Ben Franklin: Slaveowner to Slavery Abolitionist

BenFranklin.org ^

[DiogenesLamp]

You don’t think that the Union Army freed slaves in occupied states in rebellion and in all states of the Confederacy after Appomattox?

By what legal authority did they do that? The US constitution has a clause that absolutely requires slaves to be returned to their masters. How did they get around that?

[wbarmy]

I think the fact that Lee prolonged the war long past when there was any chance to win it, shows he was fond of something. The chance at victory at Gettysburg, even though Longstreet was perfectly correct in what would happened, showed that Lee thought his own name and force of personality would see them through.

Maybe it wasn’t war he was fond of, maybe it was the crowds screaming his name.

[OIFVeteran]

Where’s the “Not this s%^& again” picture. You have been told numerous times by numerous people on this threads that the United States went to war to suppress an armed rebellion. During this war the additional war aim of freeing the slaves was adopted.

The south rebelled to protect slavery. Many of them said so in their declarations of secession. I would recommend reading them. Why did they think slavery needed protection from the Republicans, because the Republicans were against slavery. They said so in their platforms of 1856 and 1860. You should read those.

[OIFVeteran]

Wow. As a fellow vet I find that comment incredibly ignorant. Over my 20+ years in the military I served with people of all races. There were blacks I would want in my foxhole and whites I wouldn’t, and vice versa. Blacks have just as much right to this country as any white person. Hell, in my genealogy my fathers side of the family didn’t come here until the late 1800s. I bet there are plenty of Blacks that can trace their ancestors back farther than that.

[VietVet876]

Ignorant of what? Franklin died in 1790, well before the first Civil War. Our ancestors who came from Europe came willingly as either free men or indentured servants typically to escape religious or economic persecution at home. Those who came from Africa came as slaves captured by other Africans and sold to middlemen who sold them to landowners of European ancestry. Franklin was a very smart individual and should have come to see that technology would have eliminated the need for slave labor at which point the choice would have to be made as to whether to keep them here and try to civilize them or return them to their native lands. Nothing too complicated about that decision.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "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.' "

Complete nonsense.
Americans went to war in 1861 for the same reason as 1776, 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917, 1941 and 2001 among other dates, because we believed we'd been attacked -- no more complicated reasoning is needed.
That doesn't mean there were no other reasons (freedom & tyranny were always issues), or that those reasons didn't become hugely important.
But in every case war started because we believed we'd been attacked.

Slavery became a hugely important issue, beginning with Contraband in 1861 and leading to the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments after the war.

jeffersondem: "The North fought for what they considered their own best economic and political best self-interest."

Naw, that's only your Marxist training coming out.
Just because your Leftist Academic professors taught you that, doesn't mean it's always true.
The fact is that emotions like patriotism are on a different plain from Marxist dialectics.

And the proof of it is this, jeffersondem: you never describe your own ancestors that way.
In your mind, regardless of what others might tell you, your own ancestors were not motivated by crass economics & politics, but rather by the highest ideals our country can offer, things like liberty, freedom, self government and indeed, self-respect.

You freely admit that for your own side, but reserve your Marxist dialectics for the United States.

Shame on you, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

centurion316: "You don’t think that the Union Army freed slaves in occupied states in rebellion and in all states of the Confederacy after Appomattox?"

DiogenesLamp: "By what legal authority did they do that?
The US constitution has a clause that absolutely requires slaves to be returned to their masters.
How did they get around that? "

The term of art at the time was, "Contraband of War" -- the long recognized authority of Armies to seize enemy property deemed of military value.
All armies of that age did it and indeed many today would also, in wartime.
When Confederate troops invaded Union regions they seized or destroyed anything deemed of military value, including horses, other livestock and, of course, slaves.

Union armies also seized or destroyed Confederate "property", which in the case of slaves they "destroyed" by declaring freed.

Beginning in 1861 Congress passed many laws authorizing such actions.
None were ever challenged constitutionally in court.

All of which DiogenesLamp well knows, but pretends not to.

