These 1619 Project claims are what I reject.
Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
You seem to be struggling to support your shaky contention that ProgressingAmerica stated that the United States invented abolition. He did not say “abolition”. As you have been told, he said “abolitionism”. That is, the notion, the very idea of ending all slavery where it had the power to.
And that is total bull crap. Yes the language said that but if you were anything other than a BSer on this page you would know damn well they didn't want just nine. They needed all 13 in order to keep the British out.
You really do twist the truth to suit your ends,. You are not an honest person, IMHO.
If you care to defend slavery, feel free. If you want to say the Confederates were right, go right ahead. But damn it, don’t distort our history to do it.
These 1619 Project claims are what I reject.
“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 . . .”
You contradicted yourself right there. Start with that.
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.
Any CTRL + F can quickly return exactly zero results on the actual text of the Constitution. This is a simple textualist task in our modern era of word browsers and advanced web browsers. The words slave or slavery are simply not there. The words were explicitly removed by the abolitionists and rightly so. And they stated the very simple reason why the word could not be included.
It was believed to be wrong "to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." August 25th, 1787. That's the day.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_825.asp
And so, the idea that there can be a property in men, is not admitted as a constitutional truth. Excluding the word is not conclusive of enshrining slavery. And yes, the Founders were very exacting in making sure they tried their best to put words in place. They didn't make a mistake on this one, one way or the other. A group of Founders didn't slip, fall over, and trip then and look up and realize oh my gosh I forgot to include the word slave!
No.
Conclusive of enshrining slavery would be that the word is used multiple times in the Constitution. At "best" what they did was look the other way knowing that the only way union was going to work was through toleration and activism for abolitionism on a state-by-state basis. This was also explicitly referenced at the Convention.
And you “know that” because you swallowed that lost cause BS. Here’s a fact
At eighty-one years old in 1787, he became the President of the Philadelphia Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, which was also often referred to as the Abolition Society. The Abolition Society, which was formed by a group of abolitionist Quakers and Anthony Benezet in 1774, concentrated not only on abolishing slavery but also on helping enslaved people transition to a life of liberty. The organization was the first in America and encouraged the formation of abolitionist societies in other colonies.
In 1787, weeks before the start of the Constitutional Convention, Franklin signed a public antislavery appeal, which stated that “the Creator of the world” had made “of one flesh, all the children of men” [3]. It was believed that Franklin, like many revolutionary leaders, supported the idea that a nation built on the promise of inalienable rights acquired at birth could not remain true while enabling slavery.
In 1789 he wrote and published several essays supporting the abolition of slavery, including an Address to the public, dated November 9th of that same year. In the address, the former slave owner wrote that the institution was an “atrocious debasement of human nature” [4] and called for adequate resources to support emancipated people in society, such as education and employment. Furthermore, Franklin’s last public act was to petition Congress on behalf of the society, requesting that they “cut the cancer of slavery out of the American body politic,” and grant liberty “to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage.”
Source: https://benjaminfranklinhouse.org/education/benjamin-franklin-and-slavery/
Not quite the same as your Lost Cause Mythology is it?
He is making a mishmash of the “Perpetual” Union (the original US Constitution known as “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”, which required the ratification of all thirteen Colonies), and the “More Perfect” Union (our current US Constitution) which only required nine (2/3) of the States to make the changes to create our present “more perfect Union” Constitution. The thirteen Colonies were already onboard once they ratified the “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”. Despite the lies of Jeffersondem, States that did not sign onto the “more perfect Union” were not any less a part of the Union as a result. And, despite his lies, all thirteen States did eventually sign onto the ratification of the “more perfect Constitution”. I’m glad you are not falling for his BS. Not a word out of his mouth is credible. He is very far gone in Lost Cause Mythology.
That is an interest comment.
Comes now President Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address:
“There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
“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 scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous.”
It does cause wonder that Abraham Lincoln could find slavery “plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions” but you, after being weaned on the “Won Cause Myths” claim you can't find it.
