'Founding fathers oppossed slavery, but weren't abolitionists'? As usual, I'm confused.

‘Founding fathers oppossed slavery, but weren’t abolitionists’? As usual, I’m confused.

History • July 2011 • Views: 2,333

“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.

Recent Pages by ggt (Birth Control Works):
The Nationalist's Delusion Sorry Grumpy Cat, Study Finds Dogs Are Brainier Than Cats - Neuroscience News Republican Apostate Congressman Tells Black Anti-Abortion Rights Activist 'You're Ignorant' How Many American Women Die From Causes Related To... -- ProPublica

Jump to bottom

26 comments

Buck Wed, Jul 6, 2011 7:40:13pm

Hope you don't get the avalanche of downdings that I did when I said just about the same thing...
Who Else said The Founding Fathers Opposed Slavery?

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Jul 6, 2011 7:45:28pm

re: #1 Buck

Hope you don't get the avalanche of downdings that I did when I said just about the same thing...
Who Else said The Founding Fathers Opposed Slavery?

Well, I don't understand the author's statement. Opposed Slavery but WEREN'T abolitionists?

What does that mean? They were for it before they were against it?

I look more to what each person did with their own households. If they owned slaves did they manumit them when able to? Did they actively work to free individuals when they could? George Washington wrote his will to free his slaves after Martha died. Thomas Jefferson kept going into debt making it impossible for his slaves to be freed.

I look more to actions than to words.

researchok Wed, Jul 6, 2011 7:51:34pm

I'm no Bachmann fan but I always understood the FF to be anti slavery. Their stand was ideological, not political. They knew they had to compromise to achieve their political aims. Their anti slavery stance was a moral one.

'Abolitionists' were a political movement, in they sense they wanted to use the political system to reform.

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Jul 6, 2011 7:53:46pm

But how can you be ideologically opposed to slavery and still own slaves?

I think the translation is that they were ideologically opposed to slavery for "some" people, but not for others.

researchok Wed, Jul 6, 2011 7:59:07pm

re: #4 ggt

But how can you be ideologically opposed to slavery and still own slaves?

I think the translation is that they were ideologically opposed to slavery for "some" people, but not for others.

In the same way moral men and women cheat on their spouses.

We are a complex- and at times, a weak lot

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Jul 6, 2011 7:59:21pm

Oppose is an active verb.

Simply being anti-slavery doesn't require action.

researchok Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:00:17pm

re: #6 ggt

Oppose is an active verb.

Simply being anti-slavery doesn't require action.

For me, a moral stand is only about action.

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:01:47pm

So without actively being anti-slavery, they weren't really anti-slavery?

I think the Weekly Standard article is BS.

researchok Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:08:08pm

re: #8 ggt

So without actively being anti-slavery, they weren't really anti-slavery?

I think the Weekly Standard article is BS.

No, they were right as the NPR article notes.

Politics is a messy business.

Consider this: The minute an innocent person dies in a war, that war becomes immoral. Thus, all wars are immoral. That does not mean some wars are not just wars.

Also, remember we are looking at the issue long and far removed from the time. There were different sensibilities at the time.

You put your finger on why and how we understand history is so important.

freetoken Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:11:02pm

re: #3 researchok

Well, the Weakly Standard piece is an attempt to try and cover Bachmann's behind and I don't expect it to really explore the complexities and nuances of real life.

And the writer, like Buck, seems to think that Lincoln was some sort of impartial observer.

The reality is this: chattel slavery existed at the time of the Revolutionary War. And, the US Constitution 13 years later did not eliminate said slavery.

Conceptually, the universal application of the Enlightenment principles that led to the formation of a democratic United States of America would, of course, ultimately lead to the end of chattel slavery. It was not a matter of a "founding father" in any one country.

Yet the role of slavery was too important to daily life - before the steam engine economics required more manual labor to produce food and goods, and thus to be rich often meant to own slaves.

And several of the founding fathers were (relatively) rich... and guess what, they owned slaves.

