Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan
You said:

“Actually, I believe this ordinance applied only to the new territories north of the Ohio, and of course the Northwest Ordinance a few years later did abolish slavery in this area. So I fail to see how the failure of this provision made a bit of difference.”

Your point about failure was irrelevant. The point was that the “parasite” Jefferson was attempting to abolish that which you insinuate he was consuming. It was proof of the misdirection (and canard) of your assertion.

How were the middle and northern state gentlemen you reference parasites?

If you read back, I did not reference any “middle state” people as parasites. That was your accusation of Jefferson.

In what way were they living at ease by the forcible exploitation of others?

Well, let's see. Over 200 distilleries in those states converting molasses to rum. Dozens of shipbuilders, riggers, docks, Captains and sailors....all involved in the triangle trade....you remember that, don't you?

Oh, and don't forget the insurance agents necessary for the business, as well as the bankers, lawyers, and their politicians.

They sailed to Africa to trade their rum and guns for slaves, slaves for molasses in the Caribbean, and back to Rhode Island, Newport, New York, and Philadelphia to drop off the booty from their trade in humans.

John Adams was an attorney. Benjamin Franklin was a wealthy retired printer and businessman. Livingston and Sherman were lawyers and politicians.”

Yes, and they voted against making the trade in slaves illegal.

Ever wonder why? (Back up 4 paragraphs and see).

61 posted on 05/28/2012 2:17:33 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: PeaRidge
Yes, and they voted against making the trade in slaves illegal.

Nonsense. The relevant section of the DOI had nothing at all to do with outlawing the slave trade. It merely (less than entirely truthfully) attempted to blame the King for the existence of the slave trade, as if it had been forced on Americans.

Here's the text of his rough draft.

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold]: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

It is perhaps relevant that VA, even at this time, was a net exporter of slaves to the deeper south, thus had a financial incentive in restricting the competition of the Atlantic trade. The slave states further south had an entirely different perspective on the trade, which is why the Constitution protected it for 20 years.

67 posted on 05/28/2012 3:35:50 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson