Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
I am looking forward to checking out the references and links. I agree with you, the role of the Crown and of the abolitionist founders should be recognized on this subject.
Thanks for posting.
Life was hard in the early 1800’s. The white sharecroppers dies of starvation while slaves were fed because they had value.
(Barf)
(And now my favorite part) And then what happened?! And then what happened, Uncle Jeffersondem?!
The problem with Franklin was that he was a slave owner at one point. I think the Smithsonian ought to have a display about the Quakers who joined Franklin in forming the early abolitionist societies. Hamilton’s friend John Laurens, who promoted abolition, but died during the war would be another possibility.
“(And now my favorite part) And then what happened?!”
And then the United States adopted the one million page Federal Register to regulate your conduct.
Or is it two million pages now?
So the whole South leaving the Union and taking the Constitution with them didn’t work out? I guess you could say it was a lost cause. Welp, at least we have Jefferson Davis’ word that, “If the Union is ever to be broken again, let it not be by us.” If only you cats hadn’t of shot Lincoln in the back of the head it might have worked out better for you.
That is absolutely the best argument to justify Lincoln's War: Lincoln was divinely told to kill hundreds of thousands of his political and economic competitors, suspend habeas corpus, and imprison newspaper publishers.
It is a strong argument because it is very difficult to disprove a religious claim - even a fantastic religious claim.
The postwar “Won Cause Myths” are weak by comparison. Consider the myth that the Declaration of Independence does not permit unilateral secession (i.e. the king must approve).
Or the “Won Cause Myth” that the Union slave state of Delaware fought the Confederate slave state of Florida to “free the slaves.”
Or the myth that the Union slave state of Maryland fought the Confederate slave state of Virginia to “free the slaves.”
Or the myth that the Union slave state of Kentucky fought the Confederate slave state of Tennessee to “free the slaves.”
Or the myth that the Union slave state of Missouri fought the Confederate slave state of Arkansas to “free the slaves.”
And so forth and so on.
Barf
It’s what happened. The Confederacy lost. Otherwise, Civil War would have happened again every 20 years or so.
bkmk
No, you are wrong on that. The reason they allowed slavery in the Constitution was in order to have unanimous consent to the document. They knew that at the very least South Carolina and Georgia would not have consented to the constitution with out slavery, and even Georgia may have gone along because of their concern for the British in Florida being a threat.
You had strong opponents of slavery such as Franklin in Pennsylvania who actually were involved in drafting the constitution. They did not go along for economic reasons. They saw it as necessary in order to stay United. They also saw slavery as a poor economic system which would end on its own soon enough. And it would have if not for the invention of the cotton gin, short fiber cotton and the growth of king cotton in the early decades of the 19th century. That, they could not have predicted.
You have a very cartoonish view of the civil war, but I suppose it is necessary to have a cartoonish view in order to find any support for what the confederates did.
Diogeneslamp said: "Benjamin Franklin was a slaveowner most of his life."
Hello X, (Username X, and also hello Diogeneslamp)
It is no problem at all, in reality. On one hand, the only way this Franklin's info can be a problem is if you are willing to accept The 1619 Project version of history without challenge and that you agree that the United States invented slavery against the Blacks in the U.S.'s imperialist colony of Virginia that the U.S. government founded in 1619 because of racism.
On the other hand if the fake history that the British Empire was a slaving Empire - yes, I get blasted all the time for saying this false thing - is actually true, Virginia is not a colony of the U.S., then we have to realize that slave-owning abolitionists is no problem at all and the timeline is the undisputed heavyweight knockout champion.
I keep trying to impress upon people that it was the patriots who embraced abolitionism, and it was the loyalists who embraced slaving. Nothing, nothing more exemplifies this fact than the slave-owning abolitionists and their lives as a timeline. All of our lives are timelines. Those like Franklin who was a slaveowner as an Englishman but an abolitionist as an American is part of what I mean. That's what the timeline shows. Tell me I'm wrong? That's why the heavyweight champion, the timeline, is undisputed. And your comment doesn't just apply to Franklin.
John Dickinson was a slaveowner as an Englishman. John Dickinson was an abolitionist as an American. The British didn't really start wholesale embracing abolitionism until after the 1800s. But here are our Founding Fathers leading the cause. Our Abolitionist Founding Fathers, they are properly called.
Progressivism cannot withstand any assault with this. They are powerless if we just rely on our abolitionist founding fathers. This is the power we leave on the table.
Again, John Jay was also a slave-owning abolitionist. John Jay was a slaveowner as an Englishman. John Jay was an abolitionist as an American.
Do you understand?
I'm dead serious with this question. Do you understand?
The slave-owning abolitionist Founding Fathers are the most valuable ones out of all of them. I wish we had more of them.
