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 ...
"Lost Causer"?
I'm a Yankee whose ancestors came over AFTER the Civil War.
Just looking at the facts, Doodle. ;-)
You can if you win. ;-)
Which is just what the victors did...
Now, 150 years later, SJW sewer rats who didn't have to face the defeated over the barrel of a rifled musket are smearing them on the Internet.
Note that the men who actually fought the Confederates weren't too enthused about smearing their courage after the fact.
You're known by where your loyalties lie.
Just looking at the facts, Doodle
Ah, well I guess you're not doing very well at that.
I’m not going to be lectured by a Redleg. ;-)
"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. "--Robert E. Lee
Here I like to quote Lincoln. "Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."
And this rule applies to people who won also. Just because somebody won does not entitle them to their own facts. I have become aware that the winners of the Civil War have declared all sorts of things to be "facts" which are actually contradicted by the real history of events.
They conveniently ignore the core essence of the Declaration of Independence from "four score and seven years earlier" and impute to it an entirely different character. The Declaration of Independence is about "Independence" and how people have an inherent God given right to have it, and this document is the foundation of our own legal authority.
All subsequent legitimacy for our government derives from the asserted right that "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitled us to rule ourselves.
To claim this is wrong, makes our own government illegitimate. If it is not wrong, then it applies to the other states as well as it applied to the original 13.
Unless they're slaves, in which case they have to wait for an majority of voting-eligible non-slaves to decide to grant it upon them.
Redlegs were Kansas. I'm from Missouri.
Seventy one percent of your original Confederate states didn't voluntarily join anything. They were made a part of the Union only with the permission of the other states.
Slaves have a right to freedom too, but forcing subjugation on others is not the proper way to prove subjugation is wrong.
You may not have studied this issue, but Abolition was slowly spreading. It would have eventually overtaken the South as well, but it would have taken longer. You should read Charles Dickens commentary on Slavery. He wrote about many Southern slave owners who had spoken with him about how they wanted to get out of slavery, but were at a loss as to how to do it without ruinous economic losses. His advice was to just do it.
Of course the desire to free the slaves was not the motivating force for Armies to invade the South, so it really has nothing to do with the Civil War.
Same neighborhood, no difference.
"A Red Leg, however, is regarded as more purely an indiscriminate thief and murderer than the Jayhawker or Bushwhacker."
BTW, Doodle - you gonna saddle up your NeverTrump horse again this political season? ;-)
Would I be correct is assuming that as a Lost Causer you have no problem with Quantrill, Bill Anderson, and the other Bushwackers?
You're obviously confusing me with someone else.
So 50 years? A hundred years? Would there still be slavery today? The fact that both the number and the price of slaves was increasing shows that it was far from fading away. And if anything, southern opposition to abolition was increasing. At the time the Constitution was ratified, you can find southern leaders saying that slavery was a necessary evil, but by the 1850s, they're arguing that it's a positive good. And far from "slowly spreading," abolitionist thought was actively persecuted in the south, including the banning of abolitionist literature and the lynching of people merely suspected of harboring abolitionist sympathies. So your "the south would have gotten around to freeing their slaves...eventually" rings hollow.
Of course the desire to free the slaves was not the motivating force for Armies to invade the South, so it really has nothing to do with the Civil War.
It's weird how you give the south no agency in bringing about the Civil War. Everything is the fault of the United States, nothing is the fault of the seceding states.
Which one invaded the other?
Not a Lost Causer, as I explained earlier.
So I assume you also blame the US for WW2, since we invaded Germany and they didn't invade us.
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.