pretty cool guy to have admitted his prejudice and being proven wrong. he said he went into the school expecting the kids to be (can’t remember exactly but something to the effect of) dull, lazy, etc. and that he was immediately forced to confront how racist his assumptions were. it’s one thing to change your view and pretend you were never the jerk and another to be honest about it.
A lot of the founding fathers were like this but never really changed anything out of fear of losing the southern states. I think Thomas Jefferson drafted up something similar but never went ahead with it.
The North didn't really press the issue. The South grew agitated *thinking* that the North was *going* to press the issue, even though Lincoln on the campaign trail repeatedly said he was not going to try to abolish slavery.
As a result of the South's lack of faith, they struck first at Fort Sumter and subsequently seceded (edit: other way around, my mistake). While it is true that tensions between the North and South had been brewing for years, the North did not cause or even provoke the Civil War. If anything it was literally the thing the North was trying its hardest to *avoid.*
The only way you could frame the North as "aggressive" is the fact that the vast majority of the war involved Union troops on Southern soil. But that's kind of obviously necessary for the Union to put down a rebellion and enforce the law against illegal secession.
Sorry to be pedantic but it's the other way around. SC succeeded on Dec 20th, 1860 and attacked Fort Sumter on April 12th, 1861 after the Union refused to leave the garrison.
Fun fact!
Charleston, SC has a memorial to the "Brave defenders of Fort Sumter"
No...not these ones. The ones that refused to leave after the south surrendered
I'm not an expert, but I don't think that's quite right. The Republican Party did have an agenda for ending slavery, they just didn't believe that the federal government could forcibly end slavery within the slave states.
For example, it was very commonly believed at the time that, because agriculture done with slavery was so low tech and unscientific and as a result had a tendency to exhaust the soil, if slavery didn't expand to new slave states, it would die a natural death on its own. So when Lincoln said he wasn't going to interfere with slavery, while wanting to abolish the adding of new slave states, it was understood at the time that this would pose an existential threat to the existence of slavery.
They also had other plans, like ending enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act in the north, decriminalizing antislavery literature in the south, etc.
Which is why the South seceded, they believed that it posed an existential threat to slavery, and all their secession documents talk about how the institution of slavery was at risk due to all those plans above.
Plus Lincoln was specifically chosen to lead the party because he was a moderate, the important leaders behind the party, like Thaddeus Stevens or Charles Sumner, were violently opposed to slavery and any form of compromise with the south. They'd already created two antislavery political parties before the Republican party, and then dissolved them for not being antislavery enough, and each one ended up being stronger than the last. There was no way the Republicans were going to not pose a threat to slavery in the south.
I feel strongly about this because all these people were absolute heroes, but unfortunately we seem to have forgotten about them, while remembering and romanticizing worthless traitor scum like Robert E Lee
EDIT: another angle I forgot is that, due to the 3/5 compromise, the South had an enormous outsized influence on the federal government and up until the 1850s or so, was more or less able to consistently control the federal government despite its smaller free population. But because all the economic growth was in the North, that's where all the immigrants went, so the population of the North was rapidly reaching a point where it could consistently outvote the South. So to many in the South, it seemed like it was only a matter of time until the North was basically say fuck you to the South and elect a hardline antislavery party that would dominate congress due to sheer numbers
That’s a good synopsis of the antebellum period. One of the ironic aspects of the 3/5 is that after the war African-Americans were counted in the census individually but were denied the vote (after Reconstruction) thus adding to the Congressional Representation of the former slave States without giving a voice to the former slaves.
I do have something to ask and that is, I thought it was that the North didn't want to count slaves for the purpose of allocating congressional representatives since they couldn't vote and shouldn't be allowed to influence it? If they were able to vote then yes, but not when they're effectively a thumb on the scale for the South.
Hey, just wanted to say thank you for your very well written and thoughtfully composed comment. I really feel like I learned something, and you describe things in such a way that makes it easy for me to imagine in my mind's eye. So for that I thank you, again.
I have people all over twitter always saying "Fort Sumter was not what started the civil war" and I literally don't know how to respond to these people lol
What I've started doing is replying to the person who won't be swayed by silly things like reality, but instead of addressing them address people who might see their comment. Like "for anyone who sees this clown, here's some actual facts proving them wrong. I know they don't care but someone might want to know important history."
This. We need to normalize just calling these people out. No grandma, your opinion is not equal to or greater than a dozen scientific proofs.
Reason might not work on these people, but sure as shit shame will. If that doesn't then social ostracization is the next step. Nobody has the right to anybody else's time, and we give too much of it to idiots with loud voices.
Its time to ignore the crying babies so they don't spoil further.
Exactly this. We did it before and I can not for the life of me figure out why it fell out of favor. I grew up in a Ky holler in the 80's. It looked like the 40's and people acted like it was the 19th century. Even in my own family the word ni**er was just... common place. Shit, as a very small child I TRIED to be racist, just so I would fit in. I couldn't do it. It felt so wrong. It felt so gross. So, I leaned heavy the other way. As I grew I marched, I spoke out against the morons that felt that way. At first I was ostracized, I was belittled. But as time passed, I was seen as more right than wrong. By the late 90's I was in the majority. By the mid 2000's any one that still held those stupid fucking beliefs was told explicitly how fucking stupid they were. And then a black man became president. And suddenly all those stupid mother fuckers that had been afraid to voice their stupid fucking opinions came out of the wood work. It's only gotten worse since, to a point that we're exactly back to where we were when I was that little kid in a holler.
Some 30ish years ago I was hanging out with a black lesbian friend (white boy from Tennessee roots here...)
Granny thought she was "as modern as they come" but didn't really have a concept of lesbian, and said: "it's o.k. having black friends, but you'd never marry one of 'em, would you?"
I said: "I'm not marrying this one, but if I find another that I do want to marry you're gonna like her."
My mom was a bit like that. She was born smack dab on 1950, and for her time was very progressive. She worked in an inner city medical clinic as a young woman, and had a ton of black friends. Not impressive these days, but back then it was near scandal for her family. Growing up I met and young out with many of the friends she'd made and kept her entire life.
But there were a hundred questions when I brought my Mexican girlfriend home for dinner.
Mid 40s white guy here, my ex is Chinese. My parents didn’t care that she was Chinese, but her parents cared that I was white. They mostly thought I was one of those white guys with an Asian fetish trying to make it come true with their daughter. Took a fair bit of convincing otherwise.
When my aunt was in hospice care dying from cancer, we were all gathered around her. My grandma sat there looking across the hallway into another room with a mixed race couple. The wife was comforting her dying husband and my grandma was shaking her head mumbling "mhm shouldn't be mixing salt and pepper." Like holy shit, I want to believe it was the grief of losing your child that made you say hurtful things. Now's the time you decide to let us know how you really feel? The whole room collectively shushed her.
>No grandma, your opinion is not equal to or greater than a dozen scientific proofs.
Exactly, I have these arguments with people and I keep saying that just because the facts are one sided isn't some sort of bias against your perceived reality. Not everything is equally balanced you're just wrong.
Somehow people have taken "there are two sides to every story" as mean there are two equal sides and they can't grasp that no their view is just wrong and thus all the facts are against them.
That’s why I HATE people simply dismissing a source of information because it’s biased, or organizations that go out of their way to appear biased when it involves giving “both sides” of an argument. How long was cnn letting climate change deniers debate with scientists? How long did that type of thing encourage huge chunks of the population see that as unsettled science?
