The Founding Fathers and Slavery

[Cordel One]

Yeah, they'd never leave it up to me even if I was around in that time. People think I'm radical now lol

You are. You inherently believe change comes quick, fast, uncompromised, and bloodless.

I do not.

There was only ONE example in all of modern history where a communist revolution managed to keep a country democratic a prosperous for more than a decade, and that country was San Marino. As one commenter said back when I was a communist "the success of communism is proportional to the amount of people involved."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zapati ... ation-Army

The Zapatistas have been successful for several decades now.

[Cordel One]

The hypothetical scenario was that it was up to me, of course they wouldn't listen.

They wanted the support of the elite, many of whom owned slaves. Hell, the founders were the elite and they did this in their own self interest. This goes back to what I said about the founders, I don't like them.

Only because the elite ran the states.

Newsflash: As I pointed out in my own post, the common people weren't any better. In many ways, many of the elites of the time (especially the ones most influenced by Enlightenment/liberal ideals, like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin) were much more progressive than the average yeoman who had very little use for such fancy philosophical ideas as "rights for people who aren't me" or even worse (in their mind), "rights for the negroes." Folks like Ben Franklin (who was an active abolitionist) were very much in the minority in that day, and almost non-existent outside of the intellectual class.

They weren't much better, but they also didn't have as much of a stake in slavery as the slaveowners. Then again, there was the significantly large slave population.

The hypothetical scenario was that it was up to me, of course they wouldn't listen.

They wanted the support of the elite, many of whom owned slaves. Hell, the founders were the elite and they did this in their own self interest. This goes back to what I said about the founders, I don't like them.

Only because the elite ran the states.

You seem determined to show ignorance and not look at the context of what occurred. Your focusing on one thing instead of the bigger picture. They wanted a new government because the old one wasn't working and compromises had to made to make that happen. What part of this do you not get?

How many times do I have to tell you that doesn't justify anything before you stop pretending I'm unaware of it?

[San Lumen]

But that's how you're acting. You keep saying that they couldn't abolish slavery because the convention like that was the only time it could even have been considered. Like it would have been impossible to abolish slavery at any other time or in any other way. What about before the convention? What about before the revolution?

You do realize it would've been even harder to ban slavery under the Articles, right? And by "harder" I mean "impossible." Any policy on the confederal level required the approval of all 13 states, good like writing a law that says, "No slaves for you anymore" when any one of those states who still have slaves (which also included a few Northern states like New Jersey and New York at the time) could just go "lol no" and veto it. Especially in a war where you're trying to keep your people united against the common enemy and many of those same people are still loyal to that enemy.

I am aware. The entire government was not working hence why they wanted to replace it.

[Ifreann]

But that's how you're acting. You keep saying that they couldn't abolish slavery because the convention like that was the only time it could even have been considered. Like it would have been impossible to abolish slavery at any other time or in any other way. What about before the convention? What about before the revolution?

You do realize it would've been even harder to ban slavery under the Articles, right? And by "harder" I mean "impossible." Any policy on the confederal level required the approval of all 13 states, good like writing a law that says, "No slaves for you anymore" when any one of those states who still have slaves (which also included a few Northern states like New Jersey and New York at the time) could just go "lol no" and veto it. Especially in a war where you're trying to keep your people united against the common enemy and many of those same people are still loyal to that enemy.

I'm sure that the people who threw off the yoke of the British Empire could have found a way to pacify a few slavers if they'd actually wanted to.

[San Lumen]

Newsflash: As I pointed out in my own post, the common people weren't any better. In many ways, many of the elites of the time (especially the ones most influenced by Enlightenment/liberal ideals, like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin) were much more progressive than the average yeoman who had very little use for such fancy philosophical ideas as "rights for people who aren't me" or even worse (in their mind), "rights for the negroes." Folks like Ben Franklin (who was an active abolitionist) were very much in the minority in that day, and almost non-existent outside of the intellectual class.

They weren't much better, but they also didn't have as much of a stake in slavery as the slaveowners. Then again, there was the significantly large slave population.

