Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
And so, critic answers critic.
Maybe they thought including slavery would be in their own economic and political best self interest."
But there's no "maybe" about it.
Our Founders absolutely believed that "a more perfect Union" would "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" -- that's it.
So, go ahead and speculate all you wish, that's what they said.
As for slavery, nearly all believed that while slavery was sometimes necessary to tolerate, it was also desirable to abolish slavery wherever possible.
No contradictions there -- they were content to do what they could to abolish slavery and leave the rest to future generations.
My reference wasn’t to the 1780s and the Framers of the Constitution, but to Baldwin’s 1830s comment and his other decisions relating to slavery. I was also thinking about how Thomas Jefferson reconciled himself to slavery in the last 20 years of his life, to how Robert E. Lee and others got credit for being “personally opposed” to slavery when they did nothing to oppose it, and to the similarity to the rhetoric of more recent politicians when it came to abortion. I didn’t mention it here, but I was also thinking of the myth that Stephen A. Douglas was “personally opposed” to slavery. The assumption was that slavery couldn’t be just fine with somebody, but the consensus now seems to be that it was for Douglas.
And an interesting aspect of this list is that they could all get their morals on the cheap. Very little profit from slaves in these areas, so why not preach from the pedestal of righteousness?
I am so cynical. I fully believe that if slavery was making them money in the North, we would still have it.
Actually we do. The Uyghurs in China and Chinese prison labor are all slaves, and people here just lap it up.
They don't mind slavery, they just don't want to be identified with it.
I keep being astonished that I have to explain this to you. Can you not grasp how this is so yourself?
I think you will more likely believe and understand it if you work it out yourself.
"Don't want no black people around here."
And people think they did it for noble reasons. That still cracks me up. :)
That's it? There is actually a little bit more in the preamble than you are willing to acknowledge.
Such as the phrase “provide for the common defence” - another way of saying protecting against military invasion. That is something I mentioned in my post 236 but you either didn't see or reject outright.
Such as the phrase “insure domestic Tranquility.” Yes, it includes the letters “tran” but it is not what you think. In this case tranquility means protecting political stability; mentioned in my post 236.
How do you strengthen your arguments by refusing to admit that is in the preamble?
Such as the phrase “promote the general welfare”; another phrase that you have exorcised. People smarter than me say its meaning includes to promote economic prosperity; again part of my beautiful post 236.
When you add together the parts of the preamble that you have subtracted it means our founders laid down corner stones to create a constitution they thought would be in their own economic and political best self interest.
Oh come on Professor. You are so damn smart and I am so damn stupid, please explain how the US Army convinced those poor innocent Klu Kluxers to run around and murder thousands of people. Was it mind control or something they put in the water? Us poor ignorant souls are waiting for your superior intellect to explain it.
Silly fellow. If you were alive in the 1850s you’d hear people saying that slavery should move into the territories and that slaveowners should be able to bring their slaves into any state. So free workers and enterprises that relied on free labor would have to compete with slave labor. Nobody was seriously talking about free Blacks coming North or West to compete with you. The question was whether the House Divided would become all slave or (eventually ... perhaps) all free. And if you opposed the expansion of slavery you weren’t competing for some moral crown. You were standing up for free society against slavery. What was the problem with that?
You have put your finger on the exact cause for why most people hated slavery. It wasn't because they cared about the slaves.
Nobody was seriously talking about free Blacks coming North or West to compete with you.
Illinois was. They passed laws to absolutely prevent it. These laws were so horrific, that the only conclusion you can reach is that they hated black people. These weren't slaves. These were free black people whom they absolutely did not want coming into their state.
And if you opposed the expansion of slavery you weren’t competing for some moral crown.
No, you were spreading a deliberate lie for the sake of gaining political power. I saw a video about Zachary Taylor a couple of weeks ago. He had fought in the Mexican/American war, and he had been all through the west and southwest. He was a whig, and his allies were annoyed with his indifference to the "expansion of slavery into the territories." He told them the entire idea is ridiculous, and that it wasn't possible.
