The Founding Fathers and Slavery

[Cordel One]

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

It absolutely is!

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.

Only because the nation was mainly founded by wealthy slaveowners. They could have put a clause in the Constitution abolishing slavery and giving slaves rights because there were more slaves than slaveowners and the rest of the people, while racist, weren't generally as invested in that institution. The Articles of Confederation were not communist, it was a more decentralized attempt at capitalism.


The founders didn't leave slavery out as a compromise, they left it out because they didn't care.


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.[/quote]

[San Lumen]

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.

Only because the nation was mainly founded by wealthy slaveowners. They could have put a clause in the Constitution abolishing slavery and giving slaves rights because there were more slaves than slaveowners and the rest of the people, while racist, weren't generally as invested in that institution. The Articles of Confederation were not communist, it was a more decentralized attempt at capitalism.


The founders didn't leave slavery out as a compromise, they left it out because they didn't care.


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.

[/quote]

How many times does it have to be explained to you they couldn't abolish slavery? Franklin, Adams ands Jefferson wanted to as well they knew it wasn't possible.

You will never get it. Your present yourself as having this radical woke viewpoint but I will reiterate it come off as ignorant, insulting and off putting. There is no way you payed attention in history class given what you have said but that's not surprising coming from someone who wants to bulldoze the Vietnam and Korean War memorials.

[Ifreann]

How many slavers were there in the thirteen colonies? Few hundred? Few thousand? Can't imagine it being that hard to part them from their wealth and free their slaves.

[San Lumen]

How many slavers were there in the thirteen colonies? Few hundred? Few thousand? Can't imagine it being that hard to part them from their wealth and free their slaves.

in 1790 the number was about 698000.

[Cordel One]

Only because the nation was mainly founded by wealthy slaveowners. They could have put a clause in the Constitution abolishing slavery and giving slaves rights because there were more slaves than slaveowners and the rest of the people, while racist, weren't generally as invested in that institution. The Articles of Confederation were not communist, it was a more decentralized attempt at capitalism.


The founders didn't leave slavery out as a compromise, they left it out because they didn't care.


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.

How many times does it have to be explained to you they couldn't abolish slavery? Franklin, Adams ands Jefferson wanted to as well they knew it wasn't possible. [/quote]
That would be 3 of 55 people. I strongly doubt more than ten cared at all.

You will never get it. Your present yourself as having this radical woke viewpoint but I will reiterate it come off as ignorant, insulting and off putting. There is no way you payed attention in history class given what you have said but that's not surprising coming from someone who wants to bulldoze the Vietnam and Korean War memorials.

Meaningless personal attacks are fun to make, but they reflect negatively on you as an individual.

[San Lumen]

How many times does it have to be explained to you they couldn't abolish slavery? Franklin, Adams ands Jefferson wanted to as well they knew it wasn't possible.

That would be 3 of 55 people. I strongly doubt more than ten cared at all.

You will never get it. Your present yourself as having this radical woke viewpoint but I will reiterate it come off as ignorant, insulting and off putting. There is no way you payed attention in history class given what you have said but that's not surprising coming from someone who wants to bulldoze the Vietnam and Korean War memorials.

Meaningless personal attacks are fun to make, but they reflect negatively on you as an individual.[/quote]

Your not listening at all. That was attacking your argument not you as a person.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Still doing better than your side.

[Byzconia]

If a slave killed their master in order to be free, who would call them a murderer?

Back then? Everyone. A slave killing their master would've been heavily disciplined, likely maimed, if not straight-up executed. At the time, even people sympathetic to slaves didn't think it would've been a good idea for slaves to start killing their masters (and possibly any other whites who cross their path...).

If the masters will not peaceably give up slavery, what other option is there to end slavery but to use violence?

Which is literally happened, but it was in the form of an armed rebellion by the slavers, not the government just going, "Welp, we're gonna kill you now cause you own slaves." Again, from a moral perspective, I have zero issue with the concept of slavers being executed, the issue I take is that the solution you propose is only good for catharsis after the fact, it wasn't an practical solution at the time it was actually happening.

If they thought it was wrong to own slaves then they wouldn't have owned slaves.

Not how real life works.

They did, in fact, have a choice in the matter.

A Hobson's choice, yeah.

