Ben Franklin: Slaveowner to Slavery Abolitionist

BenFranklin.org ^

[CondoleezzaProtege]

In his later years, Benjamin Franklin became vocal as an abolitionist and in 1787 began to serve as President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery.

The Society was originally formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, as The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage...The Society not only advocated the abolition of slavery, but made efforts to integrate freed slaves into American society.

Preamble:

"It having pleased the Creator of the world, to make of one flesh all the children of men, it becomes them to consult and promote each other's happiness, as members of the same family, however diversified they may be, by colour, situation, religion, or different states of society. It is more especially the duty of those persons, who profess to maintain for themselves the rights of human nature, and who acknowledge the obligations of Christianity, to use such means as are in their power, to extend the blessings of freedom to every part of the human race; and in a more particular manner, to such of their fellow creatures as are entitled to freedom by the laws and constitutions of any of the United States, and who, notwithstanding, are detained in bondage, by fraud or violence.— From a full conviction of the truth and obligation of these principles, — from a desire to diffuse them, wherever the miseries and vices of slavery exist, and in humble confidence of the favour and support of the Father of Mankind, the subscribers have associated themselves, under the title of the 'Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and the Relief of free Negroes unlawfully held in Bondage, and for improving the condition of the African race.'"

[DiogenesLamp]

This is why I often don't even bother responding to him. He simply repeats his same demonstrably incorrect claim over and over. He keeps wanting to put conditions onto a right where *NO CONDITIONS* are visible in the actual document itself.

I've noticed that someone else has seemingly shut up since I posted this particular message. I'm sure the reprieve is only temporary though.

[DiogenesLamp]

Central VA wrote:
Only someone lacking any intuition or historical knowledge would think that the US Constitution would have been ratified if it contaminated “roach motel” clause making unilateral state secession unconstitutional. It would have been a dead letter.

To which rockrr replied:
And yet they did...

No. They did not. People such as yourself simply assert that they did, but the actual evidence demonstrates that you are incorrect about this.

1. Declaration of Independence asserts that people have a right under the laws of God to "dissolve the political bonds" between themselves and another people.

2. New York ratification statement asserts the right to reassume powers given up.

3. Virginia ratification statement asserts the right to reassume the powers given up.

4. Delaware ratification statement asserts the right to reassume the powers given up.

5. During the Hartford convention, (1814) Massachusetts asserted that it had a right to secede.

6. During the Hartford convention, (1814) Connecticut asserted that it had a right to secede.

7. No mention in the text of the US Constitution that states cannot leave.

Where is your contemporary evidence to the contrary?

[rockrr]

1. Declaration of Independence asserts that people have a right under the laws of God to "dissolve the political bonds" between themselves and another people.

Conditioned upon an existential threat. None has ever existed (although we came close in 1812).

2. New York ratification statement asserts the right to reassume powers given up.

Irrelevant - doesn't carry the force of law.

3. Virginia ratification statement asserts the right to reassume the powers given up.

Irrelevant - doesn't carry the force of law.

4. Delaware ratification statement asserts the right to reassume the powers given up.

Irrelevant - doesn't carry the force of law.

5. During the Hartford convention, (1814) Massachusetts asserted that it had a right to secede.

Irrelevant - doesn't carry the force of law.

6. During the Hartford convention, (1814) Connecticut asserted that it had a right to secede.

Irrelevant - doesn't carry the force of law.

7. No mention in the text of the US Constitution that states cannot leave.

Gee, now why do ya spose that is?

BTW: central_va framed his assertion on unilateral secession, not secession. No founder has ever endorsed unilateral secession.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Only someone lacking any intuition or historical knowledge would think that the US Constitution would have been ratified if it contaminated “roach motel” clause making unilateral state secession unconstitutional.
It would have been a dead letter."

Madison clearly explained the two justifications for disunion:

1. Necessity as 1776 Founders defined it in their Declaration of Independence.

2. Mutual consent as 1788 Founders defined & voted to "secede" from the old Articles of Confederation in favor of their new Constitution.

All 1788 Constitution ratification withdrawal statements refer to necessity, and that can only mean as defined in the 1776 Declaration.

Neither necessity nor mutual consent existed in 1860 when Deep South Fire Eaters began to declare their secessions at pleasure.

