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 ...
Setting that aside for a moment . . .
Previously there was comment on abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania and how quickly it came about after the revolution. The moral high ground was taken very quickly in the Keystone State according to this telling.
Wikipedia’s entry on Pennsylvania slavery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Pennsylvania) includes this:
“During the American Revolutionary War, Pennsylvania passed the Gradual Abolition Act (1780), the first such law in the new United States. Pennsylvania’s law established as free those children born to slave mothers after that date. They had to serve lengthy periods of indentured servitude until age 28 before becoming fully free as adults. Emancipation proceeded and, by 1810 there were fewer than 1,000 slaves in the Commonwealth. None appeared in records after 1847.”
From 1780 until 1847 is 67 years. That is well over three generations of slavery AFTER abolition.
At the time some referred to this high moral ground as “philanthropy at bargain prices.”
And yet it was worlds better than any southern state managed to accomplish.
“And yet it was worlds better than any southern state managed to accomplish.”
Even better than the southern Union state of Delaware?
You called for an audience - say what’s on your mind.
In a previous reply to me you had said the southern states were afraid that Lincoln and the Republican’s might use unconstitutional means to end slavery, this is why they sought their independence.
So do you believe that California would have been justified to secede after the election of Trump, as some in California threatened to do, because of their fears of what he might do as President?
“So do you believe that California would have been justified to secede after the election of Trump, as some in California threatened to do, because of their fears of what he might do as President?”
My opinion on this is informed by the American theory of government, as explained by our founding fathers:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any form of Government become destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Yes, I still believe in this principle.
Do you?
Yes I agree with that. I also agree with the next paragraph also;
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
I can’t think of a more light and transient cause in a constitutional republic than not liking the results of an election. Wouldn’t you agree?
That would depend.
If the new president was on record as saying he would change or ignore the U.S. Constitution, and everyone knew he didn't have the votes to legally do so, that would not be light and transient. This, of course, was not the case with President Trump.
In a previous post you used the phrase “do you believe that California would have been justified . . .”
The last time I remember California doing anything justified was years ago when voters amended their constitution to prohibit homosexual marriage. That was short-lived.
I do not foresee the state of California ever again doing anything significant that is “justified” by the norms of western civilization. Still, under several theories, including the Declaration of Independence, they have a right to pursue the pleasures of sin for a season.
I would never send my grandsons, or yours, to fight house-to-house in Los Angeles to keep California's 55 votes in the electoral college. Without those permanent Democrat votes in the college, Republicans would be hard-pressed to lose another presidential election ever.
I haven't said too much recently about liberal threats to pull California out of the union. I'm already afraid they won't do it.
I guess that’s the difference in our positions. I believe that America is worth fighting for, both politically, and if need be, with arms. That a president might try to change or ignore the constitution is not a sufficient reason to rebel. You stay and use all constitutional means to stop his abuse of power. Only after a long train of abuses and usurpations should a people resort to rebellion.
I would have no problem being called out of retirement and hopping back on an Abrams to stop California, or any other state, from leaving the Union because they don’t like who won an election. I’d have no problem for my son to do the same once he’s old enough.
Right.
Pennsylvania's slave population fell from 3,700 in 1790 to 64 in 1840 while its freed-black population rose from 7,000 in 1790 to 57,000 in 1860 -- equal to Virginia's and second only to Maryland's.
Note that even in 1790 PA freed-blacks outnumbered slaves two to one.
So gradual abolition or compensated emancipation with voluntary recolonization were the ideals our Founders imagined for eliminating slavery.
They were practiced by Northern states and proposed by some Founders in the South, Thomas Jefferson for example.
Others like Madison & Monroe supported the American Colonization Society.
That was the pattern promised & expected by our Founders.
But no Southern state could bring itself to abolish slavery voluntarily and after Virginia's failed attempt in 1832, none even tried.
Indeed, they flipped their morals from saying slavery was a "necessary evil" to slavery is a positive good which must never be challenged.
Can you explain why you believe gradual abolition is a lower moral ground than "slavery is a positive good"?
The key word here is "destructive" which is the opposite of "at pleasure".
The word "destructive" is informed by its use in other parts of the Declaration, for example:
And it was also not the case with President Lincoln, Fire Eater propaganda notwithstanding.
