New audiobook release: An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes

Librivox ^ | 8/4/23

[ProgressingAmerica]

If the contents of The 1619 Project are getting under your skin, here's a new audiobook for you.

Nothing else need be said, book speaks for itself.

An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers, by George Livermore

Book summary: Collects the speeches, writings, public statements and legislative acts of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the United States against slavery. (Summary by progressingamerica)

[ProgressingAmerica]

You wouldn’t be taking words out of context if that were the case. Your agenda is clearly something else.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

You wouldn’t be taking words out of context if that were the case. Your agenda is clearly something else.

What you call "taking out of context" is simply a difference of opinion.

You call the Constitutional Convention merely the 'framing of a government' (as though that were a small thing).

I call it the realization that the Articles of Confederation were ill-suited for what the Founders wanted post-colonial society to be, and so they went back to the proverbial drawing board (intentionally engineering a form of republican government unlike any which had been instituted by republics of the past, as emphasized so clearly in the Federalist Papers).

Because, for societies of sufficient size, there will be a government; and the government chosen by that society will reflect the society it governs. Change one, and the other follows by necessity.

And so: a difference of opinion (your silly non sequiturs about 'gulags' notwithstanding).

[ProgressingAmerica]

I’m out.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "Hey, just a fair warning, this user is big time trolling the forum to stir the pot and cause fighting amongst the users here."

To be fair, we have a lot of posters who consider themselves to be "pro-South" and cannot distinguish between "pro-South" and "pro-Confederate", those terms being synonymous in their eyes.
All of these have posted here for many years, most at least ten years, some for over 20 years, a few even longer, though possibly under different screen names.
So, it's impossible for me to imagine them as just, say, Russian bots in St. Petersburg troll farm.
Where, exactly, they come from and what their motives are, I've never figured out.

But they are generally consistent enough in their arguments and selected facts to be considered a "school of thought" best described by the term, "Lost Cause of the Confederacy".
At least, that's my interpretation.

From time to time we'll see a new Lost Cause poster become very active over several threads, often with a somewhat new perspective and maybe some new facts to argue with, and then fade away again.
Others show up in almost every CW related thread, at least for a post or two.

One result is, if you make a legitimate & sincere effort to respond to their many claims with actual facts and logical arguments, you learn a lot.
I have learned a lot here, and so don't consider any of my time & work to have been wasted.
I enjoy it, don't mind doing it, and of course, never take any of their ridiculous insults personally.

😅

[jeffersondem]

“. . . I have learned a lot here.”

Well, maybe there really is a side to Brother JoeK that no one has ever seen.

[wardaddy]

The self righteousness is a large aquifer

Slavery

White of blacks mind you

Is the original sin of western civilization

[jeffersondem]

“So, I must ask you to think logically about it (DOI).

I have a better idea: let's use original sources to tell us what the Declaration of Independence means.

You contend “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us” in the signed DOI refers to loyalist insurrections. That is wrong; Thomas Jefferson said so.

In his “Notes” Jefferson writes: “The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many. For this reason those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give offense.”

One of those struck censures was this grievance in the draft DOI: “he has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property”.

This is a reference to treason by loyalists; except this was struck from the DOI. That phrase was not adopted and was not included in the signed product.

The phrase that was included (”excited domestic insurrections amongst us”) is not a reference to that which was deliberately excluded. It refers to something else.

It refers to Dunmore’s Proclamation and other British attempts to mess with slaves of Patriots.

For some reason the 13 slave states did not like the idea of “indentured servants, Negroes/or others” rebelling against their masters and taking up arms to fight - perhaps kill - their masters.

And the 13 slave states said so in grievance 27 of the final DOI: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .”

Deep blue scholars say they have searched the original U.S. Constitution and can find no mention of slavery in the text.

They repudiate the Great Emancipator who said in his first inaugural speech:

“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.”

Lincoln found it! Found what deep blue scholars claim they can't find.

And, again, deep blue scholars say they can find no mention of slavery in the DOI signed by all 13 slave states.

Comes now the budding, but courageous, contemporary scholar ProgessingAmerica in his post 72: he documents that grievance 27 refers to Dunmore’s Proclamation.

Brother JoeK, this is not you against me; or you against contemporary scholars; or you against Thomas Jefferson; or you against the Virginia Convention; or even you against just the 13 slave states.

It is you against the world!

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The phrase that was included (”excited domestic insurrections amongst us”) is not a reference to that which was deliberately excluded. It refers to something else.
It refers to Dunmore’s Proclamation and other British attempts to mess with slaves of Patriots."

And so you repeatedly claim, and yet there were no slave revolts, or insurrections, nor did Lord Dunmore call for such -- which means, if that's truly what Jefferson referred to, then he was lying.