That England ended slavery (at least inside their country) before the US should be telling here. The intransigence of some in the US to the rising abolitionist movements (at least in the Anglo-sphere) of the 19th century ought to demonstrate that slavery was, from the very beginning, part and parcel of the United States of America, even though there were some from the start who hated slavery. The simple fact is that some citizens of this country, from the very founding, including some of the leaders at time of the founding and up until the Civil War, put economic gains above a universal application of the concepts of freedom.

Thus the founders of this country were a mixed bag on this subject. To try and cast them otherwise is to try and rewrite history.

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:15:51pm

re: #10 freetoken

Thus the founders of this country were a mixed bag on this subject. To try and cast them otherwise is to try and rewrite history.

EXACTLY!

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:17:13pm

What is always left out of history is that chattel slavery was an international commodity since the beginning of recorded time. The American South was not an isolated evil.

The anti-slavery movement started in England.

researchok Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:18:40pm

re: #10 freetoken

Well, the Weakly Standard piece is an attempt to try and cover Bachmann's behind and I don't expect it to really explore the complexities and nuances of real life.

And the writer, like Buck, seems to think that Lincoln was some sort of impartial observer.

The reality is this: chattel slavery existed at the time of the Revolutionary War. And, the US Constitution 13 years later did not eliminate said slavery.

Conceptually, the universal application of the Enlightenment principles that led to the formation of a democratic United States of America would, of course, ultimately lead to the end of chattel slavery. It was not a matter of a "founding father" in any one country.

Yet the role of slavery was too important to daily life - before the steam engine economics required more manual labor to produce food and goods, and thus to be rich often meant to own slaves.

And several of the founding fathers were (relatively) rich... and guess what, they owned slaves.

That England ended slavery (at least inside their country) before the US should be telling here. The intransigence of some in the US to the rising abolitionist movements (at least in the Anglo-sphere) of the 19th century ought to demonstrate that slavery was, from the very beginning, part and parcel of the United States of America, even though there were some from the start who hated slavery. The simple fact is that some citizens of this country, from the very founding, including some of the leaders at time of the founding and up until the Civil War, put economic gains above a universal application of the concepts of freedom.

Thus the founders of this country were a mixed bag on this subject. To try and cast them otherwise is to try and rewrite history.

I agree on all points.

These conversations cannot be reduced to a page or two.

Your remarks on the Enlightenment principles are quite apropos. From where I sit, those principles more than anything else were the great catalyst of change- not just with regard to slavery but a whole host of other ideas as well.

The confluence of the American Revolution, French Revolution, and even the Industrial Revolution were absolute game changers on the moral, ethical, political, social and cultural levels that reverberate to this day.

FT, we could talk about this for days. Great stuff.

Buck Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:20:43pm

re: #4 ggt

But how can you be ideologically opposed to slavery and still own slaves?

Maybe you could own slaves, but be really really good to them?

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:24:53pm

re: #14 Buck

Maybe you could own slaves, but be really really good to them?

Sorry, that rationalization and justication at it's worst. Like saying, I own horses and I am really good to them. Human beings are not property.

I understand the economic reality of the time. There were also laws in some states making it illegal to free one's slaves. Yet, otherwise "moral" people let greed and power win. What could have been eliminatated systematically within a generation or two was institutionalized. People of a certain skin color were de-humanized, often held in lower esteem than horses.

researchok Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:25:24pm

re: #14 Buck

Maybe you could own slaves, but be really really good to them?

It isn't about conditions, it is about principle.

Most of Western culture is predicated on the Exodus story- that is, freedom is the highest ethical and moral ideal we ought to strive for. Slavery- and remains was a stumbling block before that ideal.

Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are no less slave masters.

freetoken Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:38:04pm

re: #13 researchok

These conversations cannot be reduced to a page or two.

Most complex issues are like that.

The problem is that Bachmann (and her mentors) want to make the founding of the US into a Magickal Moment, some sort of divine act. Thus the Blessed Founding Fathers can't be shown to have blemishes.

The reality of the "founding fathers" is that they were a group of white males who had some real disagreements and who had all the usual flaws of humans. It was a very human thing for them to do what they did - rebel. They wanted to be in control versus being under the control of the King of England. Fortunately the leaders of the group were pretty learned men and embraced, at least in part, the ideas about "rights" and "government" that were being floated at the time by the more radical thinkers in the Western world.