[central_va]

We can forever dismiss the notion that the North fought for the high moral purpose of “freeing the slaves.”

The re writers of history are just getting started. Do you think they will stop at statues of generals?

[READINABLUESTATE]

“Interesting that Franklin’s Petition to the Senate is handwritten.”

His Gutenberg press was out of ink.

[BroJoeK]

VietVet876: "Franklin was a very smart individual and should have come to see that technology would have eliminated the need for slave labor at which point the choice would have to be made as to whether to keep them here and try to civilize them or return them to their native lands."

Voluntary recolonization was indeed official US & some states' policy from around 1819 until the Civil War.
Congress voted significant sums to support it and one result was the country of Liberia, Africa.

But recolonization from the beginning had several problems:

1. It was very expensive with middling results, at best.
   In today's terms we'd say it cost $billions but produced only a few thousand emigrants to Liberia (13,000 in 40 years).

2. Once they arrived, most emigrants had a hard time adapting & surviving in more primitive environments.

3. The result was, very few wanted to go and so the program languished.

4. During the Civil War Lincoln tried to revive it, sending recolonizers to Caribbean destinations, but with even worse results -- no such colony lasted long.
   So Lincoln gave it up and focused instead on making life more tolerable for freed blacks in the United States -- full citizenship for example.

The American Recolonization Society was sponsored by well known names like Jefferson, Madison & Monroe, and supported by many others, including Henry Clay & Lincoln.
But it was never a great success and most freed-blacks preferred life in the United States, however difficult, to return to lands of some of their ancestors.

[wbarmy]

That is a very good point about the different opinions posted here. The “South” was doing what they did for the highest of ideals, just like the Founding Fathers. But the Northerners were all selfish, self interested, profit seeking war mongers.

That really does sound like all the fire breathing newspaper articles being printed down south, just after Lincoln’s election, demanding blood be spilled so that other states would join the secession.

There is another thread on FR showing the different news articles but I cannot locate it.

[jeffersondem]

“Americans went to war in 1861 for the same reason as 1776, 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917, 1941 and 2001 among other dates, because we believed we'd been attacked — no more complicated reasoning is needed.”

And don't forget the 1964 Fort Sumter Incident where U.S. forces were attacked resulting in war with the enthusiastic support of Congress and the American public.

Errrr . . . I meant the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Incident. “No more complicated reasoning is needed.”

[jeffersondem]

“You have been told numerous times by numerous people on this threads that the United States went to war to suppress an armed rebellion.”

And I have been told numerous times by people on these threads that the North “fought to free the slaves; fought to end slavery.”

Even you can’t resist making the unspoken claim of virtue: “During this war the additional war aim of freeing the slaves was adopted.”

Eliminating the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution - legally and peacefully - was provided for by the founders when they included in the Constitution the amendment process. But no congressman - not even Lincoln himself - EVER proposed such an amendment before the war. They never called for a peaceful vote.

[an amused spectator]

I was doing some reading on this yesterday, and ran across an article that said that the handful of people who wanted to abolish slavery at the beginning of the war were considered nutballs by the majority of Northerners.

[an amused spectator]

The argument by the majority of Northerners was that slavery competed with for-wage labor, and the Northern working man was agin that.

[DiogenesLamp]

You have been told numerous times by numerous people on this threads that the United States went to war to suppress an armed rebellion.

The assertion that it was "armed rebellion" is made up bullsh*t.

It became armed defense after Lincoln sent warships to force the South to tolerate a clearly hostile force at the entrance to one of their major ports.

King Lincoln DECREED it to be "REBELLION!" He Decreed it to be "INSURRECTION!" It was not, but by setting up this confrontation with his warships, and by constantly repeating the propaganda that it was "INSURRECTION" and claiming they started it, he convinced the people of the North to back him in subjugating the people who just wanted to be left alone by the corrupt government in Washington. You know, like most of us want today.

The south rebelled to protect slavery.

Oft repeated lie. Slavery didn't need any protecting. It was *LEGAL* in the United States of America, and explicitly protected by the US Constitution. Slavery continued in the Northern states till six months after the war was over, so *STOP LYING* about slavery needing protection. It needed no protection whatsoever.

