Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
An interesting thing is happening right now and its really a fantastic opportunity to highlight just how useful our current roster of audio books is in the context of how home schoolers and others can remind our fellow Americans that yes, our Founding Fathers did get it right - and that includes on the topic of slavery, and where can you find the truth? How can you give others the truth? How can we all join together to undermine America's historical class who does not want anybody to know the real American history?
Slavery was indeed bad. Let's get that out of the way, and those four words stand on their own merit. Slavery was indeed bad. Now, we have to ask the opposite. Was early American abolitionism an universal good? I think it was. Was early American abolitionism a thing we can be proud of? Is early American abolitionism a thing we should be proud of? If not, then this discussion is not for you. But if you are proud of America and you are proud of the early American abolitionists, then I'm certain you are going to learn something here. So get ready.
The Smithsonian is something that all of us used to think was something that was on our side. We used to think the Smithsonian had America's best interests at heart. We have come to realize that this cannot be true, not as long as the Smithsonian has a one-sided vision for telling the U.S.'s story. If the narrative is really going to be one sided, then the Smithsonian have cast themselves as propagandists.
So who were America's Abolitionist Founding Fathers? Well, they were Founding Fathers to be sure. Signers of the Declaration, signers of the Continental Association, members of the Continental Congress, and signers of other documents less well known and also the Articles of Confederation and Constitution itself. This is also by no means meant to be an exhaustive and all encompassing list covering every aspect and nook and cranny, I did not prepare for that in advance.
The Founding Father who everybody will recognize, who was also an ardent abolitionist, was Benjamin Franklin. Franklin is often times most remembered for Poor Richard's Almanack, also for the key and the kite in the lightning storm. But Franklin was also a great man in another way - his ardent belief in the necessity of abolitionism.
A quick point of contention before I continue. For some odd reasons, many conservatives are decidedly not proud of this. I must say, I cannot fathom why. You aren't ceding any ground to progressives by promoting the Abolitionist Founding Fathers. In fact, the opposite is actually true. The progressives have spent generations engaging in a mass coverup of U.S. history and a sweeping under the rug of all things positive about U.S. history.
The Abolitionist Founding Fathers? Yes, of course I found it under the rug. I pulled it out from under the rug and now I want people to see how beautiful it is. Look at how it shines! Look at how it sparkles! I just find it odd that some claimaints of America First suddenly forget to be First with this specific topic. You really need to question your motives.
Now, was Benjamin Franklin the only abolitionist among the people who Founded the United States? Of course not! But surely I must be now be about to be forced into Founders that history forgot because they did one thing and nobody ever heard from them again.
Nope. I was thinking John Jay, who not only was an abolitionist but taught his son William to be an abolitionist. John Jay was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. That's right, one of the authors of The Federalist was an opponent of the institution of slavery. Bet your history teachers didn't teach you that one did they! Mine didn't. And why would teachers teach this, they're engaged in a mass coverup about the topic. Jay was a towering figure at America's founding. Besides helping with the Federalist Papers and being a governor of the important state of New York, he negotiated the end of the Revolutionary War with the 1783 Treaty of Paris and followed it up later with the Jay Treaty in 84, bringing a decade of peace to the U.S. between Britain.
That's now two, and these are big names - two Abolitionist Founding Fathers.
Now ask yourself this question. How come the Smithsonian Institute is incapable of figuring this out? How come the Smithsonian is incapable of discovering this? Well, they aren't incapable. Their ATTITUDE prevents them. Their STINKING ATTITUDE, the Smithsonian's ARROGANCE, that is what keeps the Smithsonian from teaching people of how integral abolitionism of slavery was at the very beginning of the U.S.'s journey. And yes, it was integral. It wasn't nearly the top priority, but anybody who says slavery abolitionism was non-existent is flat out lying when we can all see the documentation, see the dates of when those documents were written, and see that it is true. And in good enough time, it'll be audio as well. I'm just sorry I can't work faster.
Now, I have yet to work on the creation of an audio book for John Jay, but I will some day, and about Franklin there are several audio books at LibriVox to help make educating about his life easier.
