Washington, nor indeed any of the great men who helped to make that instrument, thought it perfect, or worshiped it as an idol. But now, as his last act, he seeks to correct the great fault, and blot, and vice of of the American government – the only one which, in seventy-six years, has given us much trouble. The petition was presented on the 12th of February, 1790. It asked for the abolition of the
Page 35
slave trade, and for the emancipation of slaves. A storm followed; the South was in a rage, which lasted till near the end of March. Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, defended the “peculiar institution.” The ancient republics had slaves; the whole current of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, proved that religion was not hostile to slavery. On the 23rd of March, 1790, Franklin wrote for the National Gazette the speech in favor of the enslavement of Christians. He put it into the mouth of a member of the Divan of Algiers. It was a parody of the actual words of Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, as delivered in Congress a few days before; the text, however, being taken out of the Koran. It was one of the most witty, brilliant, and ingenious things that came from his mind. This was the last public writing of Dr. Franklin ...
petition to Congress, asking “the restitution of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage;” asks Congress “that you will step to the very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men.” This petition was the last public act of Franklin, the last public document he ever signed. He had put his hand to the Declaration of Independence; to the treaties of alliance with France and Prussia; to the treaty of peace with Great Britain, now he signs the first petition for the abolition of slavery. Between 1783 and 1790 what important events had taken place! For three years he had been President of Pennsylvania, unanimously elected by the Assembly every time save the first, when one vote out of seventy-seven was cast against him. He had been a member of the Federal Convention, which made the Constitution, and, spite of what he considered to be its errors, put his name to it. Neither he, nor Washington, nor indeed any of the great men who helped to make that instrument, thought it perfect, or worshiped it as an idol. But now, as his last act, he seeks to correct the great fault, and blot, and vice of of the American government – the only one which, in seventy-six years, has given us much trouble. The petition was presented on the 12th of February, 1790. It asked for the abolition of the
Page 35
slave trade, and for the emancipation of slaves. A storm followed; the South was in a rage, which lasted till near the end of March. Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, defended the “peculiar institution.” The ancient republics had slaves; the whole current of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, proved that religion was not hostile to slavery. On the 23rd of March, 1790, Franklin wrote for the National Gazette the speech in favor of the enslavement of Christians. He put it into the mouth of a member of the Divan of Algiers. It was a parody of the actual words of Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, as delivered in Congress a few days before; the text, however, being taken out of the Koran. It was one of the most witty, brilliant, and ingenious things that came from his mind. This was the last public writing of Dr. Franklin ..."
So, now, here is the column Franklin wrote for the National Gazette (via FranklinPapers.org)
Benjamin Franklin to the Federal Gazette (unpublished)
To the Editor of the Federal Gazette.
March 23.
Sir,
Reading last night in your excellent paper the speech of Mr. Jackson in Congress, against meddling with the affair of slavery, or attempting to mend the condition of slaves, it put me in mind of a similar one made about one hundred years since, by Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, a member of the Divan of Algiers, which may be seen in Martin's account of his consulship, anno 1687. It was against granting the petition of the Sect called Erika or Purists, who prayed for the abolition of piracy and slavery, as being unjust. Mr. Jackson does not quote it; perhaps he has not seen it. If therefore some of its reasonings are to be found in his eloquent speech, it may only show that men's interests and intellects operate and are operated on with surprising similarity in all countries and climates, whenever they are under similar circumstances. The African's speech, as translated, is as follows:
"Allah Bismillah, &c. God is great, and Mahomet is his Prophet.
"Have these Erika considered the consequences of granting their petition? If we cease our cruises against the christians, how shall we be furnished with the commodities their countries produce, and which are so necessary for us? If we forebear to make slaves of their people, who, in this hot climate, are to cultivate our lands? Who are to perform the common labours of our city, and in our families? Must we not hten be our own slaves? and is there not more campassion and more favour due to us Musselmen, than to these christian dogs? We have no above 50,000 slaves in and near Algiers. This number, if not kept up by fresh supplies, will soon diminish, and be gradually annihilated. If then we cease taking and plundering the Infidel ships, and making slaves of the seamen and passengers, our lands will become of no value for want of cultivation; the rents of houses in the city will sink one half? and the revenues of government arising from its share of prizes must be totally destroyed. And for what? to gratify the whim of a whimsical sect! who would have us not only forbear making more slaves, but even to manumit those we have. But who is to indemnify their masters for the loss? Will the state do it? Is our treasury sufficient? Will the Erika do it? Can they do it? Or would they, to do what they think justice to the slaves, do a greater injustice to the owners? And if we set our slaves free, what is to be done with them? Few of them will return to their countries, they know too well the greater hardships they must there be subject to: they will not embrace our holy religion: they will not adopt our manners: our people will not pollute themselves by intermarying with them: must we maintain them as beggars in our streets; or suffer our properties to be the prey of their pillage; for men accostomed to slavery, will not work for a livelihood when not compelled."
