What is the relation between the Founders and the Underground Railroad?

PGA Weblog ^

[DiogenesLamp]

Harriet Tubman only survived to become famous because she was sick the day of John Brown’s Harpers Ferry raid.

I would plead to being sick too if someone was seriously going to go attack a Federal Arsenal. She should have been rounded up with all the other conspiracists.

And this business of Frederick Douglas knowing about it, isn't that misprision of a Felony?

[DiogenesLamp]

We had Tea Parties and it was working. It worked! We were actively pushing back against the media and changing their narratives, we were actively ousting worthless politicians from our side, we were being successful in local town hall meetings, and we were having Constitutional discussions among each other that I’ve never had in any other time period in my life. For some odd reason that I cannot explain it was our guys who decided they didn’t want it and I don’t mean republicans, this was conservatives. Sitting down was viewed as a better option than winning. Yeah ok everybody will show up on election day but then for the next 729 days progressives have no opposition. I don’t get it.

I saw it happening too. The media started their hate campaign and referred to the Tea Party as both racist and extremist. Mitch McConnell said he would "Like to punch the Tea Party in the nose" and he actually used political action committee money which he controlled to pay for racist attack ads against Chris McDaniel in Mississippi.

I say this a lot. "Follow the money." Washington DC is a corrupt enterprise that successfully takes money out of the broader swath of American pockets and concentrates it in the pockets of the wealthy and connected corruptocracy of Washington DC.

The reason that so many Republicans fought to marginalize the Tea Party is because the Tea Party was interfering with their institutionalized graft game.

And a lot of stupid people simply believe the crap spewing out of the media.

[Little Ray]

Dunno. Tubman was already felon for helping slaves escape along the Underground Railroad. But that only makes her a hero. What did she have to lose?

The Frederick Douglass part is more interesting. Douglass was a leading light of the Abolitionists. This illuminates the nature of the Abolitionist movement. It wasn’t all “Love your brother,” “Am I not a Man and a Brother, too?” and stuff like that. There were hardcore terrorists among the Abolitionists, and they were apparently mainstream to the movement.

This is very applicable to our current situation. We already know that corporations are shelling out millions ($100 million in the case of Apple!) to BLM and Antifa. I bet there are connections directly into the Democrat party. But, because neither BLM or Antifa is being prosecuted, none of this is splashing on them.

[robowombat]

I would argue none. They were all dead before it began. Jay was the only framer to have a practical interest in how slavery might be ended and his constitutional amendment process never attracted any traction. Hamilton was,as often, just posturing on the issue
The UR was pretty much just propaganda artifact anyway.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is very applicable to our current situation. We already know that corporations are shelling out millions ($100 million in the case of Apple!) to BLM and Antifa. I bet there are connections directly into the Democrat party. But, because neither BLM or Antifa is being prosecuted, none of this is splashing on them.

Are you familiar with the fact that John Brown was in the wool industry, and that he had attempted to create a "cartel" of wool producing interests? Also the men who financed him were wealthy men of Massachusetts which is where he tried to set up his "wool cartel."

Ever since I found out that John Brown was a wool merchant, I wondered how much hatred he had for cotton growers who were his primary competition in the fabric industry of that era. Was it hatred of slavery for the sake of the slaves, or hatred of wealthy men who were getting rich off of slavery while he struggled with his wool sales?

I nowadays no longer simply accept claims of altruism and being motivated by the milk of human kindness, especially when there is a discernible financial angle to see.

People have a funny way of seeing whatever is in their best financial interest as "moral."

[sit-rep]

there are 2 reasons, and only 2 answers to your question.

1. We got old and there are not many in the younger generations who care as we did/do.

2. Since we got old, we know deep down inside the only true solution to what is going on is to take to the streets as we did years past. only now, it is surely to be met with violence. so do we get our 60 yr old asses handed to us and face death? or do we go armed and face political persecution for defending ourselves...

So, indeed true the Rona has people shy of crowds, being 60, the only way i personally would attend is if there is substantial strength in numbers. because as said, the likelyhood of being met with counter protests from Anteefa and BLM are so high, it would be a tinder box just waiting for a spark. so I'll shy away from a protest with couple 100 people. Call me when you get a couple 1000.