I love tankers, they're family -- one of my daughters married a former tanker.
Another married a Navy carrier pilot, so I love them too. ;-)
That is an interesting comment. It is clear you accept THAT theory - consent of the governed - as sufficient to dissolve the political bands. But . . . only after a “long train” of abuses and usurpations. And that means exactly what to you?
Colonists in 1776 declared independence citing the King “for imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” This included the notorious three pence per pound tax on tea.
Question: do you think a three pence per pound tax on tea alone - or in combination with other grievances - is justification for revolution then or now? If you say “yes” that says something. If you say “no” that says something.
A better question is who bests determines when the long train is long enough?
We know the representatives (from the colonial home governments) in the Second Continental Congress made the determination.
And we know state legislatures in the thirteen (say eleven) states did it in 1860 and 1861.
You contend the early ones were high authority but the later ones were not.
Ultimately, it seems, your argument becomes one was a worthy cause and the other was not. But that requires accepting your lone value judgment over that of a state's elected legislative body. In other words, accepting one man's whim.
But if you wish to justify it in a grand way, cite Bismark: “The most indifferent arguments are good when one has a majority of bayonets.”
I would say the founders put it best, “the opinions of mankind”. Considering that no other nation in the world recognized the pretend country the rebels created I think we can determine what the opinions of mankind were.
I take it from your post admitting the fire eaters were afraid that the republicans would use unconstitutional means to get rid of slavery, that you believe rebelling and destroying one of the only constitutional republics in the world to protect said slavery, is a-ok in your book?
So if having slavery last longer WOULD HAVE made a complete mockery of our DOI, why wasn't it a complete mockery of the DOI when the 13 original slave states adopted the pro-slavery United States Constitution?
Focusing on this line is a consequence of much dishonesty. Virtually nobody involved in the writing and signing of that document intended that it encompass slaves. They were specifically referring to white male colonists and that is all. Later day liberals decided they wanted to read into those words an intention for those words that didn't exist in 1776. The idea that "all men are created equal" is so appealing to a Christianity based world view, that it became irresistible to later day liberals to insist that black slaves ought to be regarded as equals.
While this is philosophically true, it is completely contrary to the actual meaning and intent of the document when it was written. It is a deliberate misstatement of the document's sole purpose, which was to assert a right to independence for the English descended colonies.
Lincoln did it too in his Gettysburg address, and it is quite ironic that he would refer to "four score and seven years ago" (1776) and then focus on the absolute incorrect meaning of those words in the Declaration of Independence, and deliberately mislead people about the significance of that 1776 date.
The 1776 date was actually about a collection of slave owning states asserting a right to be independent from a larger United Kingdom. It was not about "all men are created equal."
It was about Independence and the right to have it, but master political manipulator Abe Lincoln turned the real meaning on it's head, and created a substitute purpose for the document that it did not possess when it was written.
First of all, it isn't "rebellion."
Second of all, how do you claim that seven states leaving the Union would "destroy" the constitutional republic? Are you telling me the republic would collapse because it lost those slave states? Why?
I believe your mistaken. If you read the founding fathers writings, especially Thomas Jefferson the author of the DoI, it was meant to apply to all people. They couldn’t apply it to all people at the time because they needed the states united to win independence.
Have you ever been to Washington D.C. and the Thomas Jefferson memorial? There is a partial quote from Jefferson there “ I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just”. It is a partial quote from his writing discussing slavery. If you read the whole thing you realize he was afraid God was going to judge the US for slavery. Here’s the whole writing, I truly would like to know how you view it. The one part I would point out is where he says one group of citizens trample the rights of another group of citizens, implying that he considered slaves citizens of the US.
1785
It is difficult to determine on the standard by which the manners of a nation may be tried, whether catholic, or particular. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the manners of his own nation, familiarized to him by habit. There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavours to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.–But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one’s mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.
I'll give you that Thomas Jefferson wanted it interpreted that way, but he was overruled by the committee and this was not the meaning that the representatives who signed it attributed to it.
To the Colonists, it was about the right to be Independent of the United Kingdom, and it had absolutely nothing to do with slaves or slavery.
That is a later day effort to read intent into it which was not at all part of it's original purpose. It's purpose is to articulate the right of people to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another".
That's it. Full stop.
Reading it as a commentary on slavery is dishonest.
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.