So people at that time were well aware that "expansion of slavery into the territories" was just lying propaganda meant to scare people.
You were standing up for free society against slavery
I have read statements from prominent figures in the past, including Abraham Lincoln, that makes it clear they didn't want any black people in the territories, and they didn't care if they were free. They just didn't want any black people in their communities.
What was the problem with that?
The problem with that is that the motives (of most, not all) were self interest and prejudice, not ethics or morality. Sure, they covered themselves in the flag of morality, but this is what people do. They look for noble sounding reasons to do what they want, and that's how they tell the story to others.
Let's talk about the Vichy government and the French Underground.
The French Underground were of course the murdering criminals defying the authority of their government, n'est-ce pas?
“I didn’t mention it here, but I was also thinking of the myth that Stephen A. Douglas was “personally opposed” to slavery. The assumption was that slavery couldn’t be just fine with somebody, but the consensus now seems to be that it was for Douglas.”
Do you remember who said the following?
“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Repeat for emphasis: “I have no inclination to do so.”
Yes, in 1790 there were ~40,000 Northern slaves, ~650,000 Southern slaves.
In the North, Massachusetts & Vermont never recorded a slave in their census returns, though Vermont had fewer slaves before 1780 and was more gradual in abolition.
The 1790 Massachusetts census shows around 5,000 freed-blacks (~1% of total population), but we have no estimates on how many of those were slaves in 1780.
My guess is roughly half, since there were about 2,000 Massachusetts African-Americans who served in George Washington's Continental Army under promises of freedom in exchange for military service.
By 1783 they had returned from service with not only their promised freedom, but also military pay and bonuses.
This means a large number of freedmen were also freeholders and so eligible for citizenship rights such as voting and serving on juries.
As for how many slaves were converted into indentured servants -- there is no evidence of that, but it's entirely logical to suppose that many previous slave-servants were told in 1783: they were now free to leave, and if they decided to stay, they would be paid wages.
So, they decided to stay on as before, only now occasionally picking up a few dollars in spending money.
Regardless, what we know for certain is that Massachusetts' African-American population increased from about 5,000 in 1790 to nearly 10,000 in 1860, and that they loved their state enough to provide three full regiments (~3,000 men: 54th & 55th Infantry and 5th Cavalry) to the Union Army during the Civil War.
ladyjane: "To this day Massachusetts has never passed a law to abolish slavery."
Right, but according to Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice William Cushing, in the 1783 Quock Walker case (Cushing later became a SCOTUS justice, appointed by Pres. Washington, and briefly SCOTUS Chief Justice):
Cushing argued, in effect, that no laws were needed abolishing slavery, once all laws enforcing slavery had themselves been struck down.
Plus, Massachusetts did ratify:
Why thank you Professor. I have to admit, I never would have considered that the KKK were just freedom fighters as they terrorized and murdered innocent people much like the people who resisted those poor NAZIs in France. ( Hummm? Where’s that put the US Army that also fought against your poor NAZIs.?).
It’s so nice to have someone with a superior intellect like yours to keep the class informed. < / sarcasm >
That was in early 1861 before he became president. At that point, he had no lawful right and no power to interfere with slavery. After several years of war with the south where slaves became a strategic advantage for the Confederates he developed the emancipation proclamation, an executive order by the CiC for military necessity. By the closing months of the war, the people of the north saw what slavery had wrought on the nation and the 13 th Amendment passed by Congress and by December of that year was ratified.
Neither the emancipation proclamation or the 13th Amendment would have happened without the war. War changed everything.
Thank you for a really good summary of the slave situation in Massachusetts. People up there like to brag that they were the first to outlaw slavery centuries ago.
It’s difficult for people now to understand that slaves really didn’t have any good alternatives back then. A man needed land to farm or a good skill, e.g., farrier, printer. If they didn’t have either they had no way to support themselves. Women had fewer alternatives.
