Have you never heard of William Wilberforce or John Newton?
There was a wonderful movie about both men.
Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
They do not have to have equal weight and numbers in terms of souls present on the mainland.
They just have to have equal recognition as a matter of legality.
Article 4 section 2 does not exclude indentured servants. Nor remptioners. That makes all three classes equal in the eyes of the law.
You are so full of crap. Show the data, not you fuzzy math. Show the data..
My math just shows how unfair the situation is *IF* I am correct about the Southerners producing 72% of the taxes.
If that isn't true, then my math doesn't matter. Only what is true matters.
So let me ask you, where did the taxes come from in 1860?
No one was arguing about tariffs in 1860. They argued about Kansas/Nebraska, Dred Scott, and Popular sovereignty. No one even claimed that the South paid 72% of taxes. No one. That’s just another one of your myths.
Do you not grasp the Horse/Zebra analogy?
It comes from the Tv show "House M.D."
He is diagnosing a patient. He notes that the symptoms of disease are like seeing hoofprints. It is natural to assume the hoofprints mean "Horse" because Horses are common.
But he points out it could be a Zebra, because Zebras make similar hoofprints, but the safe way to bet is "Horse."
So when a language describes a situation that fits 4 million slaves, but it also fits a few dozen "indentured servants", it is safe to assume the Framers were talking about the 4 million slaves, and not the few dozen "indentured servants."
Article IV, Section 2 means "slave."
They were probably unaware at the time of what percentage they were paying, they just knew it was a lot, and they didn't like it.
I wouldn't like it either.
I haven’t seen the show House. Huge Laurie looks like a Trump hater to me, like everybody else in Hollywood. I don’t need ‘em.
As for Zebra and Horse, yes I understand the two have differences. You’re forgetting that both are equine.
It’s not like we’re talking about a Giraffe here, which is not an equine and is more like a Tapir and especially like an Okapi.
When talking about equine, you’re trying to keep the Zebra and omit the Horse. You can’t pretend the horse doesn’t exist and isn’t included. Or, fine, keep the horse and omit the zebra. Either way it doesn’t matter.
Article IV, Section 2 means all equine, not just Zebras. To stop speaking in an unnecessary code lingo, Article IV, Section 2 means all non-free labor, not just slaves.
That includes slaves, yes. That also includes other equine such as redemptioners. And yes, it also includes other equine such as indentured. Regardless of the larger or smaller populations. You may not like it but the fact remains, an indentured servant is an equine too. Hey its your analogy.
Your need is to omit this, but that omission is historical malpractice.
Why is it that I can find Colonial Patriots who were abolitionists, but you guys can't find one single loyalist who was an abolitionist?
Patriots:
1: Benjamin Franklin
2: John Jay
3: Stephen Hopkins
4: Benjamin Rush
5: John Dickinson
6: Elias Boudinot
Loyalists: (The King's Men)
1: ?
2: ?
3: ?
4: ?
5: ?
6: ?
Is that because it was the Americans who invented abolitionism? I think so!
Have you never heard of William Wilberforce or John Newton?
There was a wonderful movie about both men.
"I don't think you are coping well with history that won't bend to what you wish it to be.
I'm coping just fine with it because I haven't stopped being consistent. It is very fun and enjoyable being consistent, you should give it a try.
Post 7: "Benjamin Franklin was a slaveowner most of his life."
Post 149: "Have you never heard of William Wilberforce or John Newton?"
Oh John Newton deserves an exemption for being a slave trader then he turned abolitionist? I agree, Benjamin Franklin, John Dickinson, John Jay deserve the equal exemption.
But I wouldn't expect that from you guys and your Britain First inconsistent mentality.
In your original position, Jay and Franklin are disqualified as slave owners from being abolitionists - it's not possible, well, you've disqualified John Newton too. It's not possible for John Newton to be an abolitionist.
I didn't make this rule. You guys did. Make it make sense.
American abolitionists preceded them both, particularly on activism. Benjamin Rush and Anthony Benezet were out there trying to get things done in the early 1770s, a decade before Newton and several decades before Wilberforce. Franklin authored his abolitionist attack on the Somersett Case in 1772 months after its ruling. Newton wouldn't join the abolitionist society in Britain until 1787, if I remember correctly. Also I think a founding member.
It is only a simple timeline question. It means nothing more at all than what does the timeline say.
So I'll state it again. American abolitionists were first; that is, the Americans were the pioneers.
Don't like it? Consult your timeline.
It makes sense you can't name any loyalist abolitionists. (I am sure there were some, they just would've been as rare as a unicorn) The crown kept its loyalist slave owners extremely well paid.
Jamaica, who perhaps had the absolute most slaves out of any of the Empire's slave colonies, had exactly zero abolitionists in it that I am aware of. Why would Jamaica have any abolitionists? Britain kept them all wealthy. Extremely wealthy. "Get rich off of the backs of your slaves in your plantations and shut your trap" - the crown's message.
“Is that because it was the Americans who invented abolitionism?”
No, it was God who did.
I’m just going to say this again, just as a standalone comment.
When I say abolitionism I obviously mean transatlantic abolitionism in the context of Africans, black slaves on plantations, slavery, and the era of the American Revolution.
This should not need to be said. Yet, it needs to be said.
It was the Americans who were first to visibly implement transatlantic abolitionism though.
In the context of all that is being said this should be acceptable as a fair same-same argument going back to post 1.
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.