Let's move on. Let's talk for a moment about Stephen Hopkins, who today is entirely forgotten but in the 1770s was very well known as a pamphlet writer until he (like many others) were eclipsed by the explosive popularity of Paine's Common Sense. We often hear about how so many of the Founders were pamphleteers, and even teachers will teach this without specifics. Ask yourself, why is it we never hear specifically about what exactly were those pamphlets? Was was in those pamplhets? Who were the other pampleteers? Was there 3 others, was there 3,000? Who? Where? Well, Hopkins was one of them and his pamphlet, "The Rights of Colonies Examined", was resoundingly popular. Hopkins went on to eventually sign the Declaration of Independence and was Governor of Rhode Island.
The real key to Hopkins importance though (in today's context) is his opposition to slavery. He authored one of the first of its kind laws in the colonies (at this point the U.S. did not exist) in the year 1774, and the law completely did away with the slave trade. And, and, the law was passed through the legislature. So all of Rhode Island was onboard with the concept. But in the colonies, Governors were crown creatures instead of being elected. They were puppets. Their real job was to thwart colonial freedom and enforce kingly desires. And this crown's puppet refused to enforce the law. So even in spite of being a law duly passed by the people's representatives to abolish the slave trade, the crown still killed it. Rhode Island kept going in slave trading into the 1800s, entirely in line with the crown's wishes. Not the patriots' wishes, the crown. The crown owns this, without any distinction at all.
Now, this episode is one instance of where I come in as you just saw and I say the most incindiary thing (and fact-based thing BTW) that the British Empire forced slavery on the U.S. And its true. The British Empire forced slavery on the U.S. Hopkins' work is one example of this. Those 13 colonies saw this again and again, laws either being ignored or outright vetoed by the King's pen, so none dared go any further. Why bother passing dead laws? That is so clearly a waste of time. But had the colonies had the freedom and independence to pass their own laws without crown creatures being jerks and without the threat of a kingly veto, it is a very real assertion to say that at least one or a few of the colonies would have become free-soil by the time Independence Day appeared. The reverse is also true. Nobody can state that the U.S. chose slavery. Even those most critical of the Founding Fathers only dare go so far as to say that slavery was a "tolerated" institution by the Founders. And in using this word "tolerate", they do in fact expose their deception. The emperor once again has no clothes.
Benjamin Rush, another signer of the Declaration of Independence, was a very busy man. On top of being a physician he having his finger on the pulse of patriotic endeavors, and was also an abolitionist. In his work as an abolitionist, Benjamin Rush wrote a pamphlet titled "An Address to the Inhabitants of British America". But this pamphlet was not just a free-standing work, it was written with a specific agenda. Benjamin Rush worked together with prominent abolitionist Anthony Benezet on this project. Historian Maurice Jackson pointed out that Benezet and Rush worked together using this pamphlet to put pressure on the Pennsylvania legislature to pass a law putting heavy tariffs on the importation of slaves in order to hopefully put a stop to it. (Let This Voice Be Heard, pp. 122-123)
This sort of pressure campaign between Benezet and Rush, specifically in the context of colonial slavery of black Africans, was unheard of anywhere in the world and was the first of its kind. This kind of pressure campaign using pamphlets and later images, paintings and where available photographs, would be copied by British abolitionists and even later American abolitionists during the era of the Civil War. Benjamin Rush, a Founding Father, and Anthony Benezet are the source of all of it. That's why Jackson calls Benezet the "Father of Atlantic Abolitionism", its because Britain did not invent this.
