woodpusher: "Quoting lifelong slave owners as being morally opposed to slavery should not be a persuasive argument to anyone. Selected pull quotes from two centuries ago are not an indicator of whether America is a racist nation today, or based on White supremacy today."
Two points here, first: the issue of alleged "racism" today is utterly ridiculous redefinitions & political weaponizing words against Republicans generally and conservatives specifically.
Racism has not been eliminated but has been greatly reduced. It is no longer official government policy. Race pimps such as Al Sharpton just wield race accusations as a political weapon.
It is undeniable that the Constitutional union featured slavery as an integral and protected part. That was done with the unanimous ratification of all the states.
Quotes of a slave owner expressing his desire to eliminate slavery, while never freeing his own slaves in his lifetime, fail to note that the sentiments expressing the desire to be free of slaves was part and parcel of the desire to be free of Blacks. Those two desires were one and the same, and freely expressed as such from Jefferson to Lincoln.
Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson
Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [Blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers.
Allen T. Rice, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time, New York, 1888, pg 61
Few subjects have been more debated and less understood than the Proclamation of Emancipation. Mr. Lincoln himself opposed to the measure, and when he very reluctantly issued his preliminary proclamation in September 1862, he wished it distinctly understood that the deportation of the slaves was, in his mind, inseparably connected with the policy. Like Mr. Clay and other prominent leaders of the old Whig party, he believed in colonization, and that the separation of the two races was necessary to the welfare of both. He was at that time pressing upon the attention of Congress a scheme of colonization in Chiriqui, in Central America, which Senator Pomoroy espoused with great zeal, and in which he had the favor of a majority of the Cabinet, including Secretary Smith, who warmly endorsed the project.
Freeing the slaves in order to remove them from an all-white paradise is not exactly a non-racist sentiment. That desire was made explicitly clear. No amount of cherry-picking quotations can make that disappear from history.
In the minds of our insane Democrats, "racist" simply means "you disagree with me on something important".It has no other meaningful definition or usage.
If this were true, what would be the purpose of a collection of quotes from the Founders?
In the case of the really lunatic fringe who argue as if they fought to abolish slavery, and all opposed to their glorious mission from Dog were necessarily insane, it is unfortunate that they must consider the Founders as having been insane for creating a Union which incorporated and protected slavery.
Second, for reasons only they could refuse to acknowledge, our Lost Causers want us to forget that our Founders were, in fact, not just in words, opposed to slavery and did actually abolish it, usually gradually, wherever and whenever they could:
In fact, the Founders created a Union that incorporated slavery which endured until after each and every Founder was dead. It is like quoting politicians who are opposed to corruption.
1. Beginning in 1775 the Atlantic slave trade was banned or suspended during the Revolutionary War.
During the Revolutionary war, we sunk their ships and they sunk ours. We did not pull into each others ports as welcome guests. The curtailment of importation of everything was effected by the state of war. That was not an action aimed at the slave trade.
Over 90% of the African slave trade did not deliver slaves to the English colonies, but to Central and South America, and to the islands. That was not curtailed by the war. Upon termination of the war, the African slave trade to the former colonies resumed.
2. Beginning in 1777 Vermont gradually abolished slavery.
Beginning in 1777, Vermont waged a successful revolution and established itself as a free, sovereign, and independent state, with self-appointed borders; not part of any Union. It remained a free, sovereign and independent state until 1791 when it joined the constitutional union.
2. Beginning in 1777 Vermont gradually abolished slavery.
From 1777 to 1791, Vermont was free, sovereign, and independent state, and not part of the United States.
3. Beginning in 1780, Pennsylvania gradually abolished slavery.
The Fugitive Slave Clause still applied in Pennsylvania and a slave who escaped and fled to Pennsylvania no more enjoyed free status when than he was on the plantation.
4. Beginning in 1783, Massachusett's new state constitution abolished slavery, and New Hampshire began gradual abolition, followed by Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Rhode Island remained the foremost United States purveyor of slaves from the African coast. Your unsubstantiated claim has a large clash with reality. Rhode Island abolished slavery in its constitution of 1842, Art. 1, sec. 4. That constitution, replacing the charter of 1643, went into effect May 2, 1843.
https://www.the74million.org/article/slave-money-paved-the-streets-now-this-posh-ri-city-strives-to-teach-its-past/
Some 60% of all slave trading voyages that launched from North America — amounting to 945 trips between 1700 and 1850 — began in tiny Rhode Island. In some years, it was more than 90% and most of those journeys set out from Newport, making it the most trafficked slaving port of origin on the continent. “The streets of Newport were paved with the duties paid on enslaved people,” said the UW-Madison scholar, who wrote the book Dark Work: The Business of Slavery in Rhode Island.
[...]