However, there were "domestic insurrections" -- attacks by British Loyalists against American Patriots -- so that interpretation is 100% truthful.

Now, for whatever it might be worth, my opinion is that ambiguity is a politician's ultimate weapon and shield, and that Jefferson was certainly clever enough to make his words capable of meaning whatever a biased reader wanted them to mean.

Regardless, I don't think Jefferson's words in any way confirm your ridiculous argument that our Founders declared independence and accepted war just to defend American slavery against British abolitionism!

Finally, we can note estimates that African American Loyalists serving the British Army outnumbered black Patriots in the Continental Army roughly two to one.
But we are not told how many of those black-loyalists were contributed by white-loyalist slaveholders, and a large percentage seems reasonable, maybe half.

Further, very few of the black Loyalists served in combat roles, while over half of black Patriots did, and were noted in the ranks of Continental Army troops at Yorktown, by a British observer, as representing one in four of the total.

So, unlike the 1860s, in the Revolutionary War Brits could not use slaves themselves or the cause of abolition to defeat American Patriots, because, among other reasons, Gen. Washington was wise enough to match the Brits' promises of emancipation in exchange for military service.

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "The self righteousness is a large aquifer
Slavery
White of blacks mind you
Is the original sin of western civilization"

You didn't learn that from me, or anyone else posting on Free Republic that I can think of.

Everyone here understands that slavery, in one form or another, was part of the human condition going back at least into Biblical times, if not long before.
It had nothing to do with race and everything to do with military conquest, or, in peacetime typically indentured service to pay off debts.

So, slavery was not a "mistake" in the Constitution, but rather was a feature of it, and without slavery there would be no United States Constitution.
Our Founders believed it was more important to establish a Union, whatever its flaws regarding slavery, than to insist on moral perfection and so sacrifice an enduring Union.

They also believed that slavery could be, and would be, gradually, peacefully, abolished and that was their plan.

[wardaddy]

You are self righteous and you use pejorative labeling like the left does to bolster that on your crusade here

You’re not alone

I didn’t realize so called conservatives did that till I came here long ago

I learned

A sizable swath of neocons do just that and often but not always they dovetail with nevertrumpism and now the Uke war

In other words weak on culture and worship the Republican Party

Your favorite tack is labeling those who disagree about our history here as neoconfederates and pro slavery

Defending our culture here brings it out in you

I’ve watched all y’all decades now

Scratch the surface there is often a personal reason your obsession

It’s fine but you’re simply not morally superior to anyone here because you fixate on racial redress and see slavery as this obsession

[ProgressingAmerica]

May be of some use here:

https://librivox.org/the-colored-patriots-of-the-american-revolution-by-william-cooper-nell/

[woodpusher]

As for your perfectly valid distinction between a "colony" or "province" or "state", it's all well and good, but makes no difference to the point being proposed, indeed, it supports the point made by ProgressingAmerica, namely, that the Brits imposed slavery on their American colonies....

Absolutely false statement. ProgressingAmerica repeatedly innsisted on claiming that the British empire forced slavery upon the American STATES, before and after the Founding.

The colonies were British colonies, created by the British to serve the British realm. The British forced slavery upon British subjects.

The British had no power to force slavery upon the American STATES, nor did they do so. Any State was free to abolish slavery in that state after July 4, 1776. It was by free choice that they did not do so.

In 1780, Massachusetts prohibited slavery in its State constitution. Neither the British, nor the American government, offered any opposition. Any State could have put the same provision in its state constiution after becoming a free, sovereign and independent State in July 1776.

The States did not retain slavery because of some force exerted by an Evil Empire; they retained slavery as a free choice of their own will. The example of Massachusetts proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, that a State could, and did, prohibit slavery within the State. The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution only exerted such force as a State took upon itself of its own free will. The States unanimously took on the responsibility to comply with the Fugitive Slave Clause.

[ProgressingAmerica #135] It's abundantly clear to any fifth grader....

[Woodpusher #137 to #135] As every fifth-grader knows....

[BroJoeK #149 to #137] Especially for someone like yourself, woodpusher, who struggles and often fails to keep your remarks within the bounds of truthfulness, you should not begin your comments with a gratuitous, meaningless insult.

I give as good as I get. You did not appear to find anything objectionable about #135. Your selective outrage is boring.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"All of these have posted here for many years, most at least ten years, some for over 20 years, a few even longer, though possibly under different screen names."

Wow. That is a tragedy. Having the same arguments with the same 15 people for 20 years is lost productive time that cannot be recovered. And what is there to show for it?

"To be fair, we have a lot of posters who consider themselves to be "pro-South" and cannot distinguish between "pro-South" and "pro-Confederate", those terms being synonymous in their eyes."

