Replies

[ProgressingAmerica #1] An historical research respecting the opinions of the founders of the republic on negroes as slaves, as citizens, and as soldiers. Read before the Massachusetts histor[i]cal soceity, August 14, 1862.

It was first produced in pamphlet form and excerpts from the pamphlet were read before the Massachusetts Historical Society. It was later expanded to book length based on the author's existing research material.

[ProgressingAmerica #21] Despite not wanting to believe the country is racist, the rest who are not poisoned have no idea where to look for the facts that will inform them that their gut instinct is correct - the country is not racist.

How do selective quotes from centuries ago speak to the state of racism today?

At the Framing, all 13 states undeniably embraced the lawfulness of slavery in the United States. "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." That provision, known as the Fugitive Slave Clause, was ratified by all thirteen original states, and remained the law of the land for over seventy years.

Perhaps it is worth noting that pages 3-18 of the book focus on the views of Jefferson Davis, Alexander H. Stephens, Chief Justice Taney, Justice McLean, Justice Curtis, Judge Gaston, George Bancroft, and Edward Everett, establishing a relation to the Civil War. Considering that cast of characters, it is interesting that it omits Abraham Lincoln.

The publication should be placed in historical perspective, coming on the cusp of changing the reason for the war from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. Also, a copy of Livermore's work was prominently presented to President Lincoln by Charles Sumner and may have influenced Lincoln's decision to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Livermore

In August 1862 Livermore wrote a historical research pamphlet on the opinions of the Founding Fathers of the United States of Negroes as slaves and as free citizens. Charles Sumner, the Republican senator from Massachusetts, presented Abraham Lincoln with a copy of Livermore's pamphlet in November 1862. The research work is thought by some historians to have influenced Lincoln's decision made between the issuance of the preliminary emancipation proclamation on September 22, 1862, and the finalized law decree of the proclamation on January 1, 1863, to include endorsing the use of former slaves as soldiers in the Union Army. Livermore's research goes into detail as to attitudes of the country's Founding Fathers as to slavery showing that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and the colonial principal leaders opposing the concept.

While one may readily find accurate quotes to show Washington and Jefferson speaking against the concept of slavery in the abstract; in real life both were slave owners until they died. Neither freed his slaves. Jefferson did free the family of Sally Hemings. While not mentioned by name, Madison was similar.

With the adoption of the Constitution, governance of the District was given exclusively to Congress. From the time the District was created, until the middle of the Civil War, slave trade continued in the District at the pleasure of the Federal Congress.

In the Introduction it is observed that, "In respect to the general subject of slavery, I apprehend he will find very little favorable to the institution among the relics of the great men of that period. Disgust at it was so general, as to be little less than universal. Among slaveholders, the language and hope of putting an end to the evil as soon as possible was on all their tongues; but, alas! it was far from being in all their hearts."

Yea verily, one must be careful to separate what was on their tongues from what was demonstrated by their acts.

When slavery departed in several Northern states, lengthy terms of indentured servitude arose, including up to 99-years. Black Laws were enacted to encourage any manumitted slave to self-deport to somewhere else, and to discourage any freed slave of another state from coming. When a Black invasion was feared in response to abolition, President Lincoln stated, "And in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?" (CW 5:536; 1 Dec 1862). The concept that the Union states could decide whether or not to receive free Blacks seems racist.

All accurate quotations are welcome but there are some legal concerns. Citizenship and natural born citizen have reappeared as glaring subjects of legal nonsense. The legal precedent of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause strikes down any and every conflicting law or claim inconsisent with it. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. The Congress is powerless to add or delete any qualification thereto.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 by Senator Lyman Trumbull, and the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause by Senator Jacob Howard, and the relevant Congressional debate explicitly indicate the authors' intent to include people of all colors. Included are all persons born within the territory of the United States who did not enjoy immunity from the laws of the United States at the time of their birth, irrespective of the citizenship status of the parents.

Quoting lifelong slave owners as being morally opposed to slavery should not be a persuasive argument to anyone. Selected pull quotes from two centuries ago are not an indicator of whether America is a racist nation today, or based on White supremacy today. Slavery was eliminated, indentured servitude was eliminated, black laws were eliminated, and someone was doing the eliminating. Denying racism existed at the Founding is to deny the blatantly obvious. But that is not to say the place has not changed in two and a half centuries.

"At the Framing, all 13 states undeniably embraced the lawfulness of slavery in the United States."

At the framing? Embraced? No. Deniably. This language is terrible and misleading. Slavery was a huge issue at the convention and it was only in regard to union/compromise that slavery was accepted. Some Founders openly discussed in the closed Convention having a foreign power court one or more of the states/colonies should certain needs not be met.

At the Founding is a different and much more telling question. By the time of the framing, after slavery had been had around a decade to set in, more states/colonies became embracing colonies whereas in the beginning there were only two. Georgia and South Carolina.

The real question is why had slavery been allowed to set in in the first place. The answer to that is that prior to Independence, forces within the empire up to and including the King himself prevented any law whatever from going into effect that would hamper either the slave trade or slavery itself. If it were left up to the colonies themselves without foreign intervention, at least 4 of the colonies would've at a minimum abolished the slave trade, and probably two would've abolished the whole thing in total by the time the calendar reaches Independence Day.

But the empire couldn't help it's meddling. The big slave empire. They didn't start embracing abolitionism until after Franklin was dead.