Abolitionism was wholly invented and created right here in the United States(colonies). British abolitionists copied us. We did that. We own it. And we deserve the credit for it. Now, let's cover briefly Rush's actual pamphlet. What was written in it? Among other things, Rush wrote:
The first step to be taken to put a stop to slavery in this country, is to leave off importing slaves. For this purpose let our assemblies unite in petitioning the king and parliament to dissolve the African company. It is by this incorporated band of robbers that the trade has been chiefly carried on to America. (p.21)
Rush does not mince words here. Who does Rush blame for slavery in American colonies? Britain. How can slavery in the colonies be stopped? Petition Parliament. Who created slavery in American colonies? The British Empire did that. It wasn't the United States who did that, a simple calendar proves that. It wasn't some random tribal lords in Africa who did that, they never set foot outside of Africa. And Rush also links together clearly that slavery is the slave trade, and the slave trade is slavery. The two are one in the same. Stopping one (they believed at the time) is how to stop the other. If you want to say the abolitionists got the idea incorrect looking backwards hey that's great. They got it wrong. But let's be sober, let's not get drunk off of modern propaganda that somehow the slave trade and slavery are different. They are not. The abolitionists all viewed the two as exactly the same and it was this way with the British abolitionists as well.
Now, if you so choose you can listen to an audio book of Rush's auto biography here. The lives of all of the Founding Fathers is so important for all of us to continually learn, study, and reflect on. Let's continue`.
John Dickinson, again one of the signers of the Declaration and also one of the largest slave owners in his colony/state at the time. Another wildly popular pamphleteer writing "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania", perhaps the only other pamphlet from the time(besides Common Sense) that Americans remain somewhat knowledgable about its existence. Dickinson became an abolitionist in connection with his Quakerism similar to Anthony Benezet, and would manumit every last one of his slaves along with becoming a vocal advocate for laws abolishing both slavery and the slave trade. We currently have an audio book in production about the life of Dickinson and hopefully some day soon I can happily tell everybody about the completion of that work and its contents. And, most importantly, Dickinson's very important life and the lessons we can learn from him. That is the goal. Continuing education about our wonderful Founding Fathers.
Elias Boudinot, not a signer of the Declaration but he was a President of the Continental Congress, also took up the banner of opposition to slavery, He joined the Pennsylvania Anti Slavery Society (which Franklin was one-time President of) and in addition to work in abolitionist causes he was a founder of the American Bible Society. Like so many of our Founders, the life of Elias Boudinot has been completely eradicated and for that, I do have an audio book of his Life and Times in the works but it will be complete when it is complete.
So there you have it, six prominent Founding Fathers who were both well known in their day, as well as being definitively involved with abolitionist movements during the times of the birth of the United States either right before it or shortly after its establishment.
Do you want to sabotage progressivism? Talk about America's Abolitionist Founding Fathers. They are one in the same: talking about the abolitionist Founding Fathers is sabotaging progressivism. I, definitely, make it a point to at all places and all times frustrate progressivism by runing their hard work over this last century, so I will obviously have more to say about America's Abolitionist Founding Fathers. Especially as I can get more audio books introduced about their life and works to supercharge the educational capabilities about the wondrous and fantastic Founding of the United States of America.
Now. Who couldn't possibly be proud of all this?
Note: Outside of visible abolitionism there were many Founders who were ardently anti-slavery even if they did not act on it. Additionally, there were some who did own many slaves while being against slavery as a concept and institution. Among those known to oppose slavery would be George Mason, Roger Sherman, Henry Laurens, Gouverneur Morris, both of the Adams', John and Samuel, and most controversially Thomas Jefferson among others; Jefferson acted repeatedly legislatively to actually get rid of slavery making him truly unique in any of the relating categories. And even more Founders were privately against slavery but properly put union above all objects, the two most prominent names being George Washington and Patrick Henry.
As a final thought, I leave you with two very well documented works on early abolitionism and in relation to the Founding Fathers, and the life of Anthony Benezet.(both text and audio)
Memoirs of the Life of Anthony Benezet
It was a simple mistake, my thoughts being located elsewhere. But anyways, getting paid/compensated is a fundamental distinction separate from slavery.
"A roof over your head, enough wood to keep you warm for the winter and food in your stomach was the most important thing then.
Doing genealogy I have found it amazing that second and third born sons would be able to hook up a wagon and move 100 miles away to find land, chop wood, build a shelter and raise a family."
Then "servant" is the correct word, not "slave". It was not a bait and switch for Massachusetts. The former slaves got compensation and moved around when they chose to leave.
“But it’s (own economic and political best self interest) still not what they said, ever.”
. . . as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
That is not found in the Constitution; it is in the other thing.