There is an argument that all Lost Causers make in that that promote that they have no issue with the Founding/Founders, and perhaps pro-Founding. Their issue is with Lincoln, only Lincoln, or the Union, ... or somewhere in between that Axis of Evil. In other words, a wall of separation between Founding and CW and a recognition that it's 80 years later.

So where is it? Where is this unicorn wall? Why are they siding with The New York Times and the Empire then, with all this glowing trust for the poisoned words of progressives, and against the Founding? I'm asking rhetorically because I've lost faith for now in a genuine honest answer that isn't cloaked in some way. Maybe it'll come in a few months from now when heads have cooled.

Note: I said a few months from now. We've all crossed paths before. I'm sure we will again.

[woodpusher]

John Marshall, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were lifelong slave owners and died slaveowners.

I will leave you dirtbags to deny that such a lifelong slave owner as John Marshall was a racist, but rather insist that he, and all other Founders, fought a lifelong struggle for the cause of the abolition of slavery.

Additionally, I will leave you dirtbags to deny that the word racist, or racism, has any meaning. You dirtbags laughably argue lifelong slave owners fought a lifelong struggle to abolish slavery.

If you desire to have an argument over what the meaning of the word is is, I suggest you try it with Bill Clinton.

If you really believe that racist has no definition, look in a dictionary. It is not defined as abolitionist.

As I said, you are just like that woman who professed she did not know what a woman is.

[woodpusher]

So, the act was aimed primarily at exports but its effects also restricted imports by US owned ships.

I agree it wasn't much, not like the 1808 law abolishing slave imports, but it was a start, signed by Pres. Washington.

I have no interest in your repeated lies.

I provided the full text of the statute and it did not restrict IMPORTS. It says nothing bearing on imports.

As quoted, the Constitution prohibited Congress from passing any law restricting slave imports prior to 1808. There was was no such law in violation of the Constitution. Had such a staute been enacted, it would have been null and void.

As quoted from the 1 Statutes at Large 347,

The act of March 22, 1794, was intended to prohibit any citizen or resident of the United States from equipping vessels within the United States, carrying on trade or traffic in slaves to any foreign country. The Tryphernea, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 622.

Trade to a foreign country defines EXPORTS.

[woodpusher]

They clearly opined that Vermont was admitted as a free, sovereign, and independent state with self-appointed borders.

That Vermont was considered a state in 1791, like Massachusetts or New York, is one thing, not here disputed, and not needing a SCOTUS decision to verify, so far as I can tell.

But your words like, "free, sovereign and independent" are not found in any of the documentation you've posted here.

That Vermont was a State in 1777 is not disputed. It was confirmed by a United States Supreme Court Opinion.

It appears you didn't look.

In determining the boundary, the Court considers the history of the subject from the creation of New York and New Hampshire as adjoining Royal Provinces to the admission of Vermont into the Union as an independent state.

Vermont's claim of a boundary at the thread of the channel was based upon the following propositions: township grants made by the Governor of the Province of New Hampshire, by royal authority, between 1741 and 1764, on the west side of the Connecticut River in the territory now Vermont, were bounded by the river, which was nontidal, and carried title to its thread by virtue of the common law of England; an order of the King-in-Council of July 20, 1764, fixing the boundary between the Provinces of New York and New Hampshire at the "western banks of the River Connecticut," thus including the territory now Vermont in the Province of New York, was nullified by the successful revolution of the inhabitants of the New Hampshire grants; hence the eastern boundary of the revolutionary State of Vermont was the same as the eastern limits of the township grants -- namely, the thread of the river; Vermont was admitted to the Union as a sovereign independent state with her boundaries those established by her revolution. Her eastern boundary was therefore the thread of the Connecticut River.

The Special Master sustained all these contentions except the last one. With respect to it, he found that Vermont had, by resolution of her Legislature of February 22, 1782, relinquished any claim to jurisdiction east of the west side of the river at low water mark, in conformity to a Congressional resolution of August 20, 21, 1781, prescribing terms upon which Congress would consider the admission of Vermont to the Union.

- - - - -

In view of these facts, the Special Master concluded that the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries.

- - - - -

her independence was recognized by New Hampshire in 1777, by Massachusetts in 1781, and by New York in 1790

- - - - -

If admitted as a free and independent state her boundaries were those fixed by her own declaration of independence as limited by her acceptance of the conditions of the Congressional resolution of August 20, 21, 1781. That boundary we conclude was also one carrying to the river and to low-water mark.

At 619-620:

We conclude that the true boundary is at the low-water mark on the western side of the Connecticut River, as the special master has found.

Such independence as Vermont did achieve came from agreements by Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York

Utter nonsense. Vermont independence does not date from recognition by MA, CT(?), NY any more than American independence dates to the British Recognition in the Paris Peace Treaty. The United States does not celebrate independence day on September 3, 1783. Vermont waged successful revolution and their independence dates back to their Declaration of Independence in 1777.