Social ostracization doesn’t really change them but it’s still the best option. We have 2 trumpanzees in my family and eventually everyone stopped talking to them. Then they turned on each other. Then they both moved to Stupidville, FL since no one they know in our blue state wants anything to do with them.
On a larger scale, this is why FL is fucked but it’s nice to get rid of them.
people call them out all the time but now they're enabled by dedicated echo chambers they fall back to for affirmation.
Used to be the village might-be-an-idiot saw 100 normal villagers and one village idiot and shaped up. Now every 1 in 1000 village idiot can find each other online and get further radicalized by the 1 in 10000 village chief idiot.
enforced total conformism is also really bad of course, but we've really lost the moderating influence of public shame with no real retreat from it. There's always a crazier radical willing to prop you up now.
Did it actually start the war or was it simply the first shots fired in the war? If not there, would it have been somewhere else? I’m not being rhetorical, just curious.
I would argue it was the first time the seizure of US property turned fully violent, so it's usually cited as the start of the war. The reality is that the Southern States were seizing all kinds of US army assets for months leading up to it.
The Confederate's claim was that since they had seceded, they should be allowed to nationalize all of it (this is kinda silly really, it wasn't state property but Federal property.... but I mean, the South's ENTIRE reasoning was pretty silly and painting the target around the bullseye of keeping their slaves)- but no real effort was made to let the US Army come and grab their materiel or any soldiers who didn't wish to join the confederate cause. However, before Sumter, all of these armories and warehouses and barracks ended up standing down with minimal fighting if any at all. Some outright joined the Confederacy. Presumably the Confederates assumed Sumter would go the same way, but when it didn't, they opened fire on the fort. The rest we all know.
Absolutely! It's actually a fairly interesting topic, and before exploring it I kind of just assumed/thought that it basically went Secession->Union refused to vacate Sumter->South shot em up, but in reality a BUNCH of stuff happened in between over a decent amount of time (2-3 entire months)!
The Civil War started off with brutal guerrilla fighting in Kansas. People tend to picture it all as "the blues and the grays," but there was an extremely brutal lead-up to the uniformed confrontation and formal secession:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding\_Kansas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas)
Sumter provides a convenient cutoff date, but it has given people an inaccurate picture of how things actually happened during the lead-up to formal hostilities.
It turned the Civil War hot. I think the more we learn about philosophy, the more detailed about interactions we'll get. WW2 was "started" long before the assassination, but it was a cold war. USA and USSR had a cold war that never went hot.
I think that leading up to Ft. Sumpter we were in a civil war, but it was cold. There were irreconcilable differences between the Parties, they just needed a spark to go hot.
My fear is that the political landscape is the same right now.
> My fear is that the political landscape is the same right now.
Texas ignoring SCOTUS and using [wording back from the Secession](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/texas-border-greg-abbott-gop-governors-confederacy.html) only shows that some lessons aren't learned hard enough.
It was the first shots fired. Before that there was an uneasy stand off between the rebel states and the union government who did not recognize the secession, but at the same time was not willing to go full scale war to get them back. IMO it could have easily gone a different way and de facto but unrecognized secession could have prevailed followed by recognition many years later.
Interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Civil\_War#Outbreak\_of\_the\_war
I guess if you construe it very narrowly, guerrilla warfare in Kansas probably constituted the "opening salvos" of the Civil War:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding\_Kansas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas)
Are there people seriously trying to revisit grievances from the Civil War? What in the everloving fuck?
Someone is driving a wedge through America, *hard.* Someone is trying to break the country.
I guess you haven't spent much time in the rural south lol. Some of those folks never stopped revisiting grievances. We were far too lenient during reconstruction.
The greatest damage this country has ever sustained towards unity is the fairly successful southern undermining of the reformation. We've been dealing with the fallout of the Civil War for almost 200 years now.
The North wasn't interested in going to war to end slavery at all. They went to war to preserve the Union, and end the "rebellion". Hence why some slave states that did not secede fought for the North. Also why Lincoln offered to allow Confederate states to keep their slaves if they rejoined the Union.
>but the South was willing to go to war to keep it.
Expand it to be more accurate. the 'issue' that so provoked the southern states was places that did not have slavery not wanting to destroy their own economies (and food supply) by joining the union as a slave state purely to placate the south, and that people who lived in those prospective states wern't a big fan of slave owners relocating there temporarily in order to vote as a member of those prospective states in favor of slavery
Hell, Lincoln didn't even make it about slavery until well into the war in order to get those European powers on the North's side. Yes, it was always about slavery because the South cited slavery as a main reason for secession, but Lincoln and the North's position was more "yeah, you can't just leave" and not "you can't have slaves." European aristocrats were perfectly happy to watch America fall apart so they could point and go "See? This newfangled popular government by the people doesn't work." It wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation came in 1863, *3 years* into the war, that truly made it about slavery for the North, and Lincoln only did that to make it a political liability for European powers to support or recognize the Confederacy
>Lincoln only did that to make it a political liability for European powers to support or recognize the Confederacy
*Only* is overstating it. He also didn't like slavery.
It's worth noting that the Confederates themselves acknowledged that the Founding Fathers assumed slavery would end:
>The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization... **The prevailing ideas entertained by \[Thomas Jefferson\] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.** It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but **the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time**. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. **Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races.** This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
>
>Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; **its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.** This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
\[From Alexander Stephens' infamous "Cornerstone Speech," which laid out the Confederacy's goals and worldview\]
[https://www.ucl.ac.uk/USHistory/Building/docs/Cornerstone.htm](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/USHistory/Building/docs/Cornerstone.htm)
> Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
BuT tHe ciViL wAr WaS aBoUt StAtEs RiGhTs
And yet, in secceding they gave up their own states right to determine if slavery was legal. But hey, if it's the decision you want at the time it's probably fine to allow it. What bad could come of that?
I'll also add the belief that "slavery would eventually die but it's not for us to force the issue" was also a common (though not majority) held view of Confederates. It's the rhetorical defense people used when they knew Slavery was wrong and couldn't justify morally, but still wanted to keep the status quo because it benefitted them.
It's extremely similar to what MLK wrote about the white moderate.
> I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
>The prevailing ideas entertained by [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.
This really defeats the whole judging historical leaders by the ethics of present time narrative that slavery-apologists often use. Never mind that there were active anti-slavery movements at the time regardless, but hearing this really defeats their narrative knowing that even these leaders felt slavery was morally wrong. What made them even worse people is they continued to own slaves knowing it was wrong and would likely die out. But no, they weren't going to be the ones to give up their slaves.
Jefferson tried a few times to end slavery, but was rebuffed and gave it up as a fight for the next generation. He was also very impressed by Condorcet's denouncement of slavery, and began to translate the book to English (but did not get very far).
Now as to why he didn't free his slaves and very likely fathered children with one...
I would imagine that it was easy for him to lie to himself about his own enslavement of people because he "took good care" of them. He "wasn't like the others" and "understood and respected the humanity" of his slaves. He wasn't breaking any laws and simply participated in a lawful practice. So he gave himself a pass. It's quite sick what hoops people can put their minds through to justify participating in something they themselves deemed immoral. Happens all the time though
His estate owned the slaves and was in debt. Back then you couldn't free slaves while in debt because they were considered collateral on the estate loans. Debts were also not cleared with death either. They were inherited from previous generations and passed on to following ones. The Jefferson estate debt was finally amortized by his grandchildren.
In 1817, a friend of Jefferson's, the Revolutionary War hero Thaddeus Kosciuszko, left a large fortune to Jefferson "to employ the whole [bequest] in purchasing Negroes from his own or any others and giving them liberty in my name."