Please see my post #47 for further clarification. To endorse the Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution) required thirteen States to sign it. To change it into the final version of our Constitution only required nine States to ratify. Of course, when you cut my sentences up it’s no wonder you find contradictions.
Apparently you can’t even quote Lincoln properly. On the other hand, here is what Frederick Douglass said about the very same Article IV, section 2, clause 3: “ that the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, section 2) does not apply to slaves but rather to "Person[s] held to Service or Labour", which do not include slaves, because a slave "is a simple article of property. He does not owe and cannot owe service. He cannot even make a contract"…….
No.
This is not yet another one of your Civil War hijack threads.
Try again.
"but you, after being weaned on the “Won Cause Myths” claim you can't find it."
When I'm allowed back into this debate based on my own words, let me know.
I'm not sure if you are repudiating me or the words and intent of the founding fathers.
The founders certainly wanted all they could get, including Canada which was encouraged to join the U.S. in the original union (Articles of Confederation).
Since Canada wouldn't join, and getting all 13 states was iffy, they did the next best thing when forming the second union; they set the minimum number of states to make a country at nine.
Sure, the British could attack the U.S. from Canada and other directions but that was a risk they had to take.
The idea that northern slave states "fought with all their strength" to keep slavery out of the Articles of Confederation and U.S. Constitution is part of the "Won Cause Myth."
Who said that other than those weird voices in your head? I didn’t say the Northern states fought against slavery. Most didn’t care one way or another. What I would say is that some very wise men who crafted the Constitution used their influence to keep the document from being a pro slavery document. That included many slave holders among them who saw slavery as being inconsistent with a free republic. They were sure that slavery would die on its own before long.
King Cotton, which you idolize, changed that.
It is like the thing you don't see, until you see it, and once you've seen it, you can't unsee it.
You start to notice that so much derives from it. The Civil War is like that.
Now I know you want to blame it on the lying Judges, and they deserve their fair share of the blame, but there is plenty of blame for the people who wrote those amendments so badly, and for the illegal manner in which those amendments were "ratified."
And we are still living with the consequences of all that.
So this "Deep State" that Trump is fighting now? I started looking at the origins of this thing years ago, before I ever started getting involved in the Civil War stuff. I recognized the Deep State as a problem, and I explored how the people who are in it, came to be in it.
I started noticing a pattern of "Ivy League" education, and generally coming from the "elite" of the Northeast.
Eventually, that thread came to merge with what I was learning about the Civil War, and I now see them as the same thread, it's just that I didn't understand the origins of it until later.
Like we've been doing with Canada.
(Sung to the Tune of MLF Lullaby by Tom Lehrer. ) "They taught us a lesson, in 1814, and we've hardly bothered them since then!!!"
What did they do that was different from what the 13 colonies did? (other than have a more bloodthirsty opponent than George III)
Let's try that. I'll search for "Labour."
Oh, it works! Only three entries for the word "Labour" and they all trace back to this paragraph. Here it is!
"No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
What does it mean? Sounds like they are talking about some sort of compelled labor or something.
They stopped a toddler America.
First, they went with no legitimate reason. They didn’t like the guy who was elected president, but Lincoln had done nothing to them. His only real promise was to block the spread of slavery to the territories. But he promised not to touch slavery where it already existed. But that was enough to fire up your rough, tough one reb can take on ten of those dough faced Yankees. More bloodthirsty than George III.? Well better more deadly weapons for sure, but both sides had pretty much the same weapons.
So unlike the patriots of 1776, your treasonous hero’s of 1861 were fighting for only one thing… to spread slavery.
That is an interesting comment.
The original slave states of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and Rhode Island all voted to include in the Constitution the ability to continue the importation of slaves and the return of fugitive slaves and you say that is not a pro-slavery document?
I have to add that North and South Carolina, Virginia and Georgia also agreed to the pro-slavery provisions so we must always cast 4/13ths responsibility in that direction.
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.