That means the so-called "Republic of Vermont", was never equivalent to, for example, the actual Republic of Texas.

The Republic of Vermont was independent a great deal longer than the Republic of Texas. Texas claim to fame was recognition by three countries in the world.

ia.org/wiki/Haldimand_Affair

From your sole and unimpeachable source.

"The Haldimand Affair (also called the Haldimand or Vermont Negotiations) was a series of negotiations conducted in the early 1780s (late in the American Revolutionary War) between Frederick Haldimand, the British governor of the Province of Quebec, his agents, and several people representing independent Vermont Republic

The Republic of Vermont has its own military, its own postal service, and even coined its own money.

[jeffersondem]

“. . . cast doubt on your claims that the Revolutiony War was “all about” protecting American slavery against British abolitionism?”

Wup,wup,wup . . .

Did I say that?

When? Which post?

Show me.

[x]

They can accept an America that was dedicated to the preservation of slavery. They don’t understand that most Americans can’t, and look to efforts to limit or abolish slavery as central to our heritage. Unfortunately, it seems like the American establishment has gone over to the 1619 Project with the radicals and the neo-Confederates.

[woodpusher]

No.

No, what????

Your claims:

[ProgressingAmerica #135] Massachusetts' legislature was considering abolition as early as 1768 IIRC until it got vetoed by their royal creature Hutchinson.

[Woodpusher #137] And your memory appears to serve you serves you ill. American-born Hutchinson was not the Governor in 1768.

[ProgressingAmerica #138] The kicker is, you don't even deny that the king's creature Governor Hutchinson did the dirty deed!!!

[woodpusher #146] To clarify, you do not remember correctly. Hutchison was not Governor in 1768 and did not do the dirty deed as you claim to recall. You are simply uninformed or misinformed. In any case, the alleged dirty deed of 1768, which Hutchinson did not do, would not have been a dirty deed but the act of a British Colonial Governor, appointed to his position to carry out the Royal will, doing his duty.

Did Hutchison veto anything in 1768? No. When told Hutchison was not governor in 1768, did you research your false claim? No. Rather than research and correct your false claim, you observed idiotically that I did not deny "the king's creature Governor Hutchinson did the dirty deed!!! You had already been told Hutchinson was not the Governor in 1768. I then responded correctly that Hutchison did not do the deed, as alleged, in 1768.

Have you yet identified what bill of what body was vetoed when? Nope. You are just being an ass.

You could simply go look these things up.

It was your false claim. It was was your responsibility to research it before you made it. It was also your responsibility to research it after you were told your claim was false. I am not your secretary. Even when I know the answer, I am not responsible to spoon feed you.

Governor Bernard also did the same thing.

"Governor" Hutchinson did do a damn thing in 1768. You did not say Governor Bernard did anything at all. Governor Bernard did the same thing as who?

Governor Hutchinson vetoed a bill in 1771.

Governor Bernard dissolved the General Court of Massachusetts in 1768.

In 1767, the General Court of Massachusetts (the equivalent of the House of Representatives) passed a bill “to prevent the unnatural and unwarrantable custom of enslaving mankind in this province and the importation of slaves into the same.”

That was in 1767, not 1768.

What happened then? The King’s representative, Governor Bernard, vetoed the bill.

In 1768 the same bill was passed again, only to be met with the dissolution of the body by the Governor.

Fast forward to 1771. This time it was the General Court and the Council which took the decision to abolish the slave trade. The bill was vetoed by Governor Hutchinson.

You scrambled Governors Bernard and Hutchinson, and actions taken in 1767, 1768 and 1771. Saying "the dirty deed," even with three exclamation points, does not state what the dirty deed was. Indeed, if it was a bill considered by the Massachusetts General Court in 1768, it was not vetoed, but rather the Court was dissolved by Governor Bernard. If it was a bill that was vetoed in 1768, all considering by the Court was done in 1767 before the bill was passed - in 1767.

You are in bed with the New York Times.

You are in bed with Rachel Levine.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Sadly, your quest to turn this into a personal vandetta means you have no idea what you just did here.

I'm ok with a small technical error. We've now crossed the rubicon with you openly admitting that the king and his creatures did, in fact, do this. After all this hype and consternation and regret.

Massachusetts definitely would've been a free-soil state come the future 1776 had the hostile foreign power not interfered. No, not 13 slave states. 12 + 1 free. The Empire forced slavery on the United States.

(Note: perhaps I should purposefully type more small errors to trick him to admit the truth sooner and avoid all of this drama. It's worth considering. At post 180, all of this was unnecessary. This could have been back at post 60 or so.)