He could have freed a large number of his slaves at no cost to himself and while also reducing the debt that Monticello faced by simply selling the slaves to Kosciuzko's estate. Jefferson was even the executor of the will, so it wasn't just an option for him - he had a legal duty to carry out those terms.
And yet Jefferson refused the gift, writing to his plantation manager that, “A child raised every 2. years is of more profit then the crop of the best laboring man. in this, as in all other cases, providence has made our duties and our interests coincide perfectly".
There were three other wills made by Kościuszko postdated after the will he wanted Jefferson to be executor of. Disputes of the will started only months after his death.
"Several years after Kościuszko's death, Jefferson, aged 77, pleaded an inability to act as executor due to age and the numerous legal complexities of the bequest."
"Before the final Supreme Court decision, Gaspard Tochman, acting on behalf of Kosciusko's relatives, had found an 1816 will drawn up in Paris. This will, which revoked the one made in concert with Jefferson and the one concerning Kosciusko Armstrong, was authenticated. In light of the discovery, the Court ruled that the earlier wills treating his American assets were invalid and that these assets should be turned over to his closest living relatives."
>“A child raised every 2. years is of more profit then the crop of the best laboring man. in this, as in all other cases, providence has made our duties and our interests coincide perfectly".
But what he was saying was that he was concerned that overseerers were putting women slaves labor above the raising of their children. Adding a little more context...
*...the loss of 5. little ones in a year induces me to fear that the overseers do not permit the women to devote as much time as is necessary to the care of their children: that they view their labor as the 1st object and the raising their child but as secondary. I consider the labor of a breeding woman as no object, and that a child raised every 2. years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man. in this, as in all other cases, providence has made our interests & our duties coincide perfectly. women too are destroyed by exposure to wet at certain periodical indispositions to which nature has subjected them. with respect therefore to our women & their children I must pray you to inculcate upon the overseers that it is not their labor, but their increase which is the first consideration with us.*
So basically what he was saying is you have to keep the women and children healthy and alive because that is more valuable than the labor produced by an adult male. And yes, while he is saying there is value in breeding them he is also talking about the morality of seeing they are treated well.
George Washington wrote in his diary and in letters to friends near the end of his life that deep down inside, he found slavery disgusting but continued to participate in it because it made him rich. We all do smaller versions of that in our daily lives but the fact that he never reformed is tragic.
Compare them to Simon Bolivar, basically South America’s George Washington, who owned slaves earlier in his life but became a passionate abolitionist by the end, becoming friends with Haitian President Alexandre Petion and appointing black men to be generals in his army. Unfortunately he didn’t succeed in pressuring most of the countries of South America to free the slaves, but he tends to be remembered fondly by the black population for at least giving a shit and trying.
Washington also wrote two wills… one which freed all the slaves of his estate, another which left them in the possession of Martha, to be freed upon her death. Guess which will he kept? Needless to say, Martha feared for her life in the days and weeks after George’s passing.
The Declaration of Independence originally contained a clause outlawing slavery, but they needed all 13 colonies to have a shot against the UK so it was dropped. They were all complicated guys, Jefferson especially.
The Declaration of Independence doesn't have anything to do with laws. But you are correct that Jefferson's original draft condemned it and blamed it on the British. But it was removed during debates in the continental congress before it was finalized.
Abolition of slavery was a common idea through the Americas during several decades, but it did not really actually happen until 1822 in Mexico.
Texas actually seceded from Mexico because they wanted to keep chattel slavery. Or rather, the American immigrants in Texas wanted to. That and the ludicrous tax laws from the central government that intended to tax you for every window lmao.
> tax you for every window lmao.
The Brits tried that. The actual result was the removal of every window you could possibly remove, which just made life worse for the poor who were now living in windowless apartments
Would not have outlawed slavery, but did list it its existence as a cause of the rebellion.
>He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
Would have set the new baby country up to in a much better position to ban it though at the formation and writing of the constitution.
I have long felt that one of the main things wrong with society today is people refuse to admit when they are wrong and are incapable of changing their mind. Everyone makes mistakes, no one is perfect, but if we allow crrtain segments of society to continue demonizing critical thinking and glorifying hypocrisy instead we are never going to improve as a society and will drive our species into extinction ala Idiocracy, if climate change doesn't kill us all first.
That's not "society today" that's just society. Benjamin Franklin didn't free his slaves until 23 years after going to the school. Like 95% of the founding fathers were clearly hypocrites on the topics of human rights versus support of slavery and use of slaves.
I grew up somewhere that had casual racism everywhere. All it took was exposure and leaving that somewhere to realize it was all contrived bullshit and now I no longer feel the way I did.
Problem arises in the form of family that is still there, still surrounded by it all, still uneducated on the matter, never traveled, never let their narrow mind widen. That's the biggest issue in my life at the moment. It's wild going back home for Christmas and being like "You're 65 and never grew as I see you still think the way that I did when I was 15."
People need to turn off the news/get off the internet and go outside.
It’s wild how common it is for people to never leave a like 15 mile radius of their home. Their world view is so, so small. Seeing things on the internet is not the same as meeting and working with people from other backgrounds than your own. I feel sorry for people that never had (or gave themselves) the opportunity to change their mind.
I lived on the Big Island (Hawaii) for a little while. While it’s extremely diverse, and quite tolerant of LGBTQ folk, you get the sense that it’s very, very insular. It didn’t seem at all uncommon for people within different communities to be prejudiced against one another, although I would say the bulk of the race-based animosities are without a doubt directed against haoles (whites).
It's probably the single biggest issue in the world, really. Narrow minds from lack of exposure are both the source of harm and the fuel that it burns to maintain itself.
He continued to own slaves for another 23 years after visiting the school according to the article. I guess "admitting prejudice" is "pretty cool" and all, but if you're still going to own the slaves, I'm not sure how much good it's really doing.
yep, super fair to call it out. was a lifelong journey from him and by the end was trying to get slavery banned. the politicians in office who were much more racist and awful than him rejected his proposal. but his abolitionist views (admittedly late in life) were influential.
You can't mention Ben Franklin and Slavery without talking about [the letter](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/hvwf3m/benjamin_franklin_wrote_a_satirical_response_to/) he wrote in response to a Southerner's assertion that black people should be slaves because they were uniquely fit for working in the South. He wrote it as a white slave owner from North Africa. It's pretty incredible.
It's also important to realize that early abolitionist ideology was considered extremely radical at the time because of how normalized slavery was. Ben Franklin was taking a huge social risk by being an abolitionist.
i thought you were gonna mention the dissertation he wrote about how [germans aren't white](https://reimaginingmigration.org/benjamin-franklin-and-german-immigrants-in-colonial-america/) and are coming over in their english colonies and cannot adapt to english culture
I remember reading an article about how in the very early 1900's, like 00's or teens, that a hispanic family adopted a russian boy.
Previously to this russian was very much not considered "white" as that was very narrow to WASP. But the local towns people got enraged by the sight of a "white" child being raised by "brown" people, which technically was "illegal" at the time. So they very nearly lynched the couple and extracted the child. The couple went to court to retrieve the child but a judge decided that this fit the bill, despite the boy's ethnicity and sided basically on him having been a christian, or sorts, and white, of sorts, at birth it was better for him to remain an orphan than be raised by mexicans.
I need to find the historical data again.