But slavery was lining their pockets, so they kept their slaves,

Uh, yeah? Look, maybe in their shoes you'd be willing to bankrupt yourself by releasing your most valuable property (doubtful, but not impossible), but some people would prefer to not be beggars on the street, even if it meant having a dirty conscience. While it doesn't make slavery any less evil, I also can't really fault them for being concerned with their own wellbeing first, that's just being human.

and when the time came to establish laws for their new nation, they saw fit to permit slavery.

Except for the part where they banned the importation of new slaves from abroad and Thomas Jefferson also pushed through a law to outlaw the sale of slaves in his home state of Virginia, but those don't fit the narrative, I guess.

Maybe they claimed to despise the institution, but how credible is that in light of their participation in it?

Pretty credible, considering that most Americans at the time wouldn't even have gone so far as to consider slavery bad. Like I've said before, at this point in American history, anti-slavery sentiments were mostly confined to intellectual elites influenced by the European Enlightenment, and even then some of them still excused it as a "necessary evil." Jefferson's (and other's) continued ownership of slaves was absolutely hypocritical, but in comparison to the actual sentiment of the times, he may as well have been Lincoln for all the difference it makes.

[Cordel One]

How many times does it have to be explained to you they couldn't abolish slavery? Franklin, Adams ands Jefferson wanted to as well they knew it wasn't possible.

That would be 3 of 55 people. I strongly doubt more than ten cared at all.

You will never get it. Your present yourself as having this radical woke viewpoint but I will reiterate it come off as ignorant, insulting and off putting. There is no way you payed attention in history class given what you have said but that's not surprising coming from someone who wants to bulldoze the Vietnam and Korean War memorials.

Meaningless personal attacks are fun to make, but they reflect negatively on you as an individual.

Your not listening at all. That was attacking your argument not you as a person.[/quote]
Ah yes, "there is no way you payed attention in history class given what you have said but that's not surprising coming from someone who wants to..." is definitely an attack on my argument and not me.

[Ifreann]

How many slavers were there in the thirteen colonies? Few hundred? Few thousand? Can't imagine it being that hard to part them from their wealth and free their slaves.

in 1790 the number was about 698000.

I'm asking about the number of slavers, Lumen. Slave owners.

---

If a slave killed their master in order to be free, who would call them a murderer?

Back then? Everyone. A slave killing their master would've been heavily disciplined, likely maimed, if not straight-up executed. At the time, even people sympathetic to slaves didn't think it would've been a good idea for slaves to start killing their masters (and possibly any other whites who cross their path...).

If the masters will not peaceably give up slavery, what other option is there to end slavery but to use violence?

Which is literally happened, but it was in the form of an armed rebellion by the slavers, not the government just going, "Welp, we're gonna kill you now cause you own slaves." Again, from a moral perspective, I have zero issue with the concept of slavers being executed, the issue I take is that the solution you propose is only good for catharsis after the fact, it wasn't an practical solution at the time it was actually happening.

The thing that worked to abolish slavery isn't a good solution to abolishing slavery?

If they thought it was wrong to own slaves then they wouldn't have owned slaves.

Not how real life works.

They did, in fact, have a choice in the matter.

A Hobson's choice, yeah.

But slavery was lining their pockets, so they kept their slaves,

Uh, yeah? Look, maybe in their shoes you'd be willing to bankrupt yourself by releasing your most valuable property (doubtful, but not impossible), but some people would prefer to not be beggars on the street, even if it meant having a dirty conscience. While it doesn't make slavery any less evil, I also can't really fault them for being concerned with their own wellbeing first, that's just being human.

Rich slave owners obviously did not face destitution without their slaves, that is just silly.

and when the time came to establish laws for their new nation, they saw fit to permit slavery.

Except for the part where they banned the importation of new slaves from abroad and Thomas Jefferson also pushed through a law to outlaw the sale of slaves in his home state of Virginia, but those don't fit the narrative, I guess.

Exceptions don't contradict the broader legality of slavery.

Maybe they claimed to despise the institution, but how credible is that in light of their participation in it?

Pretty credible, considering that most Americans at the time wouldn't even have gone so far as to consider slavery bad. Like I've said before, at this point in American history, anti-slavery sentiments were mostly confined to intellectual elites influenced by the European Enlightenment, and even then some of them still excused it as a "necessary evil." Jefferson's (and other's) continued ownership of slaves was absolutely hypocritical, but in comparison to the actual sentiment of the times, he may as well have been Lincoln for all the difference it makes.