That's why Northerners, even one so favorable towards the South as Doughfaced Democrat President Buchanan considered such secessions unlawful, though not cause for war until after Fort Sumter.
Then Buchanan wrote colleagues:

"the assault upon Sumter was the commencement of war by the Confederate states, and no alternative was left but to prosecute it with vigor on our part".[82]

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem quoting: "In their own words: '. . . to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.' "

But as always, you misquote by taking those words out of context.
The full context includes these words, among others similar:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

So neither here nor elsewhere in the Declaration is there any hint of the term "at pleasure".
Instead, it's all from stark, brutal necessity.

No such necessity existed in 1860 when Fire Eaters began to declare secession at pleasure.

Of course, at pleasure did play a big role in the 1787 Constitution -- with "secession" from the Articles and ratification of the Constitution by mutual consent.
But there was no such mutual consent in 1860.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "This is why I often don't even bother responding to him. He simply repeats his same demonstrably incorrect claim over and over."

No, it's really because DiogenesLamp has been head-shot by, and brain-dead from, Lost Cause myths.
Literally, his brain is so riddled with lies he can neither see nor comprehend truth.

DiogenesLamp: "He keeps wanting to put conditions onto a right where *NO CONDITIONS* are visible in the actual document itself."

Literally, DiogenesLamp sees endless lies where none exist, but can't see the simplest of truths which contradict them.
The real truth is this: there was nothing at pleasure about the Declaration of Independence.

DiogenesLamp: "I've noticed that someone else has seemingly shut up since I posted this particular message. I'm sure the reprieve is only temporary though."

That link is simply a regurgitation of total nonsense posted here endlessly, despite clear evidence refuting it.
The real truth is that no Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral, unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.

DiogenesLamp's refusal to acknowledge that is a sign, imho, of something wrong upstairs.
My political diagnosis is: as a born Democrat, DiogenesLamp just can't stop himself thinking & lying like one.

[jeffersondem]

“So neither here nor elsewhere in the Declaration is there any hint of the term “at pleasure”.”

The words “at pleasure” do not appear in the DOI in any context; the words were inserted into hard-shell, northern Mother Church dogma much, much later.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on alleged "roach motel: compact: "People such as yourself simply assert that they did, but the actual evidence demonstrates that you are incorrect about this."

But your alleged "evidence" is all nonsense.

DiogenesLamp: "1. Declaration of Independence asserts that people have a right under the laws of God to "dissolve the political bonds" between themselves and another people. "

But only when it becomes necessary, necessity defined in the Declaration.
No Founder ever proposed or supported at pleasure secession, except by mutual consent.

DiogenesLamp "2. New York ratification statement asserts the right to reassume powers given up. "

But only when necessary, not at pleasure.

DiogenesLamp: "3. Virginia ratification statement asserts the right to reassume the powers given up."

But only "whensoever the same [powers] shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..." and make it necessary.
The meaning of Virginia's words is made clear by the fact that Virginians refused to secede until after Fort Sumter made it necessary.

DiogenesLamp: "4. Delaware ratification statement asserts the right to reassume the powers given up."

Delaware's ratification statement says nothing whatever about "resuming powers" or secession or anything of that sort.

DiogenesLamp "5. During the Hartford convention, (1814) Massachusetts asserted that it had a right to secede."

First, no notes were kept so nobody today knows who asserted what.
More important, the 1814 Hartford Convention Final Report did not call for secession, only for Constitutional Amendments to prevent further alleged unconstitutional infringements on their states' sovereignty.
Those New Englanders who did call for secession believed it was made necessary by, among other things, President Madison's unjust War of 1812 against Britain.

The whole situation is more complicated, but the bottom line is: secession talk in 1814 effectively destroyed the Federalist Party and lead to permanent Democrat rule over Washington until actual secession in 1861.

DiogenesLamp: "7. No mention in the text of the US Constitution that states cannot leave. "

Nor did any Founder ever deny a "right of secession" when justified by necessity or mutual consent.
No Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The words “at pleasure” do not appear in the DOI in any context; the words were inserted into hard-shell, northern Mother Church dogma much, much later."

By whom?
Oh yes, that's right, by the Father of the Constitution, who you seem determined to reduce to the status of mere "yapping dog", one James Madison, from that "up Nawth" state of Virginia.