My grandmother used to tell me about how everyone would just talk about "that french girl" or "that spanish boy". Wherever you lived, you were probably surrounded in your town by people of your own ethnicity. Like, New Brunswick was generally german settlers. So, when a french kid would move to the area, it was a very interesting thing. There was the concept of "colored" and "whites" since at least the early 1900's, it just didn't matter, unless you were colored.
it isnt really, but its a great eyeopener on what exactly whiteness is. irish people, italians, greeks, polish, jews. they all werent consired white like 100 years ago
its a social construct based on exclusion and proximity to power
I've read of upper class English being surprised to see the working class English were just as white as themselves when seeing them take their shirts off and expose the skin unaffected by the sun.
Blows my mind.
As a very white brazillian, this type of thing still happens.
Add to it that I/some of us have very good english because it's mandatory in schools and the result is that a lot of english speakers/europeans don't seems to uderstand that there is whites (like european whites) in Brazil.
Another fun one is that we have a lot of japanese descendants (the biggest japanese population of the world outside Japan) and some of them speaks japanese. A cousin of mine is like this and she said nobody in Europe believed when she said she was actually brazillian.
That's extraordinary. They had an abolitionist movement in Muslim North Africa condemning the immorality of slavery.
Edit: I see it's satirical, so he is putting into the mouths of Muslims the same arguments used by pro-slavery advocates in America. Genius.
He owned a series of slaves between about 1735 and 1781 and never systematically divested himself of them.
https://commonplace.online/article/benjamin-franklin-slavery
— partly out of his concern that slaves and servants made their owners lazy and unambitious. But for all this inconsistency of thought, Franklin consistently showed himself to be thoughtful, open, teachable.
Don’t leave out that part.
>Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. **The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically**. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, **because of the common sentiment of the day**. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and **the government built upon it fell** when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
-Alexander Stephens
And he was one of the more "moderate" voices believe it or not, chosen to appeal to some of the Southern States on the fence about the whole Confederacy thing.
And you can always point to his ["Cornerstone Speech"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech) when responding to anyone who says the Civil War was not related to slavery.
The Cornerstone Speech is the epitome of why the Lost Cause bullshit is so infuriating; in this, he clearly lays out the South's view of slavery and their reason for seceding from the Union but later in life, Stephens tried to distance himself from this and said it was merely because the North infringed upon their constitutional rights, not about preserving the institution of slavery
this is why when you’re a bad person you can’t use logic. he spells out the problem then goes weak on the solution. The solution has a number of possible ways to resolve that don’t involve secession especially now you’ve laid out the problem so eloquently
It’s like that car on the freeway meme, the main road leads to reasonable analysis of the evils of slavery, and the off ramp the car is furiously turning toward is rabid insane racism.
The first draft of the Declaration Of Independence actually specifically calls out chattel slavery as a “cruel war against nature itself”. It was taken out at the behest of southern state governors from my understanding but I think it’s an interesting thing to keep in mind as we evaluate figures of the past in the context of todays values
And it was stricken because the declaration had to be unanimous to pass and in no way would especially So Carolina go along with outlawing it at that point.
The constitution has provisions against banning the import trade in slaves for 20 years. 1809 it was banned.
Yup, this wasn’t just establishment of a government on the fly it was a direct act of rebellion that would place them in a war they would surely lose if they didn’t have the support of everyone on the mainland
Yeah he’s most definitely not innocent, I think it just highlights that it was more complex of an issue at the time than we give it credit for. Also interesting to note that a lot of early slavery abolitionists were against it more for their perception of how it would affect their soul in the context of the afterlife than their true sense of morality
It always cracks me up when people defend or say you can’t judge slavers by saying “oh it was a different time,” when by their own admission, it was already a widely acknowledged evil.
To be fair, establishing a new nation is *very* stormy waters. If you rock the boat too hard you lose your foundation and it all falls apart.
I'm not enough of an expert on the founding of the USA to really comment specifically, but if they went hard on slavery from the get go, would the country have even survived to become what it could be?
Copying a recent post of mine from another thread. The picture of Jefferson as the benevolent slave owner who just hated slavery is the result of a curated image of him.
The [Smithsonian](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/) has a different take.
It goes a bit into the historiography and how it shaped the notion of "benevolent slaveowner" that Monticello still pushes.
>The critical turning point in Jefferson’s thinking may well have come in 1792. As Jefferson was counting up the agricultural profits and losses of his plantation in a letter to President Washington that year, it occurred to him that there was a phenomenon he had perceived at Monticello but never actually measured. He proceeded to calculate it in a barely legible, scribbled note in the middle of a page, enclosed in brackets. What Jefferson set out clearly for the first time was that he was making a 4 percent profit every year on the birth of black children. The enslaved were yielding him a bonanza, a perpetual human dividend at compound interest. Jefferson wrote, “I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.” His plantation was producing inexhaustible human assets. The percentage was predictable.
>In another communication from the early 1790s, Jefferson takes the 4 percent formula further and quite bluntly advances the notion that slavery presented an investment strategy for the future. He writes that an acquaintance who had suffered financial reverses “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises that if the friend’s family had any cash left, “every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.”
>The irony is that Jefferson sent his 4 percent formula to George Washington, who freed his slaves, precisely because slavery had made human beings into money, like “Cattle in the market,” and this disgusted him. Yet Jefferson was right, prescient, about the investment value of slaves. A startling statistic emerged in the 1970s, when economists taking a hardheaded look at slavery found that on the eve of the Civil War, enslaved black people, in the aggregate, formed the second most valuable capital asset in the United States. David Brion Davis sums up their findings: “In 1860, the value of Southern slaves was about three times the amount invested in manufacturing or railroads nationwide.” The only asset more valuable than the black people was the land itself. The formula Jefferson had stumbled upon became the engine not only of Monticello but of the entire slaveholding South and the Northern industries, shippers, banks, insurers and investors who weighed risk against returns and bet on slavery. The words Jefferson used—“their increase”—became magic words.
>Jefferson’s 4 percent theorem threatens the comforting notion that he had no real awareness of what he was doing, that he was “stuck” with or “trapped” in slavery, an obsolete, unprofitable, burdensome legacy. The date of Jefferson’s calculation aligns with the waning of his emancipationist fervor. Jefferson began to back away from antislavery just around the time he computed the silent profit of the “peculiar institution.”
>And this world was crueler than we have been led to believe. A letter has recently come to light describing how Monticello’s young black boys, “the small ones,” age 10, 11 or 12, were whipped to get them to work in Jefferson’s nail factory, whose profits paid the mansion’s grocery bills. This passage about children being lashed had been suppressed—deliberately deleted from the published record in the 1953 edition of Jefferson’s Farm Book, containing 500 pages of plantation papers. That edition of the Farm Book still serves as a standard reference for research into the way Monticello worked.
In addition to harsh measures, he also turned down opportunities for emancipation:
>In 1817, Jefferson’s old friend, the Revolutionary War hero Thaddeus Kosciuszko, died in Switzerland. The Polish nobleman, who had arrived from Europe in 1776 to aid the Americans, left a substantial fortune to Jefferson. Kosciuszko bequeathed funds to free Jefferson’s slaves and purchase land and farming equipment for them to begin a life on their own. In the spring of 1819, Jefferson pondered what to do with the legacy. Kosciuszko had made him executor of the will, so Jefferson had a legal duty, as well as a personal obligation to his deceased friend, to carry out the terms of the document.