I think that if anyone rich enough to own slaves had felt it was wrong to own slaves then they could very easily have chosen not to own slaves.

[Salus Maior]

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?

I'm glad you've come around to the Tory side.

Let us toast his most enlightened majesty, King George III.

[Byzconia]

If the masters will not peaceably give up slavery, what other option is there to end slavery but to use violence?

Which is literally happened, but it was in the form of an armed rebellion by the slavers, not the government just going, "Welp, we're gonna kill you now cause you own slaves." Again, from a moral perspective, I have zero issue with the concept of slavers being executed, the issue I take is that the solution you propose is only good for catharsis after the fact, it wasn't an practical solution at the time it was actually happening.

The thing that worked to abolish slavery isn't a good solution to abolishing slavery?[/quote]
Not 80-years prior, no.

Rich slave owners obviously did not face destitution without their slaves, that is just silly.

In instances where those slaves were the only reason why they were rich, yes, they did.

Exceptions don't contradict the broader legality of slavery.

No one said it did. What even if this comment?

I think that if anyone rich enough to own slaves had felt it was wrong to own slaves then they could very easily have chosen not to own slaves.

And then gone bankrupt because they had no more profits coming in.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

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.

Free Territory tried it, got conquered. Catalonia tried it, murdered over 8,000 people and got conquered. Rojava tried it, is hated by Turkey, collaborates with the nation you hate, and is about to get conquered.

Speaking of which, why do you hate America? From a purely communist perspective, they nearly caused socialist revolt in germany and did cause the socialist revolution in Russia. And from realpolitik, if they fall, any nation where you can put communism in will be way, way to small to be seen as making a difference.

[The Marlborough]

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).

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

Poor whites did not benefit economically. The jobs you think they would have had no competition with were actually usually performed by slaves as well, which made it even worse considering they had to compete with free labour as opposed to just cheaper labour. They only benefitted socially but not by much. There is a reason even slaves pitied the white underclass in the South. For example, much of the South's pre-civil war rail infrastructure was built by slaves, not free white laborers.

[The Marlborough]

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?

At the time most people, though you could expect a number of people to reasonably understand killing the slave owner. The issue was more fearing that a slave uprising would lead to indiscriminate killing of nearly everyone which the Haitian genocide didn't really help with in terms of shaping people's opinions.

[Byzconia]

Poor whites did not benefit economically. The jobs you think they would have had no competition with were actually usually performed by slaves as well, which made it even worse considering they had to compete with free labour as opposed to just cheaper labour. They only benefitted socially but not by much. There is a reason even slaves pitied the white underclass in the South. For example, much of the South's pre-civil war rail infrastructure was built by slaves, not free white laborers.

What are you talking about? Most poor whites in the South were farmers, not laborers. They didn't want blacks competing with them for land, not the rail line.

[The Marlborough]

Poor whites did not benefit economically. The jobs you think they would have had no competition with were actually usually performed by slaves as well, which made it even worse considering they had to compete with free labour as opposed to just cheaper labour. They only benefitted socially but not by much. There is a reason even slaves pitied the white underclass in the South. For example, much of the South's pre-civil war rail infrastructure was built by slaves, not free white laborers.

What are you talking about? Most poor whites in the South were farmers, not laborers. They didn't want blacks competing with them for land, not the rail line.

It wasn't just about land but also economic opportunities in general, especially when you consider that most land was owned by slaveowners, especially the best land. Slaves were used when possible to fill any economic role from field hand to artisan because it was cheaper and slaveowners preferred it because they really disliked the poor white underclass.

Slavery negatively impacted the ability for the poor white underclass to grow wealth.

[Byzconia]

It wasn't just about land but also economic opportunities in general, especially when you consider that most land was owned by slaveowners, especially the best land.

Whether slaveowners had the best land is irrelevant. The yeomen themselves still had land and wanted more, something that competing with free blacks would've interfered with.

Slaves were used when possible to fill any economic role from field hand to artisan because it was cheaper and slaveowners preferred it because they really disliked the poor white underclass.

And? Someone who has their own land to till isn't going to be interested in tilling someone else's, they'd have no time for their own farm. Also, many of these smallholders wanted to own slaves. It's much the same mindset many Americans have to this day, "I wanna be rich someday so I'd better not vote for too many restrictions on the rich, because that'll affect me, too, eventually." The same logic was at play here. Then there's also the fact that many of these same whites believed in slavery (and white supremacy) as an idea and supported keeping blacks enslaved for ideological reasons not tied to economics.

