Posted on 03/30/2019 12:39:26 PM PDT by 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.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at benjaminfranklin.org ...
Ben Franklin was a sanctimonious kook.
There, I said it...
Some of what you were tought was accurate. Some was not.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never mentioned Lincoln. I cited slogans.
There is a very good ongoing thread on this forum that posts contemporary accounts, including speeches, newspapers, diaries, etc. The posts are covering 1859 at the moment.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never mentioned Lincoln. I cited slogans.
There is a very good ongoing thread on this forum that posts contemporary accounts, including speeches, newspapers, diaries, etc. The posts are covering 1859 at the moment.
Yes. Kansas also meant “free of Black people”. Their state constitution forbade Black people from living there. No, not just slaves. ALL Black people.
The truth is Ben Franklin’s got a mixed history. Its true he went from slave owner to public abolitionist.
It is also true that he derived considerable revenue/profit from selling advertising to slave traders and to slave owners looking to recapture escaped slaves in his newspapers. He was never averse to making money from slavery whatever his public statements about it.
Were Franklin to visit the here and now, I would hope he would admit that the best thing the USA could have done for the freed slaves was to transport them back to the lands from which they came.
“Don’t put words in my mouth. I never mentioned Lincoln. I cited slogans.”
You did make the claim: “In the end, the Union Army settled the issue (slavery) and freed the slaves . . .”
Is it really putting words in your mouth to say the policies of the Union Army were the policies of the U.S. President?
You don’t think that the Union Army freed slaves in occupied states in rebellion and in all states of the Confederacy after Appomattox?
“You don’t think that the Union Army freed slaves in occupied states in rebellion and in all states of the Confederacy after Appomattox?”
Oh, so your point has been the Union Army was fighting to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation issued in 1863?
Fair enough. What was the Union Army fighting for in 1861 and 1862 - to “free the slaves?”
Some say that was exactly what Lincoln and the North were fighting for. Maybe they were.
Again, I’m really enjoying your posts & this thread as a whole.
You say’ “patronizing is a good choice of word to characterise the attitude of white society, especially among the women.”
That comment touches on other complex issues WRT the peculiar institution.
White Christian women married to plantation owners had to produce an heir or two, then feign a ladylike disinterest in sex, while pretending not to notice the strong resemblance to her husband & sons all the light-skinned little “pickanninnies” on the plantatation bore.
The white women knew the slave women were attracting their husbands’ attention & even genuine affection in some instances.
The offspring of these liasons were more likely to be freed, not only because they were part white, but to get rid of them, lest they try and claim any inheritance.
So, yes, I’d agree, patronizing/ condescension does aptly characterise even the more compassionate treatment of slaves by their white masters.
He should have used an IBM Selectric.
He would have, but he hadn't gotten around to discovering electricity yet. What beautiful handwriting, however. Hard to do with the carved end of a turkey feather. Love me some Benj. Franklin. I've read about four biographies of the outstanding techie of our first 200 years.
I'm afraid our Ben was always a social liberal. He even thought "mohametans" could fit right into our new republic.
Bear in mind, after the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808 by President Jefferson many years before the Civil War, many slaveowners became personally involved in producing more slaves. There was an economic rationale behind immoral behavior.
“There was an economic rationale behind immoral behavior.”
That is an interesting comment.
I have read “the love of money is the root of all evil.”
Is that what you mean?
jeffersondem well knows that slavery was important to all parties before, during and after the war.
Before the war Republicans were the first US political party to openly oppose slavery, to call it "wrong" and to demand restrictions on it.
Southern Democrats responded with increasing bitterness, threatening secession in 1856 if the abolitionist Republican won (he lost) and again in 1860.
Lincoln won and so Fire Eaters carried out their threats.
The Southern threats in 1856 and 1860 were not because of tariffs or "money flows from Europe", but because of Republicans' opposition to slavery.
And that's what Secessionists said in their Reasons for Secession documents.
In April 1861 war came, so who started it and why?
jeffersondem may agree with other Lost Causers who claim: Lincoln started war so he could collect tariffs from Charleston Harbor.
But Charleston produced less than 1% of US tariff revenues and the entire seceded Deep South only about 6%.
So the real question is: why did Jefferson Davis refuse to allow Lincoln to resupply Fort Sumter?
The answer to that is the real reason for Civil War.
Did it start over slavery?
No, but slavery immediately became a huge issue under terms like "Contraband of War" and the 1861 "Confiscation Ace", 1862 Emancipation Proclamation & Colored regiments, 1865 Abolition (13th), 1868 Citizenship (14th) and 1870 Voting Rights (15th).
Typical Civil War recruiting posters:
For this post, let's stipulate that you are correct: the war did not start over slavery.
We can forever dismiss the notion that the North fought for the high moral purpose of “freeing the slaves.”
But the North did fight. And for a very important reason. The North fought for what they considered their own best economic and political best self-interest.
That is an interesting comment.
I have previously heard criticisms of Lee - Lee was a fascist; Lee was a Nazi; Lee was a Marxist; Lee did not support homosexual marriage.
I believe you are the first I can remember to say Lee was fond of war.
Because of chronological complexities your opinion can not be the result of direct observation; it must come from something you have read.
Can you cite information that indicates Lee was vainglorious; that Lee was fond of war? Perhaps your opinion is based on something General Eisenhower said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.