You seem determined to show ignorance and not look at the context of what occurred. Your focusing on one thing instead of the bigger picture. They wanted a new government because the old one wasn't working and compromises had to made to make that happen. What part of this do you not get?

How many times do I have to tell you that doesn't justify anything before you stop pretending I'm unaware of it?

and your proposed solution would have lead to something even worse. The dissolution of the country.

[The Two Jerseys]

They weren't much better, but they also didn't have as much of a stake in slavery as the slaveowners. Then again, there was the significantly large slave population.


How many times do I have to tell you that doesn't justify anything before you stop pretending I'm unaware of it?

and your proposed solution would have lead to something even worse. The dissolution of the country.

But Lumen, clearly the Founding Fathers practicing ye old signalling of virtue is more important than forming a united front to protect settlers from Indian raids, stop Barbary pirates from plundering your merchant shipping, and prevent King George from coming to take his shit back...

[Byzconia]

Newsflash: As I pointed out in my own post, the common people weren't any better. In many ways, many of the elites of the time (especially the ones most influenced by Enlightenment/liberal ideals, like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin) were much more progressive than the average yeoman who had very little use for such fancy philosophical ideas as "rights for people who aren't me" or even worse (in their mind), "rights for the negroes." Folks like Ben Franklin (who was an active abolitionist) were very much in the minority in that day, and almost non-existent outside of the intellectual class.

They weren't much better, but they also didn't have as much of a stake in slavery as the slaveowners. Then again, there was the significantly large slave population.

Not true whatsoever, poor whites (at least the ones in states where slavery was present) absolutely benefitted from slavery even if they didn't own slaves. Every black person enslaved as property was one who couldn't compete with them for land and work. It also gave them someone to stand on in the social hierarchy of the highly stratified and aristocratic South, where they would've otherwise been. They directly benefitted from slavery, both economically and socially, just as much as the slaveowners did (not to the extant of becoming filthy rich, sure, but certainly to the extant of "slavery is important to my livelihood so I'm going to defend it"). Even white workers in non-slave states still benefitted, both from the aforementioned lack of competition for jobs as well as the fact that slave cotton fueled the mills where they worked (thus giving them a job). This benefit is not to the same extant as the Southerners, but it's still a direct benefit nonetheless.

And you keep mentioning having a large slave population as if that means anything. Ancient Sparta had a slave population of proportionately equal size and that did fuck all for the Helots.

And from a ballot standpoint voting in the early American republic was still largely restricted to landowners, you know who didn't own land? Slaves. Even in a positive scenario where they do gain freedom, they're not going to gain much land (if any) off the bad, so either they'll have to wait for property restrictions to be gradually abolished or head West for land in new territories (where they'll have to compete with whites, which is a recipe for racial tension and conflict between the two).

You do realize it would've been even harder to ban slavery under the Articles, right? And by "harder" I mean "impossible." Any policy on the confederal level required the approval of all 13 states, good like writing a law that says, "No slaves for you anymore" when any one of those states who still have slaves (which also included a few Northern states like New Jersey and New York at the time) could just go "lol no" and veto it. Especially in a war where you're trying to keep your people united against the common enemy and many of those same people are still loyal to that enemy.

I'm sure that the people who threw off the yoke of the British Empire could have found a way to pacify a few slavers if they'd actually wanted to.

Not when:

a) They're already exhausted from the last war,
b) Those "few slavers" (a gross underrepresentation) are on the same continent (right next door, in fact), not an entire ocean away,
c) They fought in the same war and know all the same tactics that you do (as well as how to counter them), as well as having many decorated and experienced generals, and
d) They're likely to receive some measure of support from Europeans interested in gaining a foothold in the now-free American cotton market, even though direct intervention would be unlikely

[The Reformed American Republic]

They weren't much better, but they also didn't have as much of a stake in slavery as the slaveowners. Then again, there was the significantly large slave population.


How many times do I have to tell you that doesn't justify anything before you stop pretending I'm unaware of it?

and your proposed solution would have lead to something even worse. The dissolution of the country.

He thinks that this land is inherently evil, so that's probably what he would want anyway.

[Ifreann]

They weren't much better, but they also didn't have as much of a stake in slavery as the slaveowners. Then again, there was the significantly large slave population.


