Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
“George Washington kept slaves in Pennsylvania after that state had passed a law making it illegal”
In 1780,Pennsylvania passed a gradual emancipation law. If born to a slave woman in Pennsylvania, you became free at age 28. Washington moved his slaves approaching 28 out of the state.
If you were a slave born outside of Pennsylvania, you were free if in the state after 6 months. Washington would move the slaves to MD, or VA for a few days, then return them to Pennsylvania. In both cases he was complying with the Pennsylvania law.
By 1840, there were only 64 slaves in Pennsylvania.
Or through the method Lincoln actually did embrace in his House Divided speech; through the ballot box.
It's a great speech. You should read it some time.
Just slipped your mind.
That would leave only one way to accomplish his aspirations as outlined in the House Divided speech: use the military to violently overthrow the constitution and its slavery provisions.
Always admired a man of action. Glad slavery was extinguished.
“Or through the method Lincoln actually did embrace in his House Divided speech; through the ballot box.”
Lincoln didn’t have the votes; you have already acknowledged that.
See your post 916: “But it (getting the votes) was a mathematical impossibility in 1860, and would be impossible today as well.”
“Always admired a man of action. Glad slavery was extinguished.”
You said that about this: “That would leave only one way to accomplish his aspirations as outlined in the House Divided speech: use the military to violently overthrow the constitution and its slavery provisions.”
I convince less than half of the pro-Lincoln people I speak with that he used the military to violently overthrow the United States Constitution.
When everyone agrees with you and me on this matter, my work will be done.
“violently overthrow the United States Constitution.”
What document did he replace it with?
But nowhere in his speech does he advocate a violent solution. That is a figment of your overactive imagination.
You don’t think the founding fathers that were alive when states started passing laws to end slavery in their borders wouldn’t have said something about it being unconstitutional?
It was clearly not silly because Lincoln didn't think it was silly.
Did it work?
It was clearly insufficient to convince the seceded states that they should remain in the Union.
Apparently they either believed it wouldn't happen, it wouldn't be effective, or it simply wasn't what they really wanted.
Considering direct trade with Europe would have moved 200 Million dollars per year in trade out of the hands of New York and Washington DC and into their own hands, I'm suspecting that this was what they were really after.
Always follow the money.
They clearly thought they would be better off on their own than having New York and Washington DC managing their economics.
No, it is not. There was a teeny tiny minority of liberal Kooks in Massachusetts and a few other Northern states that opposed slavery strictly on moral grounds. They were considered Liberal nuts of their era. As Charles Dickens noted (after a six month tour of the United States both North and South)
"Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."
I will add that Charles Dickens was an abolitionist and he was vicious in his attacks on Southerners who held slaves. You should read his commentary on slavery. As I said, he was vicious.
But the vast majority of people in the United States who hated slavery, hated it for two not so moral reasons. They hated it because they saw free labor as a threat to their own labor and wages. They also hated it because they hated black people, considered them inferior, and did not want them in their communities, even as servants. Look up the black laws of various Northern states such as Illinois.
But the people who hated it because it was a great moral wrong? They were a small minority that grew over time, and by the end of the war, everyone was pretending to be this sort of person.
This was my point. Lincoln's entire justification for starting that war was that the States were still in the Union and were simply in rebellion. He needed this claim to make legal his demands for soldiers and resources to put down the "rebellion" because the constitution gives him the power to suppress rebellion.
Of course this was clearly not a rebellion. It was an effort to attain independence. Lincoln just called it a "rebellion" to unlock the powers he needed to stop it.
Here’s some quotes from a few of those others.
Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States.... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in... abhorrence.
John Adams -letter to Evans, June 8, 1819
I wish from my soul that the legislature of this State could see a policy of a gradual Abolition of Slavery. George Washington-letter to Lawrence Lewis, August 4, 1797
It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honor of the States, as we as justice and humanity, in my opinion loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.
John Jay-to R. Lushington - March 15, 1786
The world, in general, has denied your people a share of its honors; but the wise will ascribe to you a just tribute of virtuous praise for the practice of a train of virtues, among which your disagreement to Slavery will be principally ranked. I cannot out wish well to a people whose system imitate the example of Him whose life was perfect; and, believe me, I shall honor the Quakers for their noble efforts to abolish Slavery. It is equally calculated to promote moral and political good.
I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be afforded to abolish this lamentable evil.
Patrick Henry-Letter to John Alsop Jan 13 1773
IT WAS A NEFARIOUS INSTITUTION-It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. Travel thro’ ye whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance & disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye E[astern] Sts. & enter N[ew] York, the effects of the institution become visible; Passing thro’ the Jerseys and entering Pa.-every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed Southw[ar]dly, & every step you take thro’ ye great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with ye increasing proportion of these wretched beings.
Gouverner Morris Speech at the constitutional convention
I could produce many more quotes from the founding fathers about their views on slavery and how they hoped it would be ended one day. Lincoln, a true conservative, fulfilled the founding fathers wishes.
Officially. Even so, I still don't call that "abolished" when you still have slaves. Abolished is zero slaves.
I have discussed this point about Washington before. I think he simply never challenged Pennsylvania's law because he didn't want to ruffle feathers in the early days of the Republic, but he clearly had no respect for it, and acted as though he had a right to keep slaves in that state.
Washington gradually came to believe that slavery was not only wrong, but a bad idea. His writings on the subject are very interesting.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. The Corwin Amendment did not mandate slavery in new territories, the Confederate constitution did. The Corwin Amendment did not prevent states from completely barring slavery within their borders, the Confederate constitution did. Why would the Southern states want to go back to the limited protections of the Corwin amendment when they wrote much greater levels of protection in their own constitution?
Considering direct trade with Europe would have moved 200 Million dollars per year in trade out of the hands of New York and Washington DC and into their own hands, I'm suspecting that this was what they were really after.
Then why didn't the Southern states propose something dealing with that if they were so eager to rejoin the Union as you would have us believe? The obvious answer, obvious to all but you, is that $200 million figure is a figment of your imagination.
I think what George Washington did in fact do speaks volumes regarding his opinion of the matter. He clearly flouted the law as much as suited him.
But why does this discussion always come back to slavery, when the right to have independence does not require some justification approved by others?
Focus on slavery implies that if they had better reasons, then their efforts to secede would be accepted.
Is that what you are arguing? That their effort to break away would have been okay if they had better reasons?
No really. What were they thinking do you suppose? After all, if they had outsourced their economic management for decades before the rebellion then why did it suddenly bother them?
You say it was "sudden", but from what i've been reading they were bitching about it all the way back to John Calhoun.
From what I have read, people say he was intent on making a political statement through the power of the court, and that's why he threw everything into it but the kitchen sink.
It just happened to be the case on which he hung all the other stuff that he didn't like over the years.
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.