Replies

Pelham: "And you might be interested to learn that Lincoln wasn't the first ruler to offer emancipation; the Crown offered emancipation for all slaves who fought for the royal government..."

Over many years, there were several plans to use Federal funds to purchase freedom for slaves, beginning with President Jefferson in early 1800s.
All such plans would have cost far less than the Civil War in treasure alone, to say nothing of blood and hard feelings for generations in the future.

All such plans, including President Lincoln's, were rejected by slave-holders themselves, for reasons which might be obvious: slave-holding was considered necessary and appropriate for farming in hot climates, and was profitable to the point of making average Southerners considerably wealthier than their northern cousins.

So none of those plans got anywhere.

Pelham: "For modern neo-Yankees to be morally consistent they must side with King George III against the 'slave owning rebel traitors' led by George Washington, et al.
But they are notably silent about this earlier emancipation, and this earlier rebellion against legitimate government when they begin stirring up hatred against the Confederacy..."

First of all, George Washington well knew that slavery was morally wrong, and freed his slaves in his will.
Thomas Jefferson also understood the evils of slavery, and indeed, included in his original Declaration of Independence a specific complaint against the Brits for imposing slavery on the colonies:

"He [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.
"This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.
"Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:
"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 has 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."

As President, Jefferson devised a plan for using Federal money to buy and free slaves, a plan which got nowhere.

But the final and key point to remember is: in 1775 (i.e., Lexington and Concord) war began when those slave-imposing Brits aggressed Americans to seize American militia arms and ammunition.
Just as, in 1861, war began when slave-holding secessionists aggressed American forts (i.e., Sumter), armories and arsenals to seize American militia arms, ammunition and other weapons of war.

So, bottom line: if you want to compare 1775 with 1861, then let's at least get the right people in their proper roles, FRiend.

“First of all, George Washington well knew that slavery was morally wrong, and freed his slaves in his will.”

This often repeated claim is highly misleading at best and untrue in significant ways.

George Washington had two classes of slaves. He had slaves that he had purchased or inherited from his family, and he had slaves that were brought into the marriage by Martha. Martha’s were the majority of the Washington slaves.

At his death only his own slaves were freed. Those that had originally belonged to Martha were not, and at her death they passed on to her descendents, one being Robert E Lee’s father in law.

George Washington was comfortable enough with slavery that he tried to recover two who ran away while he was President. And while serving in Philadelphia he rotated his servants back to Virginia to prevent them from being declared free, which by law would happen if they spent sufficient time in Pennsylvania.

“Thomas Jefferson also understood the evils of slavery,”

Jefferson certainly wrote the language that you quoted, but significantly he didn’t free any of his own slaves.

“So, bottom line: if you want to compare 1775 with 1861, then let’s at least get the right people in their proper roles, FRiend.”

I agree. The British, like Lincoln, invoked an emancipation proclamation as a wartime measure. And they were fighting against slave holding American rebels.

The 1776 Patriots were rebels, traitors to the ruling government, and many owned slaves. The Loyalists, like Lincoln, stood for perpetual union, loyalty to the legitimate government, and emancipation.

If the immorality of slavery is paramount, if rebellion is treason, then the modern neo-Yankee wrapping himself in a cloak of morality and loyalty to the union needs to explain how the Founders escape their condemnation for the very things that they use to condemn the Confederacy.

The answer appears to be in some sort of flexible morality, a moral relativism, where what is evil in 1860 is somehow not all that evil in 1776.