How many times do I have to tell you that doesn't justify anything before you stop pretending I'm unaware of it?

and your proposed solution would have lead to something even worse. The dissolution of the country.

The dissolution of the country is worse than slavery?

Um...no.

---

I'm sure that the people who threw off the yoke of the British Empire could have found a way to pacify a few slavers if they'd actually wanted to.

Not when:

a) They're already exhausted from the last war,
b) Those "few slavers" (a gross underrepresentation) are on the same continent (right next door, in fact), not an entire ocean away,
c) They fought in the same war and know all the same tactics that you do (as well as how to counter them), as well as having many decorated and experienced generals, and
d) They're likely to receive some measure of support from Europeans interested in gaining a foothold in the now-free American cotton market, even though direct intervention would be unlikely

So free the slaves before the war. Make good on the claims about freedom and equality by establishing those things in the colonies.

[San Lumen]

and your proposed solution would have lead to something even worse. The dissolution of the country.

The dissolution of the country is worse than slavery?

Um...no.

---

Not when:

a) They're already exhausted from the last war,
b) Those "few slavers" (a gross underrepresentation) are on the same continent (right next door, in fact), not an entire ocean away,
c) They fought in the same war and know all the same tactics that you do (as well as how to counter them), as well as having many decorated and experienced generals, and
d) They're likely to receive some measure of support from Europeans interested in gaining a foothold in the now-free American cotton market, even though direct intervention would be unlikely

So free the slaves before the war. Make good on the claims about freedom and equality by establishing those things in the colonies.

What follows after the country breaks apart in your infinite wisdom?

Freeing the slaves before the war was not going to happen.

[Ethel mermania]

You do realize it would've been even harder to ban slavery under the Articles, right? And by "harder" I mean "impossible." Any policy on the confederal level required the approval of all 13 states, good like writing a law that says, "No slaves for you anymore" when any one of those states who still have slaves (which also included a few Northern states like New Jersey and New York at the time) could just go "lol no" and veto it. Especially in a war where you're trying to keep your people united against the common enemy and many of those same people are still loyal to that enemy.

I'm sure that the people who threw off the yoke of the British Empire could have found a way to pacify a few slavers if they'd actually wanted to.

When those places finally threw off the yoke of empire, slavery was already illegal in the empire. When the US revolted, it wasnt.

[Ifreann]

The dissolution of the country is worse than slavery?

Um...no.

---

So free the slaves before the war. Make good on the claims about freedom and equality by establishing those things in the colonies.

What follows after the country breaks apart in your infinite wisdom?

What happens when people are enslaved, held in bondage their entire life, bred like livestock to produce the next generation, beaten and raped and subjected to every kind of abuse imaginable by their masters? Do you think that dodging taxes from Westminster is worth that?

Freeing the slaves before the war was not going to happen.

Obviously not, because the people in a position to do so generally didn't really believe in freedom and equality.

[San Lumen]

What follows after the country breaks apart in your infinite wisdom?

What happens when people are enslaved, held in bondage their entire life, bred like livestock to produce the next generation, beaten and raped and subjected to every kind of abuse imaginable by their masters? Do you think that dodging taxes from Westminster is worth that?

Freeing the slaves before the war was not going to happen.

Obviously not, because the people in a position to do so generally didn't really believe in freedom and equality.

What are you suggesting? The revolutionary war shouldnt have happened?

[Byzconia]

I'm sure that the people who threw off the yoke of the British Empire could have found a way to pacify a few slavers if they'd actually wanted to.

Not when:

a) They're already exhausted from the last war,
b) Those "few slavers" (a gross underrepresentation) are on the same continent (right next door, in fact), not an entire ocean away,
c) They fought in the same war and know all the same tactics that you do (as well as how to counter them), as well as having many decorated and experienced generals, and
d) They're likely to receive some measure of support from Europeans interested in gaining a foothold in the now-free American cotton market, even though direct intervention would be unlikely

So free the slaves before the war. Make good on the claims about freedom and equality by establishing those things in the colonies.[/quote]
Okay, how?