I am not. Massachusetts had an abolitionist culture going back to 1768 which was crown vetoed by both of the loyalist royalist governors Hutchinson and Bernard. Both of them thwarted the will of the people in those days, sometimes using nefarious underhanded methods. woodpusher and I had some back and forth about it here: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4172958/posts?page=179#179 WP doesn't deny it either, what is there to deny? The crown did actually do these things.
Just because that culture existed though does not mean 100% of the people were gung-ho about it. In plain language, all men are equal is all men are equal. That is absolutely the mindset of an abolitionist. They are always saying this without distinction and Massachusetts' leaders, such as but not limited to John Adams are very much like this.
Especially when the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 was authored by that very John Adams. John Adams' specific lack of outrage here tells a very important story one way or another.
You talk a big game about trying to understand people well now's a time to put your big boy pants on DiogenesLamp and understand these people where John Adams stands in 1780, not where DiogenesLamp is standing in 2025.
"If the *INTENT* was to abolish slavery, you say it plainly and clearly. You don't just put in some mellifluous language about "all men are born free and equal.""
That is not always true. When the colonies were trying to put an end to slavery in their earliest attempts, that is not at all what they did.
You're applying an 19th century-era thought process to people a century before. What they did in the 18th century was pass a tariff high enough to be exclusionary. You and I, we are all standing here living in 2025 but your mindset is still stuck in 1866. You're a hundred years too late on this!
Your problem here is the lack of reading. Go scroll all the way back up and read the actual law itself, post 1. Nowhere does it actually say "we intend to kill slaving", it is simply a tariff high enough in their view that would be severely detrimental toward it, making it no longer possible in practice. The king recognized it. The king clearly recognized it. He even called them out on it and threaten to inflict pain because of it. You put an end to slaving, I'm going to hurt you - that was specifically what the king said in plain language. They then replied basically admitting the truth, "we want to put a stop to this".
Again, the very much alive in 1783 John Adams' lack of outrage here does indeed tell us that Cushing got it right all along in regards to your "intent". John Adams did not intend all men but hey lets exclude blacks. That's DiogenesLamp's bias.(and no I do not mean racial bias, I mean legalistically)
John Adams was a very precise man when it came to his words. Cushing did not get it wrong. We would know. We would have a written record of something.
I’m cool with that too. But in 1776 nor 1787 redemptioners and indentureds together didn’t amount to less than 1%. That’s wholly manufactured silliness.
Indentured servitude didn’t stop being a thing until it was fully abolished in the 1820s/1830s when debtor prisons were abolished.
Go ahead and cite your sources.
I think we pretty much agree they were servants not slaves, at least not in the traditional sense. The majority of them really had no options if they had no land or skills. They certainly couldn’t move any time they wanted to leave unless someone could provide them food and a place to live.
Re compensation, apparently in the south some compensation was allowed, especially if a slave had a much needed skill. Some accumulated enough money to buy themselves or others out of slavery. I haven’t read much about financial compensation in Massachusetts and what was allowed under the law. If you know about that or have any sources I’d be interested in learning more.
It's not an error in logic.
Abolitionism is more about legalistic mores than it is anything else regardless of the era, but especially and in particular coming out of an enforced slave colony such as those the Empire enforced. And yes, enforced is overwhelmingly the correct word to use. The Empire protected slavery, this isn't a question. I mean slavery, not just slave trading.
The error is yours; John Newton had the privilege of the British Empire's hypocrisy of greedily hoarding slavery abolitionism all for itself on the Isles and not sharing the blessings of slavery abolitionism across the board specifically with the 1772 Somersett Case - this very thing is actually, in plain text, the very complaint that Benjamin Franklin makes.
It's that complaint, down to the very letter of written words. You can read it! I linked to it, post 1. Go read. The empire hoarded abolitionism in a greedy manner, being hypocrites. The Empire didn't share abolitionism with Virginia, not with Pennsylvania, Jamaica, none of them. They hoarded it.
As such, anybody in a colony was trapped. Legally. Slavery was forced on them.
