SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Land Shark who wrote (34365)6/30/2011 4:11:24 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
actually, I'm not a big fan of Bachmann's. And I believe that there is a pretty strong effort to paint Jefferson as an abolitionist, when he really seemed to be ambivalent. Washington was a slave owner, but he did become an abolitionist. Ben Franklin had slaves but then became a staunch abolitionist.

And as has been pointed out, 8 of the 13 original colonies banned slavery. It was the founding fathers who resided in those states who did that.

so again, though some founding fathers were ambivalent at best about slavery, many others fought to abolish it. And as a forebearer (as opposed to a founding father), John Quincy Adams certainly did fight tirelessly to end slavery.

With this statement right here:
"The idea that the founding fathers did anything to eliminate slavery is absurd."

You have made the same mistake that Bachmann did. She generalized and you have generalized. By the same standards that you are claiming that Bachmann's statement is false, your's is also false.



To: Land Shark who wrote (34365)6/30/2011 4:29:15 PM
From: shakes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
Exactly!

Then it took the bloodiest war in this country's history to finally end slavery, all the while, the Southern aristocracy shouting to the heavens that they had a divine right to THEIR freedom (to maintain the institution of slavery).

She doesn't hesitate to climb to the height of absurdity...

Shakes



To: Land Shark who wrote (34365)6/30/2011 4:40:28 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie2 Recommendations  Respond to of 36917
 
I see that you added this tidbit.

The biggest piece of evidence that they didn't give a rat's patuty about slaves, is that they didn't follow britain in abolishing slavery in 1833.

While this is a true statement, since you are talking about the founding fathers it is pretty much meaningless. James Madison was the last of the founding fathers to die.....in 1836. Therefore, the reason that the founding fathers didn't follow britain in abolishing slavery in 1833 is that they were pretty much dead.

So, as you can see by your own lack of accurate historical reference, it is easy to make mistakes regarding the founding fathers.

Or did you expect them to follow Britain's lead from the grave?



To: Land Shark who wrote (34365)6/30/2011 5:56:27 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 36917
 
They did put a limit on importing new slaves. And abolished slavery in the northern states. Several of the founding fathers were members of abolitionist groups:

....
In 1784, Franklin was appointed the head of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, one of the first public interest groups to attack slavery in the new American nation. In this capacity, Franklin wrote his most strenuous critiques of the practice of slave keeping. As a co-author of An Address to the Public, by the Pennsylvania Society, Franklin wrote that slavery, "is such an atrocious debasement of human nature," that allowing the practice to continue was akin to committing evil acts. Franklin's views on slavery, that it was not only an economic ill that harmed the American nation, but also one that destroyed the moral footing of the state was a complete change from his earlier, slave owning days.

Read more at Suite101: Bejnamin Franklin and Slavery: Benjamin Franklin's changing perspective | Suite101.com suite101.com

.... Re: Alexander Hamilton and John Jay:

In January 1785, he (Hamilton) attended the second meeting of the New York Manumission Society (NYMS). John Jay was president and Hamilton was secretary; he later became president.

Read more: wiki.answers.com

... Although John Jay’s father, Peter Jay, was one of the largest slave owners in New York, the son became a leading advocate of manumission. Immediately after Independence in 1777, while helping to draft New York State’s first constitution, Jay sought to abolish slavery but was overruled (see John Jay to Robert R. Livingston, Gouverneur Morris, 4/29/1777, Jay ID #2819). He continued his call for emancipation in private correspondence. “I should also have been for a clause against the continuation of domestic slavery,” wrote Jay to political colleagues while reviewing drafts of the constitution.

In 1785 Jay and a few close friends, mostly slave owners, founded the New York State Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves (see Minutes of the Manumission Society of New York, v.1, 1785). The Society entered lawsuits on behalf of slaves and organized boycotts. Jay also advocated subsidizing black education. “I consider education to be the soul of the republic,” he wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1785. “I wish to see all unjust and all unnecessary discriminations everywhere abolished, and that the time may soon come when all our inhabitants of every colour and denomination shall be free and equal partakers of our political liberty” (see John Jay to Dr. Benjamin Rush, 3/24/1785, Jay ID #9450). In 1787, he helped found New York’s African Free School, which by December 1788 had fifty-six students and which he continued to support financially (see John Jay to John Murray, Jr., 10/18/1805, Jay ID #9603). By the time the Manumission Society surrendered management to New York City in 1834, the school had educated well over 1,000 students.

Although he owned slaves himself, Jay had an explanation for this seemingly contradictory practice: “I purchase slaves and manumit them at proper ages and when their faithful services shall have afforded a reasonable retribution.” His attitude toward slavery in New York followed the same gradualist line (see John Jay to Egbert Benson, 9/18/1780, Jay ID #1713). In 1799 as governor of the state, Jay signed into law An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery.

... columbia.edu



To: Land Shark who wrote (34365)6/30/2011 8:47:27 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 36917
 
Abe Lincoln agreed with Bachman on the FF's and slavery

... Princeton's James M. McPherson in the Battle Cry of Freedom. McPherson summarizes Lincoln's argument:

The founding fathers, said Lincoln, had opposed slavery. They adopted a Declaration of Independence that pronounced all men created equal. They enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banning slavery from the vast Northwest Territory. To be sure, many of the founders owned slaves. But they asserted their hostility to slavery in principle while tolerating it temporarily (as they hoped) in practice. That was why they did not mention the words "slave" or "slavery" in the Constitution, but referred only to "persons held to service." "Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution," said Lincoln, "just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time." The first step was to prevent the spread of this cancer, which the fathers took with the Northwest Ordinance, the prohibition of the African slave trade in 1807, and the Missouri Compromise restriction of 1820. The second was to begin a process of gradual emancipation, which the generation of the fathers had accomplished in the states north of Maryland.

Here's what Lincoln said of the Founding Fathers in his 1854 Peoria speech:

The argument of "Necessity" was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help; and they cast blame upon the British King for having permitted its introduction. BEFORE the constitution, they prohibited its introduction into the north-western Territory---the only country we owned, then free from it. AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word "slave" or "slavery" in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a "PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR." In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit," &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade---that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory---this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.

In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries---as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.

In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808---the very first day the constitution would permit---prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.

In Lincoln's famous 1860 Cooper Union speech, he noted that of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 22 had voted on the question of banning slavery in the new territories. Twenty of the 22 voted to ban it, while another one of the Constitution's framers--George Washington--signed into law legislation enforcing the Northwest Ordinance that banned slavery in the Northwest Territories.
At Cooper Union, Lincoln also quoted Thomas Jefferson, who had argued in favor of Virginia emancipation: "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...."

To be sure, the Founding Fathers weren't abolitionists. But they were overwhelmingly antislavery.

I eagerly await George Stephanopoulos's "fact check" of Honest Abe.

weeklystandard.com