Slavery negatively impacted the ability for the poor white underclass to grow wealth.

True, but that doesn't mean the white underclass itself immediately recognized that as the case.

If you don't want to take my word for, here's an expert on Civil War history quoting DeBow.

[Cordel One]

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

It absolutely is!

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.

Free Territory tried it, got conquered. Catalonia tried it, murdered over 8,000 people and got conquered. Rojava tried it, is hated by Turkey, collaborates with the nation you hate, and is about to get conquered.

I've mentioned a few times that we're not ready for the revolution yet. It needs to be on a larger scale to succeed.

Speaking of which, why do you hate America? From a purely communist perspective, they nearly caused socialist revolt in germany and did cause the socialist revolution in Russia. And from realpolitik, if they fall, any nation where you can put communism in will be way, way to small to be seen as making a difference.

Not everything caused by the United States is terrible, but as of right now it's probably the greatest threat to (ironically,) freedom, democracy, and communism. Americans put far too little thought and concern into our foreign policies, so the state can commit countless atrocities abroad with almost no backlash internally.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Free Territory tried it, got conquered. Catalonia tried it, murdered over 8,000 people and got conquered. Rojava tried it, is hated by Turkey, collaborates with the nation you hate, and is about to get conquered.

I've mentioned a few times that we're not ready for the revolution yet. It needs to be on a larger scale to succeed.

Speaking of which, why do you hate America? From a purely communist perspective, they nearly caused socialist revolt in germany and did cause the socialist revolution in Russia. And from realpolitik, if they fall, any nation where you can put communism in will be way, way to small to be seen as making a difference.

Not everything caused by the United States is terrible, but as of right now it's probably the greatest threat to (ironically,) freedom, democracy, and communism. Americans put far too little thought and concern into our foreign policies, so the state can commit countless atrocities abroad with almost no backlash internally.

That's what they all say.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Free Territory tried it, got conquered. Catalonia tried it, murdered over 8,000 people and got conquered. Rojava tried it, is hated by Turkey, collaborates with the nation you hate, and is about to get conquered.

I've mentioned a few times that we're not ready for the revolution yet. It needs to be on a larger scale to succeed.

Speaking of which, why do you hate America? From a purely communist perspective, they nearly caused socialist revolt in germany and did cause the socialist revolution in Russia. And from realpolitik, if they fall, any nation where you can put communism in will be way, way to small to be seen as making a difference.

Not everything caused by the United States is terrible, but as of right now it's probably the greatest threat to (ironically,) freedom, democracy, and communism. Americans put far too little thought and concern into our foreign policies, so the state can commit countless atrocities abroad with almost no backlash internally.

On a more serious note, if you want the United States to be better in your eyes, try activism. Encourage people to form a socialist and/or communist caucus, though I would prefer democratic socialist one because it excludes tankies. If America falls apart into the constituent states, you'll have to go to another country, learn it's languages, and hope it's democratic and influential enough to start the proccess.

[Cordel One]

I've mentioned a few times that we're not ready for the revolution yet. It needs to be on a larger scale to succeed.

Not everything caused by the United States is terrible, but as of right now it's probably the greatest threat to (ironically,) freedom, democracy, and communism. Americans put far too little thought and concern into our foreign policies, so the state can commit countless atrocities abroad with almost no backlash internally.

On a more serious note, if you want the United States to be better in your eyes, try activism. Encourage people to form a socialist and/or communist caucus, though I would prefer democratic socialist one because it excludes tankies. If America falls apart into the constituent states, you'll have to go to another country, learn it's languages, and hope it's democratic and influential enough to start the proccess.

I have tried (and continue to be involved in) activism. I do my best to be active in things that matter to me when I'm not working or wasting my time on the internet.

[FutureAmerica]

Slavery was economically critical to most of the Southern colonies and they couldn't get a consensus if they tried to abolish slavery. Many of the founding fathers were also slave owners.

[Macrotron]

How many slavers were there in the thirteen colonies? Few hundred? Few thousand? Can't imagine it being that hard to part them from their wealth and free their slaves.

in 1790 the number was about 698000.

Holy crap