[Byzconia]

What follows after the country breaks apart in your infinite wisdom?

What happens when people are enslaved, held in bondage their entire life, bred like livestock to produce the next generation, beaten and raped and subjected to every kind of abuse imaginable by their masters? Do you think that dodging taxes from Westminster is worth that?

Freeing the slaves before the war was not going to happen.

Obviously not, because the people in a position to do so generally didn't really believe in freedom and equality.

Or because we live in the real world where people are constrained by reality and not an idealistic fantasy land where goodness and fairness always win out despite practical reality?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

You are. You inherently believe change comes quick, fast, uncompromised, and bloodless.

I do not.

There was only ONE example in all of modern history where a communist revolution managed to keep a country democratic a prosperous for more than a decade, and that country was San Marino. As one commenter said back when I was a communist "the success of communism is proportional to the amount of people involved."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zapati ... ation-Army

The Zapatistas have been successful for several decades now.

You seem to believe it does. But, surprise, surprise, people are generally looking out for themselves, even self proclaimed communists. The Zapatistas are
A.) An outlier
B.) Have twice as less people as San marino did during WW2, explaining why they functioned twice as long.

[Ifreann]

What happens when people are enslaved, held in bondage their entire life, bred like livestock to produce the next generation, beaten and raped and subjected to every kind of abuse imaginable by their masters? Do you think that dodging taxes from Westminster is worth that?


Obviously not, because the people in a position to do so generally didn't really believe in freedom and equality.

What are you suggesting? The revolutionary war shouldnt have happened?

If it was a choice between that and abolishing slavery, why not?

---

Okay, how?

I understand that the French has great success with the guillotine, though personally I'm not a fan of capital punishment.

---

What happens when people are enslaved, held in bondage their entire life, bred like livestock to produce the next generation, beaten and raped and subjected to every kind of abuse imaginable by their masters? Do you think that dodging taxes from Westminster is worth that?


Obviously not, because the people in a position to do so generally didn't really believe in freedom and equality.

Or because we live in the real world where people are constrained by reality and not an idealistic fantasy land where goodness and fairness always win out despite practical reality?

And realistically, why would people who were hugely enriched by slavery want to end it?

[Deacarsia]

The Founding Fathers of the United States did not free the slaves, because they were unable to do so politically.

[Ifreann]

The Founding Fathers of the United States did not free the slaves, because they were unable to do so politically.

Because they didn't really want to.

[Byzconia]

Okay, how?

I understand that the French has great success with the guillotine, though personally I'm not a fan of capital punishment.

If by "great success" you mean, "their entirely society collapsed in on itself and they ended basically back to where they started," then sure. Also, you claim to not be a fan of capital punishment, yet your solution to the issue of slavery in 18th century America is, "Wanton murder at the hands of the state." I'm sure that definitely wouldn't have any repercussions in the long-term.

---

What happens when people are enslaved, held in bondage their entire life, bred like livestock to produce the next generation, beaten and raped and subjected to every kind of abuse imaginable by their masters? Do you think that dodging taxes from Westminster is worth that?


Obviously not, because the people in a position to do so generally didn't really believe in freedom and equality.

Or because we live in the real world where people are constrained by reality and not an idealistic fantasy land where goodness and fairness always win out despite practical reality?

And realistically, why would people who were hugely enriched by slavery want to end it?[/quote]
Because they thought it was wrong? Thomas Jefferson literally used the words "hideous blot" to describe slavery, that doesn't sound to me like someone who thought it was good. The issue being that, in the real world, there's going to be times where your ideals come second to practical reality. Saying, "Well, they can't really have cared if they didn't free their slaves" is literally the equivalent of saying that a person today "can't really care about poor people if they don't sell all of their property and donate the money!" That's an absurd and unrealistic standard to hold anyone to.

[Cordel One]

They weren't much better, but they also didn't have as much of a stake in slavery as the slaveowners. Then again, there was the significantly large slave population.


How many times do I have to tell you that doesn't justify anything before you stop pretending I'm unaware of it?

and your proposed solution would have lead to something even worse. The dissolution of the country.