Many of them said so in their declarations of secession. I would recommend reading them.

Three. There were 11 slave states in the Confederacy, but because it suits the Northern invasion excuse makers to keep mentioning those three states that talked about slavery, they make certain that everyone knows about that, and they deliberately make it appear like these minority of states which mentioned it, represented the entire group of 11.

That is dishonest, but it is something they do constantly and repeatedly because they really have no justification for what was done unless they can make ignorant people believe it had something to do with slavery.

The truth is that Lincoln launched a war against the South because the South was leaving. Lincoln *DID NOT* launch a war against the South because the South had slavery. The North had slavery too, and Lincoln even tried to *PROTECT SLAVERY* even more by urging the passage of the Corwin Amendment.

Stop repeating lies, or if you are so ignorant of the facts that you do not realize you are telling lies, *LEARN THE TRUTH!*

Slavery was legal in the Union for "four score and seven years", and without a war would have continued being legal in the Union for many decades longer.

Stop trying to take credit for the incidental abolition of slavery, because when the war was launched, nobody was trying to do that. NOBODY WAS TRYING TO DO THAT.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wow. As a fellow vet I find that comment incredibly ignorant.

You may be shocked to learn that Lincoln also wanted them transported back to Africa, or down to South America. Lincoln wanted them out of the country, and he didn't really care where they went so long as it was outside the US of A.

I recently learned that shortly before his assassination someone suggested to him that they be hired to dig the Panama Canal, and he was thrilled with the idea, and was very interested in pursuing it.

Lincoln was very much a racist, and his own home state of Illinois passed laws that made it illegal for blacks to come to Illinois and stay. They were against slavery, but not because they had any love for blacks. In truth, they hated black people, and didn't care what happened to them. Their objections over slavery were about slaves making it hard for a laborer to earn a living because no one would pay wages if they could get the work for free.

Most Northern hatred of slavery was motivated by self interest and only a small contingent of "kooks" wanted slavery abolished because it was immoral. The vast majority of Northerners hated it because it made labor less valuable.

If you know anything about Northern state demographics, you would know they are big Labor Union supporters, and fully believe in Organized labor. No bigger organized labor areas of the country than Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and so forth.

It's all about Labor and Wages, and nobody gave a sh*t about the blacks as human beings.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

But no congressman - not even Lincoln himself - EVER proposed such an amendment before the war. They never called for a peaceful vote.

Not true. Arthur Livermore proposed an amendment in 1818 preventing any new state from entering the union as a slave state (it was voted down in the House), and John Quincy Adams proposed in 1839 an amendment that stated that no one born in the United States after 1845 would be a slave. (The Gag Rule in force at the time prevented it from going anywhere).

[DiogenesLamp]

I was doing some reading on this yesterday, and ran across an article that said that the handful of people who wanted to abolish slavery at the beginning of the war were considered nutballs by the majority of Northerners.

Charles Dickens, 1862.

I take the facts of the American quarrel to stand thus. Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it, in any kind of association with any generous or chivalrous sentiment on the part of the North. But the North having gradually got to itself the making of the laws and the settlement of the tariffs, and having taxed South most abominably for its own advantage, began to see, as the country grew, that unless it advocated the laying down of a geographical line beyond which slavery should not extend, the South would necessarily recover it's old political power, and be able to help itself a little in the adjustment of the commercial affairs.

Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens.

Charles Dickens, 1862.

Let it also be known that Charles Dickens was strongly in favor of Abolition, and that he hated slavery and wanted to see it eliminated.

[OIFVeteran]

Because it would have never passed!!! The southern states could block any such amendment. Hell, democrats had already passed procedural rules in the 1830s and 1840s (it was called a gag rule) to stop any discussion of abolition in congress. So any American citizen petition his congressman to put forth even discussion about abolition in congress he couldn't do it.

I'm sure democrats of today would love to do the same thing with pro-life petitions in congress but we wouldn't put up with that now. We shouldn't have put up with it then.