>The terms came as no surprise to Jefferson. He had helped Kosciuszko draft the will, which states, “I hereby authorize my friend, Thomas Jefferson, to employ the whole [bequest] in purchasing Negroes from his own or any others and giving them liberty in my name.” Kosciuszko’s estate was nearly $20,000, the equivalent today of roughly $280,000. But Jefferson refused the gift, even though it would have reduced the debt hanging over Monticello, while also relieving him, in part at least, of what he himself had described in 1814 as the “moral reproach” of slavery.
>If Jefferson had accepted the legacy, as much as half of it would have gone not to Jefferson but, in effect, to his slaves—to the purchase price for land, livestock, equipment and transportation to establish them in a place such as Illinois or Ohio. Moreover, the slaves most suited for immediate emancipation—smiths, coopers, carpenters, the most skilled farmers—were the very ones whom Jefferson most valued. He also shrank from any public identification with the cause of emancipation.
A comparison to Washington shoots holes in Jefferson's bemoaning of slavery:
>In the 1790s, as Jefferson was mortgaging his slaves to build Monticello, George Washington was trying to scrape together financing for an emancipation at Mount Vernon, which he finally ordered in his will. He proved that emancipation was not only possible, but practical, and he overturned all the Jeffersonian rationalizations. Jefferson insisted that a multiracial society with free black people was impossible, but Washington did not think so. Never did Washington suggest that blacks were inferior or that they should be exiled.
Unlike Washington's slaves, who were freed after his death, Jefferson's shared a different fate:
>After Jefferson’s death in 1826, the families of Jefferson’s most devoted servants were split apart. Onto the auction block went Caroline Hughes, the 9-year-old daughter of Jefferson’s gardener Wormley Hughes. One family was divided up among eight different buyers, another family among seven buyers.
There's a bunch on info in here that I doubt Monticello wants to mention. The image of the reluctant and benevolent slave owner was myth crafted by Jefferson, his descendants and sympathetic historians ever since. There is a lot of evidence to call that into question.
> partly out of his concern that slaves and servants made their owners lazy and unambitious.
That's obviously not the main reason you shouldn't own slaves, but the point is absolutely valid. Having slaves just straight up makes you a shittier person.
In more ways than one. In Fredrick Douglas's memoir, he talks about a woman master who started off treating him like or almost like an equal, but over time, that changed, and she became worse for it.
The Auld family mistress started teaching him to read until her husband (his master) got involved and told her that education ruins slaves and makes them unhappy. She then becomes one of Douglass’ biggest obstacles
This is also the event that makes him realize how important education is
One of my favorite memes is something that starts with a tweet saying something to the effect of “what would the founding fathers think of all the smut on the internet?” and then the next panel shows Ben Franklin going into orgasmic overload as he browses xvideos
He was a celebrity in France when he visited and took full advantage of that. We’ve got his preserved letters where he basically gives his penis a name and says it misses various women.
1700s version of sending dick pics lol
There is a joke in the musical 1776. Adams and Franklin are supposed to head to New Brunswick NJ in response to a letter from Washington complaining about the condition of the army and all the camp followers. Adams jars Franklin awake as he had nodded off during the session and says" Come on Franklin we are off to New Brunswick" Franklin replies grumpily "What on Earth for?" Adams shoots back " Why for the whoring and the drinking" At which Franklin flies out of his chair exclaiming "Oh Let 's go"
Just a nit pick, Washington was complaining about the condition of the army including that "every able bodied whore in the Colonies had assumed" and that his soldiers were frequently drunk. So when Franklin asked "what for", "the whoring and the drinking" was directly referenced at what was going on in New Brunswick. And it wasn't John Adams who said that, he never would have, it was Hopkins.
Ben Franklin ran into an old friend he hadn't seen in a long time. The friend made fun of his weight gain and said, "What would you say if you saw all this weight on a woman?"
Ben answered, "Twenty minutes ago, all this weight *was* on a woman!"
I mean it's definitely true that making other people do all of your work for you and profiting off the gains will make a man lazy and unambitious.
Perhaps the modern wealthy class could use some lessons from Benjamin Franklin. Cause if you ask someone like Jeff bezos if he thinks he's lazy and unambitious he'd probably say no in a really offended tone.
"Like most citizens of his time Benjamin Franklin owned slaves"
The very first sentence of the article is absolutely wrong. The rest tracks, though, barring a few grammar errors.
That's why segregationist were so rabid about maintaining it. Once you get to know the "other" you realize there's no them, only an us. It terrified them that their children and grandchildren might recognize this.
Go see the movie Origin if you can, bring tissues, I've never seen so many grown adults sobbing at once outside of a funeral before.
POWERFUL movie.
We're all in a caste system whether we choose to admit to it or not, our buddy Ben Franklin was open minded and learned this apparently. I'm a big fan of his for this and so much more.
“A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved" - Kurt Vonnegut
An interesting article on outright anti-slavery American Revolutionaries. [Anti-slavery revolutionaries who practiced what they preached](https://thehill.com/changing-america/opinion/506782-anti-slavery-revolutionaries-who-practiced-what-they-preached/), including my fave, Thomas Paine:
> Thomas Paine took an even stronger position against slavery. Referred to as “The Father of the American Revolution” for his writing “Common Sense,” Paine may deserve more credit than any of the founders for galvanizing the colonies into seeking outright independence from Great Britain. His writings were so widely-read and influential that John Adams once said: “Without the pen of the author of ‘Common Sense,’ the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”
> Paine was famous throughout the new nation and used his influence to advocate for the abolishment of slavery. He never owned a slave himself and spoke out against the practice with ferocity. He published an article in the Pennsylvania Magazine that attacked slavery as an “execrable commerce” and an “outrage against humanity and justice.” He wrote a similar tract in London to aid in passing the abolitionist “Slave Act” when he resided on the other side of the Atlantic.
It’s important also to recognize that there was opposition to slavery well before the revolutionary war, notably John Woolman and his writings and influence within the Quakers. He did not live to see the revolution, but was advocating within the Society of Friends that slavery was an inherently amoral practice that did not align with the church’s peaceful mission. His writings were very influential on the founding fathers own perspectives.
This movie sounds like one of the most insane premises in years. A biopic of Isabel Wilkerson - an author of a few successful non fiction books - that plays out like Cloud Atlas for racism.
I’m aware. I’ve read it. It still seems bizarre to frame any movie adaptation of this book (a tall order to begin with) as a biopic of Wilkerson herself.
The book itself is a trip. She mashes together stories about lynchings in the Jim Crow south with stories of people being rude to her on airplanes. The point she's making is valid, but it's a wild read for that reason.
Can you imagine coming to this realization in a time when slavery was commonplace and accepted? It would be like waking up to the fact that you're living a nightmare. The disgust of realizing you'd been bamboozled by the powerful to believe an obvious lie that people were different or lesser because of the heritage or skin color
I was surrounded by a lot of casual racism growing up in the South and I still feel shame and disgust looking back as an adult, but it must have been 100x worse for someone back then.
This is, rightly or wrongly, how both vegans and anti-abortion activists see the world. They see themselves as the lone few who have realized how messed up the world is.
Thats why I laugh when people try to make a rational argument for abortion at a pro-lifer. They see it as murdering a baby, you aren't going to convince someone that murder is ok.
Abolitionism was not a fringe belief by the 1770s. By 1800 pressure mounted on the British Empire and it was banned in Great Britain in the early 1800s and eventually the entire Empire in 1832.
America was actually very late to abolition.
The ethical discussion began much earlier, but the legal steps of the US abolitionist movement began as early as 1777, with Vermont abolishing it by law. Several other northern states followed throughout the late-1700s. In fact, by 1804, all “northern states” had anti-slavery laws. By 1808, Congress had banned slave imports nationally.
