Posted on 03/30/2019 12:39:26 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
In his later years, Benjamin Franklin became vocal as an abolitionist and in 1787 began to serve as President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery.
The Society was originally formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, as The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage...The Society not only advocated the abolition of slavery, but made efforts to integrate freed slaves into American society.
Preamble:
"It having pleased the Creator of the world, to make of one flesh all the children of men, it becomes them to consult and promote each other's happiness, as members of the same family, however diversified they may be, by colour, situation, religion, or different states of society. It is more especially the duty of those persons, who profess to maintain for themselves the rights of human nature, and who acknowledge the obligations of Christianity, to use such means as are in their power, to extend the blessings of freedom to every part of the human race; and in a more particular manner, to such of their fellow creatures as are entitled to freedom by the laws and constitutions of any of the United States, and who, notwithstanding, are detained in bondage, by fraud or violence.— From a full conviction of the truth and obligation of these principles, — from a desire to diffuse them, wherever the miseries and vices of slavery exist, and in humble confidence of the favour and support of the Father of Mankind, the subscribers have associated themselves, under the title of the 'Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and the Relief of free Negroes unlawfully held in Bondage, and for improving the condition of the African race.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at benjaminfranklin.org ...
Doodle in her hatred quacks about "Trumpsters", April 22, 2016:
I would say that the Trumpsters who come in here and say Trump's going to take Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin or Oregon are the ones pitching poo. Or smoking it. Or something.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3423719/posts?page=52#52
There's plenty more of your anti-Trumping bile out there, you phony. ;-)
There were similar issues in 1846 and 1898 -- some claimed the crisis was, in today's term: "manufactured".
If you ask, why would somebody "manufacture" such a crisis, then the answers seem pretty obvious -- in 1846 to seize territory compatible with slavery (i.e., Texas & California), in 1898 apparently, to sell newspapers.
But no fire starts without a spark, and the spark in 1861 was Fort Sumter.
Dried timber laying around to burn included Northern opposition to slavery and Confederate determination to protect it.
As for the Gulf of Tonkin, there was such an incident and it was used by Democrat President Johnson to spark a wider war whose reasons now seem to escape us -- something about "dominos" and "red menace", iirc.
But the Civil War is still clear because it resulted in the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.
Actually, young Congressman Lincoln did propose compensated abolition in the territory controlled by Congress -- Washington, DC.
That proposal went nowhere in 1848, but was passed by President Lincoln's Congress in 1862.
It's why Republicans considered Lincoln a "moderate" on abolition -- he opposed slavery where possible but respected the Constitution and did not violate its protections of loyal citizens.
Every Northerner, without serious exceptions, wanted slavery abolished in their own states, and did so decades before the Civil War.
Most Northerners, some Doughfaced Democrats excepted, wanted slavery abolished in US western territories.
Every Northerner in, say, 1860 understood that slavery in the South was the "price of Union" and many Northern abolitionists were happy to "let go" of Deep South slave-states in 1861.
Was there a way to abolish slavery without "letting go" the South?
Only through war and Contraband, as it turned out.
DiogenesLamp: "Three.
There were 11 slave states in the Confederacy, but because it suits the Northern invasion excuse makers to keep mentioning those three states that talked about slavery..."
Wrong on two levels.
First, the Confederacy claimed 13, not 11 states (add Kentucky & Missouri), plus the US territories of Oklahoma & New Mexico.
All those entities produced some sort of secession documents.
Second, here again is my summary of all seven "Reasons for Secession" Documents produced before Fort Sumter.
Every one, without exception features slavery prominently, and some exclusively, as their reason.
Lincoln decreed it rebellion because it was a rebellion.
The alternative was a formal declaration of war against the Confederacy, but neither Lincoln nor most Unionists ever acknowledged the Confederacy's legitimacy.
DiogenesLamp: "...but by setting up this confrontation with his warships, and by constantly repeating the propaganda that it was "INSURRECTION" and claiming they started it, he convinced the people of the North to back him in subjugating the people who just wanted to be left alone by the corrupt government in Washington.
You know, like most of us want today. "
"Constantly repeating propaganda" is what DiogenesLamp does, he just can't stop himself from doing it.
But Lincoln did none of that -- didn't need to because many Northerners were already ready for a fight back in January 1861 when South Carolinians fired on the unarmed Union ship Star of the West, seized dozens of Federal properties & threatened Union officials.
President Buchanan tamped down their enthusiasm then, but Lincoln did not, in April.
Instead he called for troops to suppress the rebellion and so war was on.
DiogenesLamp: "The truth is that Lincoln launched a war against the South because the South was leaving.
Lincoln *DID NOT* launch a war against the South because the South had slavery. "
"Launched war" is what Jefferson Davis did at Fort Sumter,
Lincoln merely responded to that rebellion and raised the stakes.
Sure, slavery had nothing directly to do with Fort Sumter, but it was certainly important in secession and became increasingly important during the war.
Why would DiogenesLamp seem so determined to deny such obvious truth is a matter perhaps only his shrink could tell us.
DiogenesLamp: "The North had slavery too, and Lincoln even tried to *PROTECT SLAVERY* even more by urging the passage of the Corwin Amendment."
Corwin began as a Southern Democrat "compromise" to save the Union, and was opposed by most Republicans.
Lincoln merely transmitted it, he did not "urge" it.
Now some here have noticed a similarity between DiogenesLamp and old Stand Waite, with his CAPITALIZED WORDS & all...