[Little Ray]

Possibly. But what are the chances it goes the other way - Brown hated the cotton plantations so he tried to promote wool?
One thing I am pretty much certain of is that John Brown hated slavery and slave owners in way that is difficult for folks like me to understand. Remember, he died trying steal arms for a massive slave uprising, Nat Turner writ large. I think his hatred of slavery motivated him more than any love of money.

[DiogenesLamp]

Possibly. But what are the chances it goes the other way - Brown hated the cotton plantations so he tried to promote wool?

He got into the wool business to make money. He found it difficult because most people of that time wanted cotton. He wouldn't be the first person to decide that the people who cause him financial difficulties were evil.

People often rationalize what they wish to believe and then convince themselves that it's God's idea.

And yes, he was a religious fanatic, but i've known plenty of them, and they will often decide something is evil, and then claim it to be the word of God.

They try to force people to do what they want by claiming it's "God's word" not theirs.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"I would plead to being sick too if someone was seriously going to go attack a Federal Arsenal."

You know, that's exactly what the Founders did.

When King George plotted a scheme to implement gun control and take gun powder, etc, the Founders (probably better to say "founding generation") got together and attacked British forts(or at least a fort) to steal British weapons first and otherwise hide their weapons before the regulars arrived. Paul Revere was there as was John Langdon who later signed the Constitution. This was after the burning of the Gaspee but prior to Lexington.

The Battle of Lexington and Concord was one of two things: the second reason was gun control. FR has this as a recurring graphic:

British gun control against the colonies wasn't a one time event.

[DiogenesLamp]

You know, that's exactly what the Founders did.

The founders pled sick so as to avoid getting captured?

The founders were at least 30% of the population, not some little fringe terrorist group like ANTIFA or BLM or John Brown.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"What did the founders think of the Underground railroad? Well they would have regarded it as a conspiracy to break Federal law, and a form of insurrection. "

They couldn't have thought anything about it, it happened even after the last Founder (Madison) passed.

There is an interesting thought experiment here though to consider if the very same Founders who passed abolitionist laws against the King only to have the King veto those laws, would then be in favor of the whole situation which would put them in opposition to their prior selves. But it's nothing more than a thought experiment.

"You may be shocked to learn that there is a continuum between the past and the present."

I want out of the reality that the progressives have constructed for us. You guys seem to be happy living in it.

"I see large numbers of parallels between the past and the present."

Ok then, what's the parallel between the burning of the Gaspee as well as the tarring and feathering of British officials to the terrorism that Frederick Douglass ignored in the lead up to Harper's Ferry?

[ProgressingAmerica]

If you are so intent on being dishonest, why are you here? What is your purpose?

[DiogenesLamp]

They couldn't have thought anything about it, it happened even after the last Founder (Madison) passed.

You brought up the founders and the Underground Railroad. Had any of them been alive, they would have considered it a conspiracy to break Federal law, and they would have arrested all involved.

There is an interesting thought experiment here though to consider if the very same Founders who passed abolitionist laws against the King only to have the King veto those laws, would then be in favor of the whole situation which would put them in opposition to their prior selves. But it's nothing more than a thought experiment.

Okay, you *ASSERTED* that the founders passed abolitionist laws, and i'm pretty sure you are being very loose with your definition of "founders" here. I don't know of any of the well known "founders" who passed abolitionist laws, but I know very well that they put a requirement to return escaped slaves in the US Constitution.

I also know, when the nation was founded, *ALL* of the states were slave states, and by 1787, the vast majority of them still were.

I want out of the reality that the progressives have constructed for us. You guys seem to be happy living in it.

Reality is reality, and progressive's illusions are not the same thing at all.

Ok then, what's the parallel between the burning of the Gaspee as well as the tarring and feathering of British officials to the terrorism that Frederick Douglass ignored in the lead up to Harper's Ferry?

I wouldn't know, I don't see them as congruent. Since you see some sort of parallel, perhaps you can explain it?

[DiogenesLamp]

If you are so intent on being dishonest, why are you here? What is your purpose?

What is dishonest about comparing Antifa and BLM to John Brown's raid? They would certainly do that and more if they were able to get away with it.

One thing about John Brown, he was no coward. Can't say the same for Antifa and BLM.