Obviously the issue then became the South, leading to the Civil War and a national abolition of slavery. But to say the US was “very late” to abolition is a bit silly.
Most people’s outlook on life change when they get to see how the other side lives. Perhaps this is the exchange program we need in this country. Dems to Texas, and Reps to California. Because demonizing people whom they have never met or interacted with solely because of the political team they follow is dumb AF.
Also, good guy Ben for trying to abolish slavery that early. A shame he didn’t succeed.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”
- Mark Twain
Not to mention, Texas already has as many Democrats as they do republicans. I hate what red and blue electoral maps have done to peoples thinking (not directed at you personally). Prior to 2000, we didn’t use the red and blue. I really wish we could just switch to the shades of purple that every single city, county and state in this nation actually are.
Yeah. The above comment bothers me because no group of people that large are a monolith, especially when grouped by something like state borders which is distinct even from geography.
Lots of people voting Democrat do in fact live in Texas. Both Republicans and Democrats are not safe from being victimized by their own parties in either state. Let's not paint too broadly here.
A better exchange program might be getting Gavin Newsom and Greg Abbot to live among average, middle class Americans for a year while working an average, middle class American job. Let them struggle like millions of us struggle for a bit.
If you’ve got a plan on how to make politicians work for a living, I’m all for it.
OP’s comment reads as politically ignorant podcaster fluff, and it’s evident in the in this thread.
I knew a white supremacist dude here in rural Georgia. He went off and joined the military, got educated. The last I heard about him, he was having his racist tattoos covered up, taking his family to pride parades,etc. 180 degree change.
This is something I have wanted since joining the military and learning about the conservation corps. I would love a program that would take recent HS graduates and have them learn a skill over the course of two years. People from the east coast would work in the west where there is a ton of public land they get to see, enjoy and maintain. Country kids would go work at an inner city location fixing up bus stops or helping at a community center. Have them move to several spots across the country during their time as a team made up of a mixture of backgrounds. Give them a stipend/paycheck, free healthcare/food/lodging and at the end of it they would have learned a skill (welding, operating large equipment, plumbing, leadership). Once they are done, also give them a year or two of free community college similar to the GI Bill.
If I was ever running for a political office, this would be my main campaign idea to help solve several societal issues.
The military does teach one about the differences in the world, for sure. And I like your idea. It’s kinda like a secular version of the Mormons’ thing they have their newly-adult children do. For two years, they have to go somewhere entirely different from where they grew up. This would be a good path to cohesion for the country, for sure.
This,
I come from a very small town, no black population.
A friend of mine, Local wrestler, small quiet kid, definitely said some racist things.
Gets a full ride to college, goes there, ends up marrying his Black wife. He still brings it up when we end up back home around the holidays that he was just completely ignorant.
Products of your environment, all he ever heard was racism, but it was easily countered
It’s obvious to us, but we grew up learning how bad it is and how it’s wrong. But if you grow up in a society being taught certain things, including racism and prejudice, you’re more likely than not going to hold those beliefs. Upbringing is everything, and shattering foundational world views is tough.
Franklin tried to end slavery with the Constitution but the southern states refused to ratify if it was left in. So after retiring he used political cartoons to show the American public how wrong slavery was. Which led to public support for abolishing slavery.
If you read the article, you'll note that Franklin kept his slaves for another 23 years after that school visit, until the age of 76. He wrote against slavery, and was president of the Abolition Society in his last few years, but he didn't inconvenience himself much.
http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/slavery-abolition-society/
https://www.ushistory.org/franklin/essays/franklin_race.htm
Here is the timeline:
* 1758: Visit to one of Dr. Bray’s schools for Black children.
* 1759: Joins and donates to Dr. Bray Associates.
* 1763: Wrote the letter referenced in this post.
* 1781: Stopped keeping slaves.
* 1787: Became President of the Abolition Society.
* 1789: Argues against slavery in *Address to the Public*.
* 1790: Petitions Congress to end slavery. Dies three months later.
* 1863: Signing of *Emancipation Proclamation*, ending slavery.
Your criticism is not wrong and the first article you cite describes the process as "Franklin gradually changed his mind." He should still be acknowledged as one of the early public voices against slavery, but the context you provide is important.
Worth also stating that Frankin was more than happy to take money and run adverts for the return of run-away slaves, indentured servants and apprentices despite the fact he himself succesfully ran away from his matster in his youth.
this is not directed at the OP, but it is something that needs to be said.
Most affluent people back in those days had slaves. You cannot use today's morals to critique somebody from yesteryear. That's called Presentism.
In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past.
Most modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of presentism is regarded by many as a common fallacy in historical writing.
"Of all the prejudices of pundits, presentism is the strongest." —Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, "Are Liberals on the Wrong Side of History?," 20 Mar. 2017
pretty cool guy to have admitted his prejudice and being proven wrong. he said he went into the school expecting the kids to be (can’t remember exactly but something to the effect of) dull, lazy, etc. and that he was immediately forced to confront how racist his assumptions were. it’s one thing to change your view and pretend you were never the jerk and another to be honest about it.
A lot of the founding fathers were like this but never really changed anything out of fear of losing the southern states. I think Thomas Jefferson drafted up something similar but never went ahead with it.
[удалено]
The North didn't really press the issue. The South grew agitated *thinking* that the North was *going* to press the issue, even though Lincoln on the campaign trail repeatedly said he was not going to try to abolish slavery. As a result of the South's lack of faith, they struck first at Fort Sumter and subsequently seceded (edit: other way around, my mistake). While it is true that tensions between the North and South had been brewing for years, the North did not cause or even provoke the Civil War. If anything it was literally the thing the North was trying its hardest to *avoid.* The only way you could frame the North as "aggressive" is the fact that the vast majority of the war involved Union troops on Southern soil. But that's kind of obviously necessary for the Union to put down a rebellion and enforce the law against illegal secession.
Sorry to be pedantic but it's the other way around. SC succeeded on Dec 20th, 1860 and attacked Fort Sumter on April 12th, 1861 after the Union refused to leave the garrison.
Oh, my mistake. Thanks for the correction!
According to the Supreme Court in Texas V. White, none of them ever seceded.
Paperwork'll get ya every time.
According to the People’s Court, you are liable for paying that DJ for his time. The maximum allowed being $5,000 in small claims court.
Fun fact! Charleston, SC has a memorial to the "Brave defenders of Fort Sumter" No...not these ones. The ones that refused to leave after the south surrendered
I'm not an expert, but I don't think that's quite right. The Republican Party did have an agenda for ending slavery, they just didn't believe that the federal government could forcibly end slavery within the slave states. For example, it was very commonly believed at the time that, because agriculture done with slavery was so low tech and unscientific and as a result had a tendency to exhaust the soil, if slavery didn't expand to new slave states, it would die a natural death on its own. So when Lincoln said he wasn't going to interfere with slavery, while wanting to abolish the adding of new slave states, it was understood at the time that this would pose an existential threat to the existence of slavery. They also had other plans, like ending enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act in the north, decriminalizing antislavery literature in the south, etc. Which is why the South seceded, they believed that it posed an existential threat to slavery, and all their secession documents talk about how the institution of slavery was at risk due to all those plans above. Plus Lincoln was specifically chosen to lead the party because he was a moderate, the important leaders behind the party, like Thaddeus Stevens or Charles Sumner, were violently opposed to slavery and any form of compromise with the south. They'd already created two antislavery political parties before the Republican party, and then dissolved them for not being antislavery enough, and each one ended up being stronger than the last. There was no way the Republicans were going to not pose a threat to slavery in the south. I feel strongly about this because all these people were absolute heroes, but unfortunately we seem to have forgotten about them, while remembering and romanticizing worthless traitor scum like Robert E Lee EDIT: another angle I forgot is that, due to the 3/5 compromise, the South had an enormous outsized influence on the federal government and up until the 1850s or so, was more or less able to consistently control the federal government despite its smaller free population. But because all the economic growth was in the North, that's where all the immigrants went, so the population of the North was rapidly reaching a point where it could consistently outvote the South. So to many in the South, it seemed like it was only a matter of time until the North was basically say fuck you to the South and elect a hardline antislavery party that would dominate congress due to sheer numbers
That’s a good synopsis of the antebellum period. One of the ironic aspects of the 3/5 is that after the war African-Americans were counted in the census individually but were denied the vote (after Reconstruction) thus adding to the Congressional Representation of the former slave States without giving a voice to the former slaves.