Although the city of 25,000 people is now over 80% white and only 8% Black, in the mid-1700s, approximately a quarter of Newport’s population was Black or African, the second-highest share in the U.S. at the time behind Charleston, South Carolina.
http://smallstatebighistory.com/rhode-island-dominates-north-american-slave-trade-in-18th-century/
African enslaved persons were sparse in the colony of Rhode Island throughout the 17th century, with only 175 in total in 1680. Prior to 1696, the English Royal African Company monopolized the Atlantic slave trade. However, when this was lifted, Rhode Islanders aggressively expanded into the Atlantic trading system, and therefore, the slave trade. Within 30 years the colony of Rhode Island, and in particular Newport, came to dominate the North American slave trade. Even though it was the smallest of the colonies, the great majority of slave ships leaving British North America came from Rhode Island ports. Historian Christy Clark-Pujara, in her book Dark Work, The Business of Slavery in Rhode Island, indicates that during “the colonial period in total, Rhode Island sent 514 slave ships to the coast of West Africa, while the rest of the colonists sent just 189.” Historian Jay Coughtry in The Notorious Triangle, argues that “the Rhode Island slave trade and the American slave trade were virtually synonymous” and that “only in Rhode Island was there anything that can properly be termed a slave trade.”
http://southcountyhistorycenter.org/slavery-southern-rhode-island
The owners of these larger farms became known as “Narragansett Planters,” referencing southern Rhode Island’s nickname at the time, “Narragansett Country.” Through their connections to the Atlantic slave trade, these men began to buy enslaved African people from colonies in the Caribbean (and eventually directly from Africa) to work on their farms and increase production of goods for export. At the height of the Narragansett Planter’s operations in the mid-18th century, there were 25 – 30 large plantations, and it is estimated that between 15% and 25% of Washington County’s population was enslaved. The plantations in southern Rhode Island were very profitable. Their owners were some of the wealthiest people in the colony of Rhode Island, allowing them to develop a leisurely lifestyle that mirrored that of the upper classes in England.
Vermont gradually eliminated slavery by selling its slaves south. It did not eliminate slavery, it ethnically cleansed Rhode Island and relocated its slaves. It continued to go to Africa, obtain slaves, and deliver them to the colonies, and later states.
4. Beginning in 1783, Massachusett's new state constitution abolished slavery, and New Hampshire began gradual abolition, followed by Connecticut and Rhode Island.
As stated above, Vermont waged a successful revolution beginning in 1777, and was a free, sovereign and independent state from 1777 to 1791.
The Fugitive Slave provisions of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution remained in effect in all the states.
Under either the Articles or the Constitution, the Founders or Framers could have elected to make slavery unlawful. It was a freely made decision by the States to not make slavery unlawful. Neither the British nor the Evil Empire made the Framers or the States do anything. The North could have chosen differently, but then there would have been two Unions, and the Northwest Territory would have belonged to the one with Virginia.
5. Beginning in 1787, Congress outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories.
What Congress was that in 1787?
The Federal law later enacted under the Constitution was struck down as unconstitutional.
I believe you do not refer to a law but The Ordinance of July 13, 1787. That was an Ordinance for the Territory, not a Federal law. It organized the first government of the Territory.
There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; provided always, that any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.
The portions of the Ordinance underlined by the editor were added to the original report by amendment during the debate.
https://archive.org/details/lawsofnorthwestt17nort
The Laws of the Northwest Territory, 1788-1800
This volume contains the first laws passed by the government of the Territory. Among them, at page 255, is a law on Common Law, 1795:
COMMON LAW, 1795 TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES
NORTH WEST OF THE OHIO
A LAW declaring what laws shall be in force. Adopted from the Virginia code, and published at Cincinnati, the fourteenth day of July, one thousand, seven hundred and ninety-five; by Arthur St. Clair, governor, and John Cleves Symmes and George Turner, judges, in and over the said Territory.
The common law of England, all statutes or acts of the British parliament made in aid of the common law, prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first (and where are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom) and also the several laws in force in this Territory, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered, as of full force, until repealed by legislative authority, or disapproved of by congress.
THE foregoing is hereby declared to be a law of the Territory; to take effect on and from the first day of October, next coming; IN TESTIMONY whereof, as we Arthur St. Clair, John Cleves Symmes and George Turner, have caused the seal of the Territory to be thereunto affixed, and signed the same with our names.
AR. St. CLAIR,
JOHN C. SYMMES,
G. TURNER.
6. Beginning in 1794, the Slave Trade Act prohibited US ships from participating in imports or exports of slaves.
The claim is nonsense. The Act applied explicitly only to exports. It is impossible to read the act and draw the ridiculous conclusion that it applied to imports. Rhode Island was synonymous with the American slave trade for a long time after 1794.
1 Stat. 347, Third Congress, Sess. I., Ch. 11, 1794, The Slave Trade Act of March 22 1794. "An Act to prohibit the carrying on the Slave Trade from the United States to any foreign place or country." Please stop citing sources you have never seen. If your source is Wikipedia, just go ahead and cite Wikipedia.
"The African slave trade is a trade which has been authorized and protected by the laws of all commercial nations. The right to carry it on has been claimed by each, and exercised by each; and it therefore cannot be considered as contrary to the laws of nations. The slave trade remains lawful to those nations which have not forbidden it. The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66; 6 Cond. Rep. 30." At 1 Stat. 347.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/llsalvol.llsal_001/?sp=470&st=image
The list goes on and demonstrates clearly that our Founders were fully committed to restricting and gradually abolishing slavery wherever they could.