John Dickinson, John Jay, and many others adopted abolitionist mindsets first. That is, they first recognized it is wrong. That's the first step in the process. They second began whatever processes they needed to engage in after decades of living in a normalized slave colony, in order to free their own slaves. Third and final comes the day when all the slaves are manumitted.
Being an abolitionist isn't in stage 3. It's stage 1. It's the mindset. Stop applying modernist thinking to this issue. You're incorrect. This is not an event, it is a process. Many colonies had legal traps to prevent abolition and manumission in its entirety. It takes time to write up new contracts. It takes time to setup the colonies as states, where the life of all of the people is a greater priority than those enslaved. New York didn't have the luxury of being Ohio which was brand spanking new and entirely clean of the slave Empire's existing hundred years worth of local slave laws. Let me say that one again. New York didn't have the luxury of being Ohio which was brand spanking new and entirely clean of the slave Empire's existing hundred years worth of local slave laws.
You've been entirely polluted by the Civil War. It's just sad. You don't know how to love your country anymore and show our Founders some grace.
"This "do as I say, not as I do" mindset is hypocrisy.
It's not, that statement is total anti-Garrisonian Bulls............. pile. Anyways. Stop with your Civil War silliness. This isn't the Civil War. For the Garrisonians having the luxury of the work that the Founders completed before the man Garrison was even born, abolitionism was not a process, it was an event. You've been in that CW fight for far too long its like you're a golden hammer trying to turn everything into a nail. These are not nails to be smacked. Stop swinging.
The earliest Founding Father abolitionists had no viewpoint of "do as I say not as I do". They had a "I'm trapped by the laws set in place by the Empire" mindset until said laws could be changed. Or for some it was being trapped by several generations of proud Englishmen slaveowners in their own genealogy. Fathers, grandfathers, and so forth. As well as simple and not so simple legal contracts. It takes time to unwrap all of that stuff and in a lot of cases there were multiple contexts. It wasn't just "my dad was a". It was also genealogy, family, legal contracts, legal hurdles, as well as personal finances all at the same time concurrently.
You need to stop hating on the Founding Fathers the way you do with the Civil War figures like Lincoln. Take that hat off. It is not warranted here. The Founders are not Lincoln.
For the founders slavery abolitionism was a process, not an event. It was multiple processes to get to the event.
For the garrisonians slavery abolitionism was an event, not a process. Garrison never knew what life was like in the Empire's slave colony.
Not when you live in the empire’s slave colony and the crown holds the veto pen. Your seemingly wise words are only an absurdity and firmly standing on the grounds of historical malpractice.
I just realized an error. I did not link to Benjamin Franklin’s excoriation of the Somersett Case as I thought I had done.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-19-02-0128
Franklin was correct to point out the Empire’s absurd hypocrisy and hoarding.
And
"This "do as I say, not as I do" mindset is hypocrisy."
It is very sad to see such anti-Americanism on display here. Sucking up to the King of an empire that doesn't even exist anymore, an empire that actually hurt us, meanwhile refusing grace to our own Founders upon notions that do not apply to them at all. The Founders on the issue of slavery did not have a "do as I say, not as I do" mindset.
The Civil War is polluting and corrupting you and you don't even see it.
Following the money is leading you to terrible conclusions. Historical malpractice.
The rest of your post is nonsense posturing. The king hurt the south and you plainly don't give a damn. So don't pretend about any giving a damn here. You can't have it both ways.
What's your favorite word? Oh yeah, hypocrisy. The king hurt the south and that was sweet sweet music for you. So go turn your earpods on and go listen to the symphony.
You don't care about the south at all. Stop playing games.
You keep saying that. I never said that.
That has nothing to do with the fact that had they intended to abolish slavery through the Massachusetts constitution they would have stated so plainly and without ambiguity.
As JeffersonDem is sometimes fond of saying "Critic answers Critic."
Please humor me with your awesome brain power.
Slavery was not invented in 1788, slavery was not invented in 1776. Stop. You have zero customers buying this garbage narrative.
The Evil Empire did not force slavery on the United States of America prior to 1776. There was no United States of America prior to 1776.