"And what is there so pitiable in their present condition? Were they not slaves in their own countries? Are not Spain, Portugal, France and the Italian states, governed by despots, who hold all their subjects in slavery, without exception? Even England treats its sailors as slaves, for they are, whenever the government pleases, seized and confined in ships of war, condemned not only to work but to fight for small wages or a mere subsistance, not better than our slaves are allowed by us. Is their condition then made worse by their falling in to our hands? No, they have only exchanged one slavery for another: and I may say a better: for here they are brought in to a land where the sun of Islamism gives forth its light, and shines in full splendor, and they have an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the true doctrine, and thereby saving their immortal souls. Those who remain at home have not that happiness. Sending the slaves home then, would be sending them out of light into darkness. I repeat the question, what is to be done with them? I have heard it suggested, that they may be planted in the wilderness, where there is plenty of land for them to subsist on, and where they may flourish as a free state; but they are, I doubt, too little disposed to labour without compulsion, as well as too ignorant to establish a good government, and the wild Arabs would soon molest and destroy or again enslave them. While serving us, we take care to provide them with every thing; and they are treated with humanity. The labourers in their own countries, are, as I am well informed, worse fed, lodged and cloathed. The condition of most of them is therefore already mended, and requires no farther improvement. Here their lives are in safety. They are not liable to be impressed for soldiers, and forced to cut one another's christian throats, as in the wars of their own countries. "
"If some of the religious mad bigots who now teaze us with their silly petitions, have in a fit of blind zeal freed their slaves, it was not generosity, it was not humanity that moved them to the action; it was from the conscious burthen of a load of sins, and hope from the supposed merits of so good a work to be excused from damnation. How grosly are they mistaken in imagining slavery to be disallowed by the Alcoran! Are not the two precepts, to quote no more, Masters treat your slaves with kindness: Slaves serve your masters with cheerfulness and fidelity, clear proofs to the contrary? Nor can the plundering of infidels be in that sacred book forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the world all that it contains to his faithful musselmen, who are to enjoy it of right as fast as they can conquer it. Let us then hear no more of this detestable proposition, the manumission of christian slaves, the adoption of which would, by depreciating our lands and houses, thereby depriving so many good citizens of their properties, create universal discontent, and provoke insurrections, to the endangering of government, and producing general confusion. I have therefore no doubt, but this wise Council will prefer the comfort and happiness of a whole nation of true believers, to the whim of a few Erika, and dismiss their petition."
"The result was, as Martin tells us, that the Divan came to this resolution, "The doctrine that plundering and enslaving the Christians is unjust, is at best problematical; but that is the interest of this state to continue the practice, is clear; therefore let the petition be rejected."
And it was rejected accordingly.
And since like motives are apt to produce in the minds of men like opinions and resolutions, may we not, Mr. Brown, venture to predict,, from this account, that the petitions to the parliament of England for abolishing the slave trade, to say nothing of other legislatures, and the debates upon them, will have a similar conclusion. I am, Sir, Your constant reader and humble servant.
Historicus.
"(CNN) – Remember the big makeover the Oval Office got last week while President Obama was on vacation?
Well, there’s a problem with the presidential rug.
The floor piece has quotations from four U.S. presidents and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. — or does it?
One quote reads, “The Arc of the Moral Universe Is Long, But It Bends Towards Justice.”
As the Washington Post’s Jamie Stiehm points out, the quote attributed to King is not really King’s quote at all.
It’s Theodore Parker’s.
King often quoted and paraphrased Parker, an abolitionist and minister from Massachusetts, who in 1853 proclaimed, “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one ... And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice."
It does not look to me like Benjamin Franklin quoted from the koran and called for Christians to be enslaved.
It looks to me like he quoted from a speech given by someone else, who quoted from the koran and called for the enslavement of Christians - and that he did so as part of his effort to point out the evils of slavery.
Or, it was a work of satire, written as part of his effort to point out the evils of slavery.
I think Franklin had been reading Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”.
Exactly. The suggestion that Franklin quoted the ‘koran’ is an interpretation from the author “Theodore Parker”. All links are provided to the sources.
the latter
I think you need to give a better summary of this, because most readers will freak out. What Franklin was doing was saying that, supposing that apologies for slavery were applied to Christians, how would people feel about it?
That said, it’s a bizarre thing, because the Latin countries, with the exception of Portugal, were not involved in the slave trade except tangentially. For example, in the case of the Amistad, the Spanish captain did not transport slaves, and certainly didn’t sell them, but had taken this “cargo” on because something had happened to the original ship...and the only reason the Amistad had a rebellion is that he felt bad for the future slaves, did not manacle them, let them have recreation and sleep on deck, and forbid the crew to watch them. I think he was perfectly right in doing this, but it was a little naïve, and that’s why the ship was overrun and the captain was killed.
You can’t blame the slaves for doing this, but in terms of the slave trade, chattel slavery at that point was entirely an American institution. The British had practiced it but abandoned it in the 18th century, the Spanish and Italians had never practiced it.