Your list may go on, but you have only documented that you never looked at your claimed source material.
As is firmly documented in the statements of the historical characters, they were firmly committed to removing the Black presence from the country and its territories. As Jefferson stated it, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers."
When, in 1855, Lincoln's best friend, Joshua Speed, asked him to clarify his position on slavery, he said frankly, "I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery, (CW 2:233, Lincoln's italics). Lincoln said this so often and so loud that it is astounding that some people, even some historians, claim to misunderstand him. He said it in CAPITALS at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854:
I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me. (CW 2:248)
That didn't deter honest and dishonest men — then or now — and he said it again at Bloomington, Illinois, on September 4, 1858:
We have no right to interfere with slavery in the States. We only want to restrict it to where it is. (CW 3:87)
He said it at Ottawa, Illinois, on August 21, 1858, at the first Lincoln-Douglas debate:
I will say here, while upon this subject, 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. (CW 3:16, italics added)
He said it at the second Lincoln-Douglas debate and the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth debate:
I expressly declared in my opening speech, that I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery or any other existing institution. (CW 3:277)
Challenged again at the seventh and final debate, he said it again:
Now I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge [Stephen] Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of slavery. (CW 3:300)
He said it in Illinois.
He said it in Michigan.
He said it in Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan, Connecticut, Ohio, and New York.
He said it everywhere.
We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution, and the pease of the country, both forbid us. (CW 3:435)
One has to feel sorry for Lincoln retrospectively and prospectively. For he declared it and, to use his word, "re-declared" it. He quoted himself and "re-quoted" himself. Yet honest and dishonest men — then and now — continued to misrepresent him, despite the fact that he said it a hundred times:
I have said a hundred times and I have no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always. (CW 2:492, italics added).
If he said it a hundred times, he said it a thousand times:
I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion, neither the General government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.. (CW 2:471)
Not only did he say it but he cited evidence to prove it.
He asserted positively, and proved conclusively by his former acts and speeches that he was not in favor of interfering with slavery in the States where it exists, nor ever had been. (CW 3:96)
See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., pg. 248-250.
- - - - - - - - - -
This is a pivotal point, one that has been masked by rhetoric and imperfect analysis. For to say, as Lincoln said a thousand times, that one is only opposed to the extension of slavery is to say a thousand times that one is not opposed to slavery where it existed. Based on this record and the words of his own mouth, we can say that the "great emancipator" was one of the major supporters of slavery in the United States for at least fifty-four of his fifty six years.
See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., pg. 251. Mr. Bennett was an editor with Ebony magazine for about a half century.
Regardless of pull-quotes from selected Founders, history bears one unassailable truth: the Founders never ended slavery in their lifetime. They talked about it. They didn't do it. They never found a solution to the deportation part of the problem. As Jefferson said, following deportation, "the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers."
Lincoln, CW 2:276, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, March 16, 1854:
Fellow countrymen—Americans south, as well as north, shall we make no effort to arrest this? Already the liberal party throughout the world, express the apprehension "that the one retrograde institution in America, is undermining the principles of progress, and fatally violating the noblest political system the world ever saw.'' This is not the taunt of enemies, but the warning of friends. Is it quite safe to disregard it—to despise it? Is there no danger to liberty itself, in discarding the earliest practice, and first precept of our ancient faith? In our greedy chase to make profit of the negro, let us beware, lest we "cancel and tear to pieces'' even the white man's charter of freedom. Our republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not the blood, of the Revolution. Let us turn slavery from its claims of "moral right,'' back upon its existing legal rights, and its arguments of "necessity.'' Let us return it to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace. Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. Let north and south—let all Americans—let all lovers of liberty everywhere—join in the great and good work. If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union; but we shall have so saved it, as to make, and to keep it, forever worthy of the saving. We shall have so saved it, that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generations.
At Springfield, twelve days ago, where I had spoken substantially as I have here, Judge Douglas replied to me—and as he is to reply to me here, I shall attempt to anticipate him, by noticing some of the points he made there.
He commenced by stating I had assumed all the way through, that the principle of the Nebraska bill, would have the effect of extending slavery. He denied that this was INTENDED, or that this EFFECT would follow.
I will not re-open the argument upon this point. That such was the intention, the world believed at the start, and will continue to believe. This was the COUNTENANCE of the thing; and, both friends and enemies, instantly recognized it as such. That countenance can not now be changed by argument. You can as easily argue the color out of the negroes' skin. Like the "bloody hand'' you may wash it, and wash it, the red witness of guilt still sticks, and stares horribly at you.
Lerone Bennett, Jr. observed,
Lincoln said in passing: "You can as easily argue the color out of the Negroes' skin. Like the 'bloody hand' you may wash it, and wash it, the red witness of guilt still sticks, and stares horribly at you". In this horrible and horribly revealing statement, which indicated unhealthy obsessions at clinical proportions, Lincoln, or Lincoln's subconscious, said that the color of blackness, like the "bloody hand" of the murderer, was a "witness of guilt"—what did Lincoln, or Lincoln's subconscious think the Black race was guilty of?—that "sticks and stares horribly at you."