Thje Evil Empire did not fdorce anything on the United States of America after July 4, 1776.
The Evil Empire most certainly did not force the Fugitive Slave Clause on the United States of America ihn 1788.
Continue to beclown yourself.
Kabuki point number 1: I said the Empire's slavery was indistinguishable between the thirteen colonies and the Caribbean.
The thirteen colonies were not the United States of America. They were British colonies. You are Mr. Irrrelevancy.
Kabuki point number 2: I said the Founders opposed the Empire's slavery. Many of them did
Upon becoming thirteen free, sovereign, and independent states, all thirteen original states continued slavery under The Articles of Confederation, and subsequently under the Constitution. They did this as free, sovereign and independent states as an exercise of their own free will. The Evil Empire did not force them to adopt the Fugitive Clause.
Kabuki point number 3: I said the U.S. inherited slavery against its will from the Empire. Never once do you explicitly say that slavery was in high demand among the founders. Never once.
The United States of America continued slavery of its own free will as free, sovereign states, independent of the Evil Empire and everyone else.
Never once do you document any of the original states prohibiting slavery upon their becoming a free, sovereign and independent state, and adopting laws of their own free will.
Never once do you mention that in 1860, there were more free blacks in the slave states than in the free states.
Never once do you mention that 10 of the first 12 elected presidents, beginning with lifetime slave owner George Washington, was a slave owner.
Never once do you mention that the owner of Etheldred Scott was a Massachusetts abolitionist congress critter.
The crown routinely vetoed abolitionist laws in the colonies.
The British colonies were not the United States of America.
After a colony became a free, sovereign and independent state, they acted of their own free will, independent of the Crown or anybody else.
I just realized an error. I did not link to Benjamin Franklin’s excoriation of the Somersett Case as I thought I had done.https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-19-02-0128
Franklin was correct to point out the Empire’s absurd hypocrisy and hoarding.
R. v. Knowles, ex parte Somerset, (1772) Lofft 1, 98 E.R. 499, 20 S.T. 1. This case style is the form appropriate to a habeas corpus action. The case is referred to in the English Reports, and often in the literature, as Somerset v Stewart.
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty/567/
George Van Cleve, Somerset’s Case and Its Antecedents in Imperial Perspective, 24 LAW & HIST. REV. 601 (2006). 46 pp. download.
Abstract
Historians have argued for decades about what Mansfield actually said in his oral decision and its effects. Today’s prevailing view on the decision’s narrow holding, which this article strengthens using new evidence, is that in Somerset Mansfield did not intend to emancipate slaves in England.
- - - - -
Slaves did not become free after breathing the air of Britain, but they could not be forcibly removed from Britain without their consent.
Lord Mansfield ruled that common law did not cover slavery and slavery could only exist under positive law.
The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.
Britain at the time held slaves in a status between chattel slave property and being free men and citizens. The case and its ~200 word decision had no direct effect on slaves or slavery outside Britain. Post-Somerset a slave who traveled back to a slave jurisdiction had the condition of slavery reattach and had no judicial claim to freedom. See the case of The Slave Grace 2 Hagg. Admir. (G.B.) 94, (1827).
Lemmon v. The People, is an interesting case which occurred after Dred Scott. Both appear to follow the rule of The Slave, Grace, (1827) from Britain. In Lemmon the action was initiated while the plaintiffs were in a free state (New York) and the law of that state prevailed.
In the case of Lemmon v. The People,
The Lemmons were Virginia slaveholders moving to Texas. The fastest route, although hardly the most direct, was to take a boat from Norfolk to New York City and then change for a ship that was heading for New Orleans. In 1852 they came to New York with their eight slaves. While they were there, a black dockworker obtained a writ of habeas corpus and a local judge ruled that under New York law the "eight colored Virginians," as the judge called them, became free the moment their owner brought them into the state. This decision was consistent with precedents dating from the Somerset case (1772). In 1857 a middle-level New York court upheld the Lemmon decision, but in the aftermath of Dred Scott the state of Virginia appealed the decision to New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals. In 1860 that court also upheld the original ruling in favor of freedom.