The reason "at pleasure" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence is because there was nothing "at pleasure" about it.
But the term itself (or similar) is as old as the English crown and was available for use, had they needed it.
They didn't because it's not what they meant.

[DiogenesLamp]

Conditioned upon an existential threat.

You claim it is conditional. What language in the Declaration of Independence identifies any conditions?

Irrelevant - doesn't carry the force of law.

The approval by a State legislature of the US Constitution doesn't carry the force of law? Then from what source does the "force of law" emerge?

7. No mention in the text of the US Constitution that states cannot leave.

Gee, now why do ya spose that is?

Because a mere 11 years after the Declaration of Independence was written and ratified, the idea is bone headed stupid. The constitution clearly did not include a ban on leaving, because in 1776, the nation made the right to independence the foundation of it's own legitimacy.

This "states cannot leave" nonsense was crap people asserted many decades subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution. If you claim otherwise, show me some 1789 contemporary proof that anyone believed otherwise.

I've got statements from the collective authorities of states saying they can. What primary source of official knowledge do you have that says they cannot?

[jeffersondem]

“Oh yes, that's right, by the Father of the Constitution, who you seem determined to reduce to the status of mere “yapping dog”, one James Madison, from that “up Nawth” state of Virginia.”

The record is clear - you began the offensive reference to James Madison as “yapping dog” or “yapped like a dog”. If you really want to distance yourself from the slur, apologize and move on.

Compounding the falsehood can only result in your further inculpation.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The record is clear - you began the offensive reference to James Madison as “yapping dog” or “yapped like a dog”.
If you really want to distance yourself from the slur, apologize and move on."

Well. first, your slur against Madison's letter to Trist is no less offensive than anything I ever posted.

Second, I consider pretty much all Democrats "yapping dogs" -- it's your nature, you just can't stop yourselves.
James Madison was a Federalist, strong definer & defender of the Constitution, honored today with the title, "Father of the Constitution".
But when he flipped & joined Jefferson's Democrats he did briefly sound like one, witness "Interposition".

So I honor Madison's words & actions, except when he sounded like a Democrat, but you by contrast seem to do the opposite, especially regarding Madison's views on at pleasure secession.

Now instead of acknowledging your own utter disrespect for Madison, which an honorable person would do, you respond like a typical Democrat, change the subject and attack, attack, attack.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to rockrr: "You claim it is conditional.
What language in the Declaration of Independence identifies any conditions?"

All of this has been pointed out to DiogenesLamp innumerable times, but he utterly refuses to read & comprehend.
Regardless, conditions set by the Declaration begin with its very first word: "When..."

1. "When...it becomes necessary…"

2. "Whenever it becomes destructive of these ends…"

3. "When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."

4. "...such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

5. "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

6. "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies..."

"When...it becomes necessary" are the Declaration's opening words and there is never a hint of at pleasure reasons or actions afterwards.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr on VA ratification statement: "Irrelevant - doesn't carry the force of law."

DiogenesLamp: "The approval by a State legislature of the US Constitution doesn't carry the force of law?
Then from what source does the 'force of law' emerge?"

Legally speaking, signing statements never carry the "force of law", but only act as statements of intent, should the matter ever be adjudicated.
Courts may, but also may not, treat such signing statements with respect in reaching their decisions.

But even if we do treat Virginia's signing statement with respect, it still does not authorized what Fire Eaters did in late 1860 -- declare secession at pleasure.
Virginia's statement's key words are:

"...powers granted... may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."

No such "perverted" existed in 1860.

DiogenesLamp: "The constitution clearly did not include a ban on leaving, because in 1776, the nation made the right to independence the foundation of it's own legitimacy. "

No Founder ever asserted an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
All supported "secession" by necessity as in 1776 and by mutual consent as in 1788.
But neither necessity nor mutual consent existed in 1860.

DiogenesLamp: "This "states cannot leave" nonsense was crap people asserted many decades subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution.
If you claim otherwise, show me some 1789 contemporary proof that anyone believed otherwise."

The proof is this: all the quotes which you tell us authorize a "right of secession" in fact restrict such right to conditions of necessity or mutual consent.
There is no quote from any Founder ever implying support for an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.

[jeffersondem]

“Now instead of acknowledging your own utter disrespect for Madison . . .”

I had encouraged you not to compound your falsehood. You did it anyway.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I had encouraged you not to compound your falsehood.
You did it anyway."