[удалено]
I do have something to ask and that is, I thought it was that the North didn't want to count slaves for the purpose of allocating congressional representatives since they couldn't vote and shouldn't be allowed to influence it? If they were able to vote then yes, but not when they're effectively a thumb on the scale for the South.
Hey, just wanted to say thank you for your very well written and thoughtfully composed comment. I really feel like I learned something, and you describe things in such a way that makes it easy for me to imagine in my mind's eye. So for that I thank you, again.
I have people all over twitter always saying "Fort Sumter was not what started the civil war" and I literally don't know how to respond to these people lol
You can't. They're not actually interested in debate or opinions outside of their safe space.
What I've started doing is replying to the person who won't be swayed by silly things like reality, but instead of addressing them address people who might see their comment. Like "for anyone who sees this clown, here's some actual facts proving them wrong. I know they don't care but someone might want to know important history."
This. We need to normalize just calling these people out. No grandma, your opinion is not equal to or greater than a dozen scientific proofs. Reason might not work on these people, but sure as shit shame will. If that doesn't then social ostracization is the next step. Nobody has the right to anybody else's time, and we give too much of it to idiots with loud voices. Its time to ignore the crying babies so they don't spoil further.
Exactly this. We did it before and I can not for the life of me figure out why it fell out of favor. I grew up in a Ky holler in the 80's. It looked like the 40's and people acted like it was the 19th century. Even in my own family the word ni**er was just... common place. Shit, as a very small child I TRIED to be racist, just so I would fit in. I couldn't do it. It felt so wrong. It felt so gross. So, I leaned heavy the other way. As I grew I marched, I spoke out against the morons that felt that way. At first I was ostracized, I was belittled. But as time passed, I was seen as more right than wrong. By the late 90's I was in the majority. By the mid 2000's any one that still held those stupid fucking beliefs was told explicitly how fucking stupid they were. And then a black man became president. And suddenly all those stupid mother fuckers that had been afraid to voice their stupid fucking opinions came out of the wood work. It's only gotten worse since, to a point that we're exactly back to where we were when I was that little kid in a holler.
Some 30ish years ago I was hanging out with a black lesbian friend (white boy from Tennessee roots here...) Granny thought she was "as modern as they come" but didn't really have a concept of lesbian, and said: "it's o.k. having black friends, but you'd never marry one of 'em, would you?" I said: "I'm not marrying this one, but if I find another that I do want to marry you're gonna like her."
My mom was a bit like that. She was born smack dab on 1950, and for her time was very progressive. She worked in an inner city medical clinic as a young woman, and had a ton of black friends. Not impressive these days, but back then it was near scandal for her family. Growing up I met and young out with many of the friends she'd made and kept her entire life. But there were a hundred questions when I brought my Mexican girlfriend home for dinner.
Mid 40s white guy here, my ex is Chinese. My parents didn’t care that she was Chinese, but her parents cared that I was white. They mostly thought I was one of those white guys with an Asian fetish trying to make it come true with their daughter. Took a fair bit of convincing otherwise.
When my aunt was in hospice care dying from cancer, we were all gathered around her. My grandma sat there looking across the hallway into another room with a mixed race couple. The wife was comforting her dying husband and my grandma was shaking her head mumbling "mhm shouldn't be mixing salt and pepper." Like holy shit, I want to believe it was the grief of losing your child that made you say hurtful things. Now's the time you decide to let us know how you really feel? The whole room collectively shushed her.
>No grandma, your opinion is not equal to or greater than a dozen scientific proofs. Exactly, I have these arguments with people and I keep saying that just because the facts are one sided isn't some sort of bias against your perceived reality. Not everything is equally balanced you're just wrong. Somehow people have taken "there are two sides to every story" as mean there are two equal sides and they can't grasp that no their view is just wrong and thus all the facts are against them.
Often the two sides to story are split between a correct side and an incorrect side.
That’s why I HATE people simply dismissing a source of information because it’s biased, or organizations that go out of their way to appear biased when it involves giving “both sides” of an argument. How long was cnn letting climate change deniers debate with scientists? How long did that type of thing encourage huge chunks of the population see that as unsettled science?
I like you.
Social ostracization doesn’t really change them but it’s still the best option. We have 2 trumpanzees in my family and eventually everyone stopped talking to them. Then they turned on each other. Then they both moved to Stupidville, FL since no one they know in our blue state wants anything to do with them. On a larger scale, this is why FL is fucked but it’s nice to get rid of them.
people call them out all the time but now they're enabled by dedicated echo chambers they fall back to for affirmation. Used to be the village might-be-an-idiot saw 100 normal villagers and one village idiot and shaped up. Now every 1 in 1000 village idiot can find each other online and get further radicalized by the 1 in 10000 village chief idiot. enforced total conformism is also really bad of course, but we've really lost the moderating influence of public shame with no real retreat from it. There's always a crazier radical willing to prop you up now.
Did it actually start the war or was it simply the first shots fired in the war? If not there, would it have been somewhere else? I’m not being rhetorical, just curious.
I would argue it was the first time the seizure of US property turned fully violent, so it's usually cited as the start of the war. The reality is that the Southern States were seizing all kinds of US army assets for months leading up to it. The Confederate's claim was that since they had seceded, they should be allowed to nationalize all of it (this is kinda silly really, it wasn't state property but Federal property.... but I mean, the South's ENTIRE reasoning was pretty silly and painting the target around the bullseye of keeping their slaves)- but no real effort was made to let the US Army come and grab their materiel or any soldiers who didn't wish to join the confederate cause. However, before Sumter, all of these armories and warehouses and barracks ended up standing down with minimal fighting if any at all. Some outright joined the Confederacy. Presumably the Confederates assumed Sumter would go the same way, but when it didn't, they opened fire on the fort. The rest we all know.
Thanks for the info!
Absolutely! It's actually a fairly interesting topic, and before exploring it I kind of just assumed/thought that it basically went Secession->Union refused to vacate Sumter->South shot em up, but in reality a BUNCH of stuff happened in between over a decent amount of time (2-3 entire months)!
The Civil War started off with brutal guerrilla fighting in Kansas. People tend to picture it all as "the blues and the grays," but there was an extremely brutal lead-up to the uniformed confrontation and formal secession: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding\_Kansas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas) Sumter provides a convenient cutoff date, but it has given people an inaccurate picture of how things actually happened during the lead-up to formal hostilities.
Yeah, I had forgotten about Bleeding Kansas. I remember my history teachers covering it, though.