Could it be?
Naw… ;-)
Yep. Nailed it.
Rando anonymous guy on Internet weighs in with mind-reading on people from 150 years ago...
What he said is STILL true.
Those amendments proposed you mentioned IIRC were only to stop the spread of slavery. Not to end it.
Wooooaaa.. wait.
Did you just say that Lincoln respected the constitution and did not violate its protections of loyal citizens?
Bahahahahaa...
I soooo didn’t realize this was a comedy thread because that’s hilarious.
DiogenesLamp: "You may be shocked to learn that Lincoln also wanted them transported back to Africa, or down to South America.
Lincoln wanted them out of the country, and he didn't really care where they went so long as it was outside the US of A. "
Voluntary recolonization of Freed blacks was official US government and some state governments' policy going back to proposals by Thomas Jefferson and the American Colonization Society in 1819.
One result was the country of Liberia, Africa, where 13,000 freed-blacks moved over 40 years, from 1820 through 1860.
But recolonization proved both expensive and less than successful, with more than half of new colonists to Liberia dying in their first few years there.
Liberia more resembled old Jamestown for colonists than it did modern New York with it's millions of immigrants.
The American Colonization Society was supported by Democrats like Jefferson, Madison & Monroe, by Whigs like Henry Clay and Republicans like Lincoln.
In 1819 Congress voted $100,000 to support it.
DiogenesLamp: "I recently learned that shortly before his assassination someone suggested to him that they be hired to dig the Panama Canal, and he was thrilled with the idea, and was very interested in pursuing it."
Lincoln did pursue several such proposals and Congress voted $600,000 to support them.
None proved successful and in the end Lincoln gave up on it.
DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln was very much a racist..."
By today's standards, not at all in his own day.
DiogenesLamp: "his own home state of Illinois passed laws that made it illegal for blacks to come to Illinois and stay."
Such laws never prevented Illinois from having the fastest growing population of freed blacks of any state in the Union, North or South.
How could that be, if Illinoisans "hated blacks"?
DiogenesLamp: "They were against slavery, but not because they had any love for blacks.
In truth, they hated black people, and didn't care what happened to them.
Their objections over slavery were about slaves making it hard for a laborer to earn a living because no one would pay wages if they could get the work for free."
It's certainly true Northerners did not want Dred Scott to mean they had to compete against slave labor for wages.
But the fact remains that throughout Northern states populations of freed-blacks were growing at double the rate as in the South.
How could that happen if Northerners were so much more hostile to African Americans?
DiogenesLamp: "Most Northern hatred of slavery was motivated by self interest and only a small contingent of "kooks" wanted slavery abolished because it was immoral.
The vast majority of Northerners hated it because it made labor less valuable."
No Northerner supported slavery in their own states, for reasons which were both moral and obvious self-interest.
Most Northerners in, say 1860, were willing to tolerate slavery in the South because that was the deal our Founders struck to achieve the united United States.
DiogenesLamp: "It's all about Labor and Wages, and nobody gave a sh*t about the blacks as human beings."
And this seems to be his punch-line, DiogenesLamp's bottom line, his raison d'etre here, the point of all his endless repetitions of Lost Cause propaganda: Republicans hate African Americans.
If he can't convince us that Republicans hate blacks, then his effort here is for naught.
Why, you might ask?
Why is it so important to DiogenesLamp to tell us that Republicans hate blacks?
What could he, or anybody, gain from such claims?
Truthfully, I don't know, but will speculate along these lines:
Any thoughts on this?
Which makes it at least as valid as you & your Lost Causer buddies' claims to the contrary.
Proof of it begins here: you can't find statements from the time contradicting it.
Well, then you should let your comrade-in-arms, DiogenesLamp, know how funny it is when he keeps telling us about how Lincoln protected slavery in states loyal to the Union.
Really, he's serious about that, and I'm inclined to think he's right on this one.
Of course you aren't.
Did Trump take New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, or Oregon? I must have missed that.
Quit F*#@ing lying. The founding fathers never claimed they were seceding. They knew they were rebelling. That’s why Benjamin Franklin said “we must all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.”
I agree with you that there is a natural right to rebellion, but there is no natural right to win your rebellion. Also, just because you are revolting doesn’t mean your right, or have a good cause. People can look at the reasons your trying to achieve independence and decide for themselves whether it’s right or wrong.
You obviously believe that rebelling against the duly elected authority in a constitutional republic(one of the only one’s existing at the time)to protect slavery is morally right. I don’t
Bubba Ho-Tep: "So I assume you also blame the US for WW2, since we invaded Germany and they didn't invade us."
Nice!
In fact Confederates invaded many Union states, Union territories and Unionist regions of Confederate states.
In the Civil War's first 12 months, more battles were fought in Union states & territories than Confederate and more Confederate soldiers died in the Union than in the Confederacy.
And we see how far even those measures got. But you're going to criticize congress for not presenting more extensive actions.
Two weeks later, The North-West weekly reported that in Port Townsend, a militia company had met, elected officers, and marched to the front of the Pioneer Hotel, where a sword was presented to their captain. "After giving three cheers for each of their officers, and three strong ones for the Union, the company was dismissed" (Port Townsend).
https://www.historylink.org/File/9894
To me it read like an episode from "F-Troop" LoL
That people act in their own best self-interest is a tenet of capitalism, not Marxism.
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.