Posted on 07/05/2015 12:11:18 AM PDT by Mount Athos
Not a founding father, but somehow this article brings to mind what a fearsomely strong willed badass Andrew Jackson was
The Founding Fathers were committing treason against the most powerful empire that the world to date had ever seen …No they were not. Can we get past that bit of leftist rhetoric?
“Franklin” is the middle name of one of our sons. The other’s middle name is “Washington.”
There appear to be some missing relevant items and/or inaccuracies in the discussion of Henry Laurens.
He was not just a wealthy rice planter. He became one of the wealthiest men in North America primarily by being a partner in the continent’s largest slave importing and trading firm.
Conditions in the Tower of London were not necessarily appalling. They varied from luxurious to horrific, depending on what the prisoner could afford and the treatment specified by the government. Laurens was not treated particularly harshly.
He was certainly treated much better than American prisoners in British hands in America, where the death rate (over 1/3) considerably exceeded that at Andersonville during our civil war and of American POWs in Japanese hands during WWII. It was roughly equivalent to that of Russians taken prisoner by the Nazis. This is an element of American history that’s largely been forgotten.
I can find no evidence Laurens ever freed his slaves, except perhaps one or two of his hundreds. He expressed dislike of the institution and a theoretical desire to get rid of it someday. But then so did almost all southerners of the day.
John Laurens, however, was indeed an outspoken foe of slavery.
Bookmark
I see conflicting accounts of whether he freed his slaves or not.
This account is from the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor established by congress.
http://www.scnhc.org/story/a-revolutionary-profile-henry-laurens
“Henry buried his son on the plantation, and after the war he freed all of his (then 260) slaves.”
But I also see...
https://networks.h-net.org/node/950/discussions/63282/inquiry-did-henry-laurens-free-his-slaves-after-american-revolution
In volume sixteen of the Papers of Henry Laurens, editors David R. Chesnutt and C. James Taylor has mentioned how Laurens dealt with his slaves in detail. “At his death,” according to the editors, “[Laurens freed but one slave]. His stated policy never to sell a slave for profit and to purchase one only to unite a family appears to be supported by the documents” (xxi).
The FFs were indeed committing treason against the King. Treason is a legal term. If British law applied, they were traitors.
They, however, rebelled against and rejected British law. If they won, they’d be heroes. If they lost, they’d be traitors. They were perfectly well aware of this.
That’s where the quote comes from. “Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.” The treason of the Founders prospered, so we don’t call it that.
I would object more to the claim that the empire they were rebelling against was the most powerful the world had ever seen. The metric to be used is unclear. But the British Army of 1775 was <50,000 men and scattered all over the world. There were several European powers with armies that were a multiple of this and probably more efficient to boot. Russia, France, Prussia, Austria among them. The small size of the British Army at the time is of course why much of their force in America was composed of German mercenaries.
There is no question the Royal Navy was the best in the world, but our Revolution was won at Yorktown primarily because the French Navy turned back a Royal Navy rescue force.
Was the British Empire of 1775 actually more powerful than the Roman, Mongol or Tang empires? Don’t know any way to actually compare them.
Washington. Always Washington.
I can scarcely imagine a man, at that time, in his position vehemently turning down the offer of being King.
Was a display of character largely unseen in world history. Period.
The point is that the they knew that the British considered them traitors and that if they were captured or were defeated, they could well swing for it.
Since it’s not just signers of the Declaration of Independence, I have to add one of my favorite Revolutionary guys, Daniel Morgan. A tough frontiersman and cousin of Daniel Boone, he was flogged by the British in the French and Indian war and took 499 lashes, usually a death sentence. He never forgave them and made them pay dearly a decade later. He was named to command of one of the first three Virginia companies from ability alone. From the Siege of Boston, to the assault on Montreal, Saratoga, and his stunning victory at Cowpens, Morgan and his elite riflemen were always at the front of the battle. They specialized in killing the British Indian guides and officers, leaving them blind and leaderless. A true badass.
Compare and contrast with today’s so-called leaders. Maybe we need another revolution so the cream will again rise to the top.
>> Wouldn’t most people love history if this was an example of what kids read in school?
Hell, I fear the obligation of having to react it.
Huh?
Leftist?
The liberals are fond of using it to demean the Founders. They typically falsely compare it to later leftist-type revolutions, from the French down to the Russian et al. I’m more reminded of the secession of the Ten Tribes from Rehoboam’s unjust rule, at least in the beginning of that.
Yes, from one POV.
The left likes to deliberately misinterpret Romans 13 in light of this, however. I’ve seen them do it.
There is also the point of religious freedom being one of the primary reasons for leaving the homeland for northern America, and the Crown did represent state religion.
You’re just wrong. The founders recognized that signing the Declaration of Independence was an act of treason. They knew that if they were not victorious in the war, that they were all going to get the William Wallace treatment.
Only from George III’s POV. But he was remiss in his own oath to uphold the law, which is treason in and of itself, although the king’s accountability is supposed to be to a higher power as well as to the people. If the Founders themselves felt that they were being treasonous, they would not have even started an endeavor for independence; the perspective is that they knew that the ruling powers in Britain would regard them as committing treason—which is why the Declaration of Independence is worded as it is, and why the motto was “No king but King Jesus”.
Remember how the left likes to try to Alinskyize things too. They would throw Romans 13 in the Founders’ direction as an example of them not being “subject unto the higher powers”, even though warring for independence is not applicable to such—nobody sought to remove the government in London or kill George III.
All of what I’m saying is in your own signature, or at least I believe it is.
And The Swamp Fox, Francis Marion. Of all the heroes in the Revolutionary War, he is my favorite. He fought the British, frustrating them at every turn. He attacked supply lines, forcing Cornwallis to try and capture him. He failed and The Swamp Fox continued his guerrilla tactics to defeat the British multiple times.
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.