Just more gaslighting, no falsehood from me.
It's you who utterly disrespect Madison's entire life in service to the US Constitution by mocking his letter to Trist as, in effect, a product of Madison's senility and not worthy as an expression of original intent.

Further, you've never produced a single quote from any Founder which directly contradicts Madison, and yet you insist, baselessly, that he must be wrong about at pleasure declarations of secession.

That is your attempt to "compound your falsehood" going on here.

[jeffersondem]

“It's you who utterly disrespect Madison's entire life in service to the US Constitution by mocking his letter to Trist as, in effect, a product of Madison's senility and not worthy as an expression of original intent.”

You have mischaracterized my views.

But if you can cite language in my posts that justifies your claim that I “utterly disrespect Madison's entire life in service to the US Constitution” it would help to restore some of your lost credibility.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "But if you can cite language in my posts that justifies your claim that I “utterly disrespect Madison's entire life in service to the US Constitution” it would help to restore some of your lost credibility."

Well... as a defender of the Lost Cause Mother Church, your credibility has always been zero -- so you have none to lose.
As for where you've disrespected Madison, I refer you to your post #251:

"Madison's letter to Trist was written 54 years after the Declaration of Independence, too long after to be considered contemporaneous with the nation's founding.
In the letter to Trist the former President wrote candidly about his advanced age and cited it as a reason his end-of-life musings could not be trusted.
If, as you say, this private letter “remains the most explicit expression” of the view that the Constitution forbids secession, then Brother Joe your Mother Church has a weak foundation indeed."

"Too long after"?
"End of life musings"?
No, the letter expresses Madison's life-long beliefs regarding the US Constitution.
And he repeated those beliefs in a short document called "Advice to my Country":

"The advice nearest to my heart is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated.
Let the open enemy to it [the Union] be regarded as a Pandora with her box opened; and the disguised one, as the serpent creeping with is deadly wiles into Paradise."

Presidnet John Adams expressed similar views:

"Only repeated, multiplied oppressions placing it beyond all doubt that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties, could warrant the concerted resistance of the people against their government".[8]

George Washington also spoke of an "indissoluble Union of the states under one Federal head," and:

"whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or to contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to liberty and independency of America, and the authors of these treated accordingly."

Even Jefferson did not support an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure:

"Self-preservation is paramount to all law...
There are extreme cases where the laws become inadequate even to their own preservation” (1808, page 846)…
"if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission [secession] of the union, no federal government can ever exist."
"Thomas Jefferson and American nationhood (p 832-3)

Sure, at the end of his letter to Trist, Madison does say his age makes his words a "telum imbelle" -- weak weapon -- and of SC's annulment & secession claims, Madison says the "task of combating such unhappy aberrations belongs to other hands."
But Madison nowhere admits annulment & secession have merit, only that other people must combat them.

That's why I say you mock Madison -- and our Founders generally -- in claiming his case against annulment & secession can be dismissed as just "musings... of advanced age" when clearly Madison's words represent Founders' original intent, never directly contradicted by any others.

[jeffersondem]

“As for where you've disrespected Madison, I refer you to your post #251: “Madison's letter to Trist was written 54 years after the Declaration of Independence, too long after to be considered contemporaneous with the nation's founding.
In the letter to Trist the former President wrote candidly about his advanced age and cited it as a reason his end-of-life musings could not be trusted. If, as you say, this private letter “remains the most explicit expression” of the view that the Constitution forbids secession, then Brother Joe your Mother Church has a weak foundation indeed." "

Brother Joe your cheese has slipped off the cracker.

You attempted to use the Madison-to-Trist letter to make one of your weak points strong but it blew up leaving you red-faced.

But just because you got embarrassed by your own off-piste argument does not mean I disrespected Madison. I expressed nothing of the sort.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "But just because you got embarrassed by your own off-piste argument does not mean I disrespected Madison. I expressed nothing of the sort."

Nonsense, you are totally disrespectful of the Father of the Constitution, in claiming his strong defense against secession at pleasure is nothing more than "musings... of advanced age".
Even if we allow for Madison's self-deprecating "telum imbelle" there is still nothing in any earlier words of Madison, or any other Founder, directly contradicting his arguments to Trist.

Take that to your Lost Cause Mother Church.