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:40:28pm

re: #17 freetoken

Most complex issues are like that.

The problem is that Bachmann (and her mentors) want to make the founding of the US into a Magickal Moment, some sort of divine act. Thus the Blessed Founding Fathers can't be shown to have blemishes.

The reality of the "founding fathers" is that they were a group of white males who had some real disagreements and who had all the usual flaws of humans. It was a very human thing for them to do what they did - rebel. They wanted to be in control versus being under the control of the King of England. Fortunately the leaders of the group were pretty learned men and embraced, at least in part, the ideas about "rights" and "government" that were being floated at the time by the more radical thinkers in the Western world.

Recreate a Magickal Moment like Camelot.

I swear every Republican politician wants to be Kennedy. As usual, they are 40 years behind the times.

researchok Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:44:35pm

re: #17 freetoken

Most complex issues are like that.

The problem is that Bachmann (and her mentors) want to make the founding of the US into a Magickal Moment, some sort of divine act. Thus the Blessed Founding Fathers can't be shown to have blemishes.

The reality of the "founding fathers" is that they were a group of white males who had some real disagreements and who had all the usual flaws of humans. It was a very human thing for them to do what they did - rebel. They wanted to be in control versus being under the control of the King of England. Fortunately the leaders of the group were pretty learned men and embraced, at least in part, the ideas about "rights" and "government" that were being floated at the time by the more radical thinkers in the Western world.

Yes.

I would also add distance from the Crown played a role. As a rule, the further away from London the easier it was to successfully rebel, which by definition also meant the adoption of the new ideas of which you spoke. That is why secessionist movements in Ireland and Scotland were unsuccessful. Proximity was cruel as the Scots, Irish and Welsh will tell you.

While the English dealt with slavery, they were only too happy to maintain harsh control over Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:48:18pm

re: #19 researchok

Yes.

I would also add distance from the Crown played a role. As a rule, the further away from London the easier it was to successfully rebel, which by definition also meant the adoption of the new ideas of which you spoke. That is why secessionist movements in Ireland and Scotland were unsuccessful. Proximity was cruel as the Scots, Irish and Welsh will tell you.

While the English dealt with slavery, they were only too happy to maintain harsh control over Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

Scotland has it's own particular history regarding the Crown. Very interesting.

I think our diversity helped us from the beginning. Although diversity wasn't quite what it is now.

researchok Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:49:43pm

re: #20 ggt

Scotland has it's own particular history regarding the Crown. Very interesting.

I think our diversity helped us from the beginning. Although diversity wasn't quite what it is now.

Brave New World, I think they call it.

That said, it's nice to go back to Robert Burns every now and then.

Buck Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:57:54pm

re: #16 researchok

It isn't about conditions, it is about principle.

seriously, you think everyone doesn't know that? I was not advocating slavery. I was trying to get into the minds of men who advocated freedom in a world that had slaves as a matter of course. They might have rationalized that they didn't treat their workers as slaves, so it was ok.

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Jul 6, 2011 9:00:10pm

re: #22 Buck

seriously, you think everyone doesn't know that? I was not advocating slavery. I was trying to get into the minds of men who advocated freedom in a world that had slaves as a matter of course. They might have rationalized that they didn't treat their workers as slaves, so it was ok.

If they paid them a wage and allowed them to buy themselves out of slavery --yes, I'd agree there would be some morality there.

researchok Wed, Jul 6, 2011 9:03:09pm

re: #22 Buck

seriously, you think everyone doesn't know that? I was not advocating slavery. I was trying to get into the minds of men who advocated freedom in a world that had slaves as a matter of course. They might have rationalized that they didn't treat their workers as slaves, so it was ok.

I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I do understand you were not an advocate for slavery.

My point is the human condition seeks expediency, the shortest distance between two points. Slavery was profitable and comfortable and the tendency was to find a way to keep that while being moral at the same time.

While Jefferson may have assuaged his guilty conscience by treating his slaves relatively well, he was in the end a slave owner and flawed human being.

Moral choices require real actions, not expediency.

researchok Wed, Jul 6, 2011 9:04:02pm

re: #23 ggt