SOURCE: Dred Scott v. Sandford, A brief History with Documents, Paul Finkelman, (1997), p. 47.
The case was not appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was a New York state case.
The referenced Somerset case is a British case, Somerset v. Stewart, 1 Lofft (G.B.) 1, (1772).
In Somerset Lord Mansfield, chief justice of the Court of King's Bench, declared:
So high an act of dominion [as enslavement of a human being] must be recognized by the law of the country where it is used.... The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political;... it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law.
However, in speaking of the Somerset rule, one must also consider the case of The Slave, Grace, 2 Hagg. Admir. (G.B.) 94, (1827)
In The Slave, Grace (1827), the English High Court of Admiralty modified the Somerset rule. Grace, a West Indian slave, had been taken to England but then returned to Antigua with her master. She sued for her freedom only after returning to Antigua. Lord Stowell, speaking for the English court, held that Grace was still a slave. Stowell found that residence in England only suspended the status of a slave. Without positive law, the master could not control a slave in England and could not force a slave to leave the realm. But if a slave did return to a slave jurisdiction, as Grace had, then the law of England would no longer be in force and the person's status would once again be determined by the laws of the slave jurisdiction.
SOURCE: Dred Scott v. Sandford, A brief History with Documents, Paul Finkelman, (1997), p. 21.
The error is yours; John Newton had the privilege of the British Empire's hypocrisy of greedily hoarding slavery abolitionism all for itself on the Isles and not sharing the blessings of slavery abolitionism across the board specifically with the 1772 Somersett (sic - Somerset) Case - this very thing is actually, in plain text, the very complaint that Benjamin Franklin makes.
Somerset, more properly R. v. Knowles, ex parte Somerset, (1772) Lofft 1, 98 E.R. 499, 20 S.T. 1, did not abolish slavery in England. It gave a cause of action while in England, but only suspended the status of a slave while in England.
The Slave, Grace, 2 Hagg. Admir. (G.B.) 94, (1827)
In The Slave, Grace (1827), the English High Court of Admiralty modified the Somerset rule. Grace, a West Indian slave, had been taken to England but then returned to Antigua with her master. She sued for her freedom only after returning to Antigua. Lord Stowell, speaking for the English court, held that Grace was still a slave. Stowell found that residence in England only suspended the status of a slave. Without positive law, the master could not control a slave in England and could not force a slave to leave the realm. But if a slave did return to a slave jurisdiction, as Grace had, then the law of England would no longer be in force and the person's status would once again be determined by the laws of the slave jurisdiction.
SOURCE: Dred Scott v. Sandford, A brief History with Documents, Paul Finkelman, (1997), p. 21.
Complain all you want. You can't unmake it. It's no wonder your whole crew are so rejecting of notions of Originalism. You only want what the clause came to be, not what it started out as.
The Fugitive Slave Clause says the same thing in 2025 as it did in 1788.
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.
It is still there, but there are no longer any persons held to service or labor.
Terrible yes, but also accurate. Following the money shows you that the people who crow about morality usually just have their hands in the till somehow or other.
The king hurt the south and you plainly don't give a damn.
I don't even comprehend what you are attempting to say here.
"Of the 13 original slave states, 13 of them voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution in 1787. This includes Pennsylvania and Massachusetts."No. Rhode Island was not even present(represented) at the 1787 Convention being the troublemaker it had always been at that time, but even excluding this technicality that there were only 12 still no.
They voted to enshrine non-slavery into the United States Constitution in 1787.
All thirteen of the original states ratified the Constitution, just not in 1787. All states ratified the whole Constitution, including the Fugitive Slave clause. They did so as free, sovereign and independent states, of their own free will.
The establishment of the Constitution was between the states so ratifying the same. All thirteen became members of the new union upon ratification of the Constitution.
Neither did 12 consider slavery at the Constitutional Convention. Early on, when it was known that the Convention was to exceed its authorization to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation; from the New York delegation, all but Alexander Hamilton walked out, leaving Hamilton unable to represent the state and vote on anything. Hamilton signed the draft Constitution "of New York," not "for New York."
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.