Chattel slavery means the slave is a possession (chattel) with no rights, but slaves in Spain had usually been bought from the Arabs, where they were chattel, but then were given basic legal and religious rights and were supposed to be able to earn money, save, marry, receive religious instruction, and be able to buy their freedom or be freed by their owner.
In the US, it was forbidden in certain counties in SC and GA to even preach to the Africans, let alone baptize them, because that meant they were human beings and much of the South subsisted on the “two creations” theory. This was based on the two Creation accounts in Genesis, interpreted to mean that whites had been created first and everybody else had been created to serve them.
But of course since the Dems and Obama have a vested interest in our knowing nothing about the reality of slavery and attitudes here, most Americans are completely ignorant of this.
Obama blaming slavery on Christianity!!! Gimme a break! For one thing, even the most liberal “Christians,” the Quakers, who were big in the slave trade, bought their product from the Muslim slave hunters in Africa.
It looks like a title designed to attract attention to me
"The first thing we need to understand is Ben Franklin was petitioning Congress for the abolition of slavery in the USA:"
As well as in the last two paragraphs of Theodore Parkers quotes:
"This petition was the last public act of Franklin, the last public document he ever signed. He had put his hand to the Declaration of Independence; to the treaties of alliance with France and Prussia; to the treaty of peace with Great Britain, now he signs the first petition for the abolition of slavery. Between 1783 and 1790 what important events had taken place! For three years he had been President of Pennsylvania, unanimously elected by the Assembly every time save the first, when one vote out of seventy-seven was cast against him. He had been a member of the Federal Convention, which made the Constitution, and, spite of what he considered to be its errors, put his name to it. Neither he, nor Washington, nor indeed any of the great men who helped to make that instrument, thought it perfect, or worshiped it as an idol. But now, as his last act, he seeks to correct the great fault, and blot, and vice of of the American government – the only one which, in seventy-six years, has given us much trouble. The petition was presented on the 12th of February, 1790. It asked for the abolition of the
Page 35
slave trade, and for the emancipation of slaves. A storm followed; the South was in a rage, which lasted till near the end of March. Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, defended the “peculiar institution.” The ancient republics had slaves; the whole current of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, proved that religion was not hostile to slavery. On the 23rd of March, 1790, Franklin wrote for the National Gazette the speech in favor of the enslavement of Christians. He put it into the mouth of a member of the Divan of Algiers. It was a parody of the actual words of Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, as delivered in Congress a few days before; the text, however, being taken out of the Koran. It was one of the most witty, brilliant, and ingenious things that came from his mind. This was the last public writing of Dr. Franklin ..."
No, that speech was never made. That was just a pretext for Franklin to submit his own writing as if it were some document he discovered.
He often did stuff like that, writing “letters to the editor” under pseudonyms and such.
Interesting.
Exactly. Misleading headline.
What he said was, "Are not Spain, Portugal, France and the Italian states, governed by despots, who hold all their subjects in slavery, without exception?" I think that was a subtle dig at Roman Catholicism, not at chattel slavery.
Franklin was a deist, and is buried in a Quaker churchyard in Philadelphia, where I have visited his remains several times.
Yes, but if the author stated that outright, nobody would want to read his story. No story, no money.
It's always about the money.
"Few of them will return to their countries, they know too well the greater hardships they must there be subject to: ...they will not adopt our manners:..: must we maintain them as beggars in our streets; or suffer our properties to be the prey of their pillage; for men accostomed to slavery, will not work for a livelihood when not compelled."
And further:
"Sending the slaves home then, would be sending them out of light into darkness. I repeat the question, what is to be done with them? I have heard it suggested, that they may be planted in the wilderness, where there is plenty of land for them to subsist on, and where they may flourish as a free state; but they are, I doubt, too little disposed to labour without compulsion, as well as too ignorant to establish a good government... While serving us, we take care to provide them with every thing; and they are treated with humanity."It's ironic that many of these things are indeed the present condition of the inner cities, two centuries later. And now we have a new class of economic indenture in the form of illegals, and a hot debate about "what is to be done with them?" There are differences, however; most illegals, having come here voluntarily, will indeed work hard. The mental condition of resentment in that percentage of descendents from those brought here as chattel centuries ago is proving more difficult to amend.
There are also those migrants/invaders who arrive with no intention of breaking a sweat to attain the American dream (irony of Obama's lexicon "dreamers").
As well as the migrants who deceptively arrive on legal visas with NO intention of leaving, chosing instead on colonizing with their mosques and Islamic centers - a slave of a different kind, who also and demand
"we maintain them as beggars in our streets; or suffer our properties to be the prey of their pillage; for men accostomed to slavery, will not work for a livelihood when not compelled."
-not to mention the grievance industry having bought the propaganda of CAIR's apostles in places like Ferguson, Sanford, St. Louis, Detroit etc.
oh gosh we wouldn’t want to confuse people with the facts now would we ;)
I know - what I meant is that most readers wouldn’t go that far (certainly on FR, where nobody ever reads beyond the first sentence), and the headline was definitely misleading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.