In the colonies, even if you were white, if you couldn’t support your family the town would ‘auction’ you off. People would bid on the opportunity to provide room and board for the family in return for their work until they were able to provide for themselves and their family. There was no welfare back then.
Families with money might send their second or later born male son to divinity school to become a minister or support their travel to a remote area where land was cheaper. Farmers with many boys couldn’t provide enough land for each of them to support raising a family.
Many people these days think their ancestors should have immediately freed all the slaves. That would have been a disaster. The colonies were in no position to provide support for thousands of people with limited skills. A century later there were even some slaves in the south who couldn’t support themselves living independently and wanted to return to slavery. Life was not easy back then.
So the Allies should not have bombed NAZI production facilities because innocent Jews worked their under NAZI compulsion?
The innocent tools of the occupiers are off limits, eh? Well what would you propose to do about the production of the weaponry of subjugation?
Answer the damn question Professor.
He said it afterward too. In fact, it's in his first inaugural address. But the way you say it implies that you think it's okay to lie until you get power so that you can enact your agenda.
At that point, he had no lawful right and no power to interfere with slavery.
He never did. At no time did he ever have the legal right to do what he did, he just did it anyway.
After several years of war with the south where slaves became a strategic advantage for the Confederates he developed the emancipation proclamation, an executive order by the CiC for military necessity.
It was not put forth solely for Military benefit, but also to gain a diplomatic advantage over the South. He knew slavery was unpopular in England, and the English had been playing footsie with the South for quite awhile during the war, and they had toyed with the idea of recognizing them as an independent government, which could have been a real headache for Lincoln.
By pushing his Emancipation Proclamation, he tapped into the British public's dislike of slavery, and made it less likely their government would provide official recognition of the South, and possibly slow down or stop their unofficial material support.
By the closing months of the war, the people of the north saw what slavery had wrought on the nation...
If you are talking about the deaths of 750,000 people, slavery didn't do that. It was the need to *CONTROL* the very lucrative commodities trade which pumped 700 million into the Northern economy every year, that did that. Slavery is only indirectly connected to that.
As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the Federal government was all for an amendment that would guarantee slavery indefinitely, so long as the South remained under *THEIR CONTROL*.
The sticking point between the two sides was INDEPENDENCE not the continuation of slavery.
But of course the Northern public was absolutely propagandized into believing evil slavery was the cause of everything that happened, because the bastards making all the money didn't tell them the war was really about money, they misled them into believing it was about slavery, just like they had misled them about "expansion of slavery" into places it could not possibly expand into.
You don't get it. The same nasty corrupt bastards using the Federal government to enrich themselves today, are the same sort of nasty corrupt bastards that used the government to enrich themselves back then.
They lie about what they are doing and why they are doing it. The "why" is always about making themselves rich and powerful, and the "what" is using the government either directly through bogus spending sent to their allies, (global warming hoax) or indirectly through selling government law or policies for bribes from both foreign and domestic interests who are willing to pay them. (Like the corrupt Bidens and Clintons.)
...and the 13 th Amendment passed by Congress and by December of that year was ratified.
No it wasn't. Armies *ORDERED* states to "ratify" it, and these rubber stamp Vichy governments simply did what they were ordered to do.
Now you may not grasp this, but that is not how the *LEGAL* amendment process works. That is how a dictatorship amendment process works.
The constitutionally legal process requires the consent of the actual citizens, not puppet governments controlled by Washington DC.
But people don't really care about following the Constitution provided they get the result they want, by fair means or foul.
Neither the emancipation proclamation or the 13th Amendment would have happened without the war.
Or the 14th, which has been the most abused and misused amendment since its creation. It has been the excuse used by dysfunctional Federal Judges to impose the most ridiculous nonsense on the states and on the people of America, and we have the fake ratifications by occupying armies to thank for this mess.
Hey Professor Know it All. Answer the damn question and quit changing the subject. How did the US Army force the KKK to go around murdering innocent people?
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.