I think I've been quite clear with all of you over the months probably years. I do not accept The 1619 Project propaganda. I reject it wholly. All of it. Every shred is false. Whatever they say, the opposite is in fact the truth. That includes this item about the slave-owing abolitionists. If you think I'm wrong then can you tell me how Franklin the Englishman as a slaveowner, and Franklin the American as an abolitionist is powerless? How is this powerless? Be specific. Show me what The 1619 Project gets correct because I'm just completely missing it. Anything in The 1619 Project narrative, what do they get correct?
Bookmarked! Thank you.
“The reason they allowed slavery in the Constitution was in order to have unanimous consent to the document.”
I don’t agree with you; here’s why.
The Constitution’s Article VII states: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.”
The Founders were prepared to lose as many as four of the original 13 states and still have a country of nine states.
In fact only 12 of the states had representatives sign the proposed Constitution sent to the states for ratification; Rhode Island did not originally sign.
The unanimous thing was part of the postwar “Won Cause Myth”.
On a scale of 1 to 10 how strong was Benjamin Franklin in opposing slavery? I ask this because he owned several slaves.
Yes, I know that two months before he died he sent an antislavery petition to the first Congress.
And I know he opposed slavery strongly enough that he directed that his slaves be freed after his death.
Franklin had the guts to basically go it alone and publicly call out the British Empire's naked hypocrisy with the Somersett Case.
The Sommersett Case and the Slave Trade, 18–20 June 1772
Can sweetening our tea, &c. with sugar, be a circumstance of such absolute necessity? Can the petty pleasure thence arising to the taste, compensate for so much misery produced among our fellow creatures, and such a constant butchery of the human species by this pestilential detestable traffic in the bodies and souls of men? Pharisaical Britain! to pride thyself in setting free a single Slave that happens to land on thy coasts, while thy Merchants in all thy ports are encouraged by thy laws to continue a commerce whereby so many hundreds of thousands are dragged into a slavery that can scarce be said to end with their lives, since it is entailed on their posterity!
It is impossible to miss that Franklin is clearly white-hot pissed off in this very short writing. And it's not that the Somersett Case happened that has him upset. Franklin is upset that no slaves in any colony were actually freed, combined with their boasts afterward. What the British Empire proceeded to do after Somersett was to proclaim loudly everywhere the superiority of British principles.
Meanwhile the hypocrisy could not be ignored. Especially by a man who lived in one of the Empire's slave colonies, who was born in one of the Empire's slave colonies.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Pennsylvania, Franklin's home, or for that matter his birthplace of Massachusetts.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Virginia.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Maryland.
Or anywhere else in the 13 colonies. Additionally,
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Antigua.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Barbuda.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Jamaica, Barbados, Bermuda, or anywhere else in the Empire-controlled West Indies.(Caribbean)
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in what turned into Canada.
The Somersett Case had no bearing on slavery in India.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Nigeria.
Which, by the way, India, Nigeria, and several other places were not even affected by the 1833 British abolition bill. India didn't get abolitionism until 1848, and Nigeria I think wasn't even until 1901, several decades after the U.S. So in that regard the U.S. was first, jeffersondem, because we were 1865 and they were 1901.
Simply put, the Somersett Case is nothing but a study of hypocrisy in the context of any and I do believe all of the British Empire's colonies. I can't think of any one of the Empire's colonies that did not have slavery. That's what the Founding Fathers were born into. The Founders did not choose that! That's why it was normal for them initially and for most of their lives until they started becoming patriots and realizing that freedom was meant for all people, including souls born in Africa or of Africa. Not just Europeans.
Now, to be fair, the Somersett Case was never designed to free the slaves in any colony. But then with that fact on the table why is The 1619 Project blaming the United States for the Empire's slavery? Why is jeffersondem blaming the United States for the Empire's slavery? Why is diogeneslamp blaming the United States for the Empire's slavery?
Here is a simple test. Could have? Could have! Could have the Somersett Case ended slavery all across the British Empire. (regardless of any consequences, it's just a simple yes or no question)
The answer is yes. The empire could have chosen to do the Somersett Case differently and freed every last slave, right then and there. Could have, yes, been done. The simple answer is yes. The undeniable answer is yes. The ONLY answer is yes. They are a monarchy. If they wanted it done it would be done.
So then what the heck of anybody who blames America, colonies lacking independence and under the threat of kingly veto? It does not work.
You seem to be struggling to support your shaky contention that the United States invented abolition.
Please stop with your Lost Cause Mythology. As we all know, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (the first Constitution of the US) required all 13 Colonies to ratify. You are obfuscating that with the reason why it only took nine States to ratify the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and thus create the final US Constitution. All thirteen States were still part of the Union whether they voted to change it or not.
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.