You can't dissolve something that never existed in the first place.

and your proposed solution would have lead to something even worse. The dissolution of the country.

He thinks that this land is inherently evil, so that's probably what he would want anyway.

It absolutely is!

I do not.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zapati ... ation-Army

The Zapatistas have been successful for several decades now.

You seem to believe it does. But, surprise, surprise, people are generally looking out for themselves, even self proclaimed communists. The Zapatistas are
A.) An outlier
B.) Have twice as less people as San marino did during WW2, explaining why they functioned twice as long.

The Zapatistas are an example in modern history where a communist revolution managed to keep a country democratic and prosperous for more than a decade regardless. Few communist revolutions have even tried decentralization, so we can learn from the Zapatistas and do that more often.

[The Reformed American Republic]

56% of respondents chose the reasonable option.

[San Lumen]

and your proposed solution would have lead to something even worse. The dissolution of the country.

You can't dissolve something that never existed in the first place.

He thinks that this land is inherently evil, so that's probably what he would want anyway.

It absolutely is!

You seem to believe it does. But, surprise, surprise, people are generally looking out for themselves, even self proclaimed communists. The Zapatistas are
A.) An outlier
B.) Have twice as less people as San marino did during WW2, explaining why they functioned twice as long.

The Zapatistas are an example in modern history where a communist revolution managed to keep a country democratic and prosperous for more than a decade regardless. Few communist revolutions have even tried decentralization, so we can learn from the Zapatistas and do that more often.

After the revolutionary war the first government in the United States was the Articles of Confederation. Had certain compromises not been made the untenable nature of the Articles would have led to the dissolution of the nation. Im tired of explaining this to you. while you say you payed attention it history class its obvious you didn't.

That fact you say can't dissolve something that never existed in the first place shows your ignorance. You don't get it and you never will. You present your argument as this racial woke viewpoint instead it comes of as ignorant of history, insulting and off putting.

[Byzconia]

He thinks that this land is inherently evil, so that's probably what he would want anyway.

It absolutely is!

This is just nonsense.

The Zapatistas are an example in modern history where a communist revolution managed to keep a country democratic and prosperous for more than a decade regardless. Few communist revolutions have even tried decentralization, so we can learn from the Zapatistas and do that more often.

"Prosperous" lol. Feel free to move to the EZLN if you want, but from everything I've seen about it it, it still seems like a shithole to me. I mean, I guess compared to many parts of Mexico it's a relatively nicer shithole, but I'm still gonna take living in America--and even if I do emigrate, it'll be to someone even nicer, like Canada, not Chiapas.

[Ifreann]

I understand that the French has great success with the guillotine, though personally I'm not a fan of capital punishment.

If by "great success" you mean, "their entirely society collapsed in on itself and they ended basically back to where they started," then sure. Also, you claim to not be a fan of capital punishment, yet your solution to the issue of slavery in 18th century America is, "Wanton murder at the hands of the state." I'm sure that definitely wouldn't have any repercussions in the long-term.

If a slave killed their master in order to be free, who would call them a murderer? If the masters will not peaceably give up slavery, what other option is there to end slavery but to use violence?

---

Or because we live in the real world where people are constrained by reality and not an idealistic fantasy land where goodness and fairness always win out despite practical reality?

And realistically, why would people who were hugely enriched by slavery want to end it?

Because they thought it was wrong? Thomas Jefferson literally used the words "hideous blot" to describe slavery, that doesn't sound to me like someone who thought it was good. The issue being that, in the real world, there's going to be times where your ideals come second to practical reality. Saying, "Well, they can't really have cared if they didn't free their slaves" is literally the equivalent of saying that a person today "can't really care about poor people if they don't sell all of their property and donate the money!" That's an absurd and unrealistic standard to hold anyone to.[/quote]
If they thought it was wrong to own slaves then they wouldn't have owned slaves. They did, in fact, have a choice in the matter. But slavery was lining their pockets, so they kept their slaves, and when the time came to establish laws for their new nation, they saw fit to permit slavery. Maybe they claimed to despise the institution, but how credible is that in light of their participation in it?

---

56% of respondents chose the reasonable option.

14 accounts.