[ProgressingAmerica]

I’m not sure you’re even reading what’s being typed. I replied to your line specifically about Federal Arsenals, including a detail about the King’s arsenals being raided by the Founders, and you came back with the Founders pleading sick. It was a complete disconnect.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Since you see some sort of parallel, perhaps you can explain it?"

The king, believing the colonies to be his colonies would have seen then the same way.

As for pre-independence abolitionist laws, we've discussed this one before.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xY_RAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA413

“The inhabitants of Virginia were controlled by the central authority on a subject of still more vital importance to them and their posterity. Their halls of legislation had resounded with eloquence directed against the terrible plague of negro slavery. Again and again they had passed laws, restraining the importations of negroes from Africa; but their laws were disallowed. How to prevent them from protecting themselves against the increase of the overwhelming evil was debated by the King in Council, and on the tenth day of December, 1770, he issued an instruction, under his own hand, commanding the Governor, “upon pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law, by which the importation of slaves should be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.”

Massachusetts was another state that tried abolishing slavery prior to independence as well only to be blocked by the king's creature. Americans used to know this far and wide over a century ago before the progressives took over the schools. Now these days, even on a conservative website, I know fully how foolish I look even bringing it up, even though it's factually correct.

That's how far the progressives have taken us.

The worst part is, they cleansed the schools of all the good works the Founders did, then, having covered it all up they can call the Founders whatever they want - in this case "racist".

That's not what the abolitionists thought.

[the OlLine Rebel]

This has been a great thread, not least because many (new ones, too) are debating the OP.

[nicollo]

The US Constitution requires runaway slaves to be returned to their masters. It is written in flowery euphemisms, but that is exactly what Article IV, Section 2 says must be done.

I wouldn't call it "flowery euphemisms" (I'd call it an essential rule to conjoin independent states unto a functional union), but "privileges and immunities" do just that.

Still, you can't square that with ProgressingAmerica's point here about the Northwest Ordinance, which created a sanctuary for escaped slaves and established a federal precedent for "free states."

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m not sure you’re even reading what’s being typed. I replied to your line specifically about Federal Arsenals, including a detail about the King’s arsenals being raided by the Founders, and you came back with the Founders pleading sick.

You mean i'm not going along with your efforts to compare what John Brown did with what the founders did? Did you really think I would?

And unless I am mistaken, the Arsenal belonged to the community, not the King. Just as Anderson seizing the fortress with guns overlooking Charleston made people think he had a hostile intent, so too did the colonists regard the British effort to seize their arsenal.

But what John Brown had in mind was an armed slave uprising that had it been initially successful would have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents, and it would have triggered a retaliation that would have left a horrid mark on our national consciousness.

It may have triggered a genocide. It would have turned into mass murder. I don't think you have really thought through what would have happened had John Brown managed to trigger a massive slave uprising.

Ever hear of the Tulsa race riots? The aftershocks would have made the Tulsa race riots look like a pleasant afternoon walk. It would have been catastrophic.

John Brown was a dangerous fanatic and terrorist, and there is no light in which he resembles the colonists or the founders.

[DiogenesLamp]

I wouldn't call it "flowery euphemisms"

The section is specifically about runaway slaves, yet no where in it does it say "slaves". They attempt to pretty up the ugly truth by massaging the verbiage to make it less obvious, but "person held to service or labor" means "slave." Refusing to call a slave a "slave" is an example of a "flowery euphemism."

(I'd call it an essential rule to conjoin independent states unto a functional union)

And you are right about that. Had they balked at recognizing the legal right to slavery they would have never coalesced into a single entity.

Still, you can't square that with ProgressingAmerica's point here about the Northwest Ordinance, which created a sanctuary for escaped slaves and established a federal precedent for "free states."

A distinction worthy of a lawyer. It is an adherence to the verbiage while being an absolute contradiction to the spirit of the law. Had this intent been made clear in the effort to ratify the Constitution, it is quite likely it would not have been ratified.

The Northwest Ordinance is a peculiar thing, and even though it was enacted by the confederate congress, this is not the same as saying it had the consent of the states. Certainly the states would not have thought that this would be used as a "get out of slavery" card.

Slavery was on the wane in 1787, and no doubt this is reflected in the willingness of the congress to enact such a law because nobody had any expectations of expanding slavery anywhere at the time.

Then Eli Whitney came along and flipped the profitability equation of slavery.

It's always about money.