When I say that slavery was forced on the U.S., I mean it.

"How do selective quotes from centuries ago speak to the state of racism today?"

That depends on whether or not you fully trust and sincerely respect the headlines published by the New York Times. How about that Ibram X. Kendi, good guy, right? Let us know all about it. I don't know about anybody else but I really want to hear about your friend Kendi. The more paragraphs you can provide the better.

But if you are putting all of your trust and your hopes in the Times or any other outlet of progressive thought, well, that brings up a brand new ball of wax to discuss now doesn't it?

As I recall, the main point I was making was that the notion that the U.S. was founded as racist was false, I even pointed to Al Sharpton while stating that fact.(among others)

"Perhaps it is worth noting that pages 3-18 of the book..."

A tragic consequence as to the time frame of whence the book was published. I'd prefer to say less in this instance, because of that time frame.

"While one may readily find accurate quotes to show Washington and Jefferson speaking against....."

And John Jay? And Benjamin Franklin? Am I allowed Article 4 of the original Articles of Confederation? And do we have to only limit ourselves to the abolitionist founders quoted in this book? Why not a Stephen Hopkins or an Benjamin Rush, or even a James Otis Jr.?

The book also points out things said in the state ratifying conventions.

"Yea verily, one must be careful to separate what was on their tongues from what was demonstrated by their acts."

Acts build. So, no. Go ahead and try to cash that check, there isn't much in it. At the founding they were tasked with the terrible hardship of keeping together states which had abolished slavery with those who hadn't, lest they court some foreign power. This is a point Lincoln makes, the building of acts on top others, when citing the acts moving away from slavery - not toward it - as the decades went on. (Peoria speech; also Cooper Union) But I don't have to go just to some Lincoln quote, let's just count the numbers of the Founders and Framers themselves. Coming out of the slave empire, nearly 90% of the Founders owned slaves. By the time we get to the framing less than 50% owned slaves.(Or perhaps just over 50, I forget which) Go ahead, count them. You'll see. The direction they were moving couldn't be more clear.

The entire north as it came to exist by the time of CW wouldn't have been what it was - without Thomas Jefferson. That whole Northwest Ordinance and the banning of slavery. Ohio as a free state. That's Thomas Jefferson. Indiana as a free state. Jefferson. Illinois. Jefferson. Michigan. Jefferson. Wisconsin. Jefferson. Count'em. The finalized 1787 version largely carried his wording.

"Quoting lifelong slave owners as being morally opposed to slavery should not be a persuasive argument to anyone."

In the previous paragraph I just listed 5 reasons why its persuasive. Besides, people change their minds, and they deserve credit for when they do. Many of the most hardcore abolitionist came from the prior slave-owning ranks, and that's true both on the American and the British side. Now, it is well known that the laws of Virginia were tailored to prevent manumission - going back to the Empire(1723, I believe) - a snare that Jefferson got caught in. It's funny how Britain always ends up in the middle when dealing with slavery. But besides, you said "demonstrated by their acts", yea, ok. Let's move and look at those.

It is known that Jefferson's first act as a young legislator (or at least let's say one of his first) in the VA House of Burgesses was to get rid of slavery. He of course rips the King a new one in the Declaration Draught for pimping his negative(kingly veto) to protect slavery when the then-subject-colony of Virginia moved against it - a vote he would've voted for. There's the whole Northwest Ordinance thing previously accounted for above, and finally culminating in the 1808 ban on the trade when he was President.

Just focusing on acts, publicly and verifiable. Can you point to any time Jefferson advanced legislation, got all involved in and worked up about, or otherwise, and was a supporter of the institution of slavery?

Just acts. That was your qualification. Publicly and verifiable. Let's see them. He was involved with important acts for decades, you have plenty to reference.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1866 by Senator Lyman Trumbull, and the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause by Senator Jacob Howard, and the relevant Congressional debate explicitly indicate the authors' intent to include people of all colors."

And Article 4 of the Confederation.(1777-1789) Don't act like it's new.

woodpusher: "Quoting lifelong slave owners as being morally opposed to slavery should not be a persuasive argument to anyone.
Selected pull quotes from two centuries ago are not an indicator of whether America is a racist nation today, or based on White supremacy today."

Two points here, first: the issue of alleged "racism" today is utterly ridiculous redefinitions & political weaponizing words against Republicans generally and conservatives specifically.
In the minds of our insane Democrats, "racist" simply means "you disagree with me on something important".
It has no other meaningful definition or usage.

Second, for reasons only they could refuse to acknowledge, our Lost Causers want us to forget that our Founders were, in fact, not just in words, opposed to slavery and did actually abolish it, usually gradually, wherever and whenever they could:

Beginning in 1775 the Atlantic slave trade was banned or suspended during the Revolutionary War.
Beginning in 1777 Vermont gradually abolished slavery.
Beginning in 1780, Pennsylvania gradually abolished slavery.
Beginning in 1783, Massachusett's new state constitution abolished slavery, and New Hampshire began gradual abolition, followed by Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Beginning in 1787, Congress outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories.
Beginning in 1794, the Slave Trade Act prohibited US ships from participating in imports or exports of slaves.

The list goes on and demonstrates clearly that our Founders were fully committed to restricting and gradually abolishing slavery wherever they could.

None argued explicitly that slavery should be both perpetual and expanded wherever possible.
That did not really begin until abolition failed in Virginia, circa 1835.