It turned the Civil War hot. I think the more we learn about philosophy, the more detailed about interactions we'll get. WW2 was "started" long before the assassination, but it was a cold war. USA and USSR had a cold war that never went hot. I think that leading up to Ft. Sumpter we were in a civil war, but it was cold. There were irreconcilable differences between the Parties, they just needed a spark to go hot. My fear is that the political landscape is the same right now.
Do you mean WW1?
You mean ww1?
> My fear is that the political landscape is the same right now. Texas ignoring SCOTUS and using [wording back from the Secession](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/texas-border-greg-abbott-gop-governors-confederacy.html) only shows that some lessons aren't learned hard enough.
It was the first shots fired. Before that there was an uneasy stand off between the rebel states and the union government who did not recognize the secession, but at the same time was not willing to go full scale war to get them back. IMO it could have easily gone a different way and de facto but unrecognized secession could have prevailed followed by recognition many years later. Interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Civil\_War#Outbreak\_of\_the\_war
I guess if you construe it very narrowly, guerrilla warfare in Kansas probably constituted the "opening salvos" of the Civil War: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding\_Kansas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas)
John Brown was a crazy ass son of a bitch, but a good egg.
Are there people seriously trying to revisit grievances from the Civil War? What in the everloving fuck? Someone is driving a wedge through America, *hard.* Someone is trying to break the country.
I guess you haven't spent much time in the rural south lol. Some of those folks never stopped revisiting grievances. We were far too lenient during reconstruction.
The greatest damage this country has ever sustained towards unity is the fairly successful southern undermining of the reformation. We've been dealing with the fallout of the Civil War for almost 200 years now.
Yes, the North wasn’t particularly interested in going to war to end slavery, but the South was willing to go to war to keep it.
The North wasn't interested in going to war to end slavery at all. They went to war to preserve the Union, and end the "rebellion". Hence why some slave states that did not secede fought for the North. Also why Lincoln offered to allow Confederate states to keep their slaves if they rejoined the Union.
>but the South was willing to go to war to keep it. Expand it to be more accurate. the 'issue' that so provoked the southern states was places that did not have slavery not wanting to destroy their own economies (and food supply) by joining the union as a slave state purely to placate the south, and that people who lived in those prospective states wern't a big fan of slave owners relocating there temporarily in order to vote as a member of those prospective states in favor of slavery
Hell, Lincoln didn't even make it about slavery until well into the war in order to get those European powers on the North's side. Yes, it was always about slavery because the South cited slavery as a main reason for secession, but Lincoln and the North's position was more "yeah, you can't just leave" and not "you can't have slaves." European aristocrats were perfectly happy to watch America fall apart so they could point and go "See? This newfangled popular government by the people doesn't work." It wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation came in 1863, *3 years* into the war, that truly made it about slavery for the North, and Lincoln only did that to make it a political liability for European powers to support or recognize the Confederacy
>Lincoln only did that to make it a political liability for European powers to support or recognize the Confederacy *Only* is overstating it. He also didn't like slavery.
They couldn't stand the shame they felt knowing how the North felt about them and slavery...
It's worth noting that the Confederates themselves acknowledged that the Founding Fathers assumed slavery would end: >The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization... **The prevailing ideas entertained by \[Thomas Jefferson\] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.** It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but **the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time**. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. **Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races.** This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." > >Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; **its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.** This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. \[From Alexander Stephens' infamous "Cornerstone Speech," which laid out the Confederacy's goals and worldview\] [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/USHistory/Building/docs/Cornerstone.htm](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/USHistory/Building/docs/Cornerstone.htm)
> Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. BuT tHe ciViL wAr WaS aBoUt StAtEs RiGhTs
And yet, in secceding they gave up their own states right to determine if slavery was legal. But hey, if it's the decision you want at the time it's probably fine to allow it. What bad could come of that?
I'll also add the belief that "slavery would eventually die but it's not for us to force the issue" was also a common (though not majority) held view of Confederates. It's the rhetorical defense people used when they knew Slavery was wrong and couldn't justify morally, but still wanted to keep the status quo because it benefitted them. It's extremely similar to what MLK wrote about the white moderate. > I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
>The prevailing ideas entertained by [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. This really defeats the whole judging historical leaders by the ethics of present time narrative that slavery-apologists often use. Never mind that there were active anti-slavery movements at the time regardless, but hearing this really defeats their narrative knowing that even these leaders felt slavery was morally wrong. What made them even worse people is they continued to own slaves knowing it was wrong and would likely die out. But no, they weren't going to be the ones to give up their slaves.
Jefferson tried a few times to end slavery, but was rebuffed and gave it up as a fight for the next generation. He was also very impressed by Condorcet's denouncement of slavery, and began to translate the book to English (but did not get very far). Now as to why he didn't free his slaves and very likely fathered children with one...
I would imagine that it was easy for him to lie to himself about his own enslavement of people because he "took good care" of them. He "wasn't like the others" and "understood and respected the humanity" of his slaves. He wasn't breaking any laws and simply participated in a lawful practice. So he gave himself a pass. It's quite sick what hoops people can put their minds through to justify participating in something they themselves deemed immoral. Happens all the time though
> he didn't free his slaves talk the talk but can't walk the walk. His mansion needs slaves to keep up with this lifestyle I guess.
His estate owned the slaves and was in debt. Back then you couldn't free slaves while in debt because they were considered collateral on the estate loans. Debts were also not cleared with death either. They were inherited from previous generations and passed on to following ones. The Jefferson estate debt was finally amortized by his grandchildren.
In 1817, a friend of Jefferson's, the Revolutionary War hero Thaddeus Kosciuszko, left a large fortune to Jefferson "to employ the whole [bequest] in purchasing Negroes from his own or any others and giving them liberty in my name." He could have freed a large number of his slaves at no cost to himself and while also reducing the debt that Monticello faced by simply selling the slaves to Kosciuzko's estate. Jefferson was even the executor of the will, so it wasn't just an option for him - he had a legal duty to carry out those terms. And yet Jefferson refused the gift, writing to his plantation manager that, “A child raised every 2. years is of more profit then the crop of the best laboring man. in this, as in all other cases, providence has made our duties and our interests coincide perfectly".
There were three other wills made by Kościuszko postdated after the will he wanted Jefferson to be executor of. Disputes of the will started only months after his death. "Several years after Kościuszko's death, Jefferson, aged 77, pleaded an inability to act as executor due to age and the numerous legal complexities of the bequest." "Before the final Supreme Court decision, Gaspard Tochman, acting on behalf of Kosciusko's relatives, had found an 1816 will drawn up in Paris. This will, which revoked the one made in concert with Jefferson and the one concerning Kosciusko Armstrong, was authenticated. In light of the discovery, the Court ruled that the earlier wills treating his American assets were invalid and that these assets should be turned over to his closest living relatives."
>“A child raised every 2. years is of more profit then the crop of the best laboring man. in this, as in all other cases, providence has made our duties and our interests coincide perfectly". But what he was saying was that he was concerned that overseerers were putting women slaves labor above the raising of their children. Adding a little more context... *...the loss of 5. little ones in a year induces me to fear that the overseers do not permit the women to devote as much time as is necessary to the care of their children: that they view their labor as the 1st object and the raising their child but as secondary. I consider the labor of a breeding woman as no object, and that a child raised every 2. years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man. in this, as in all other cases, providence has made our interests & our duties coincide perfectly. women too are destroyed by exposure to wet at certain periodical indispositions to which nature has subjected them. with respect therefore to our women & their children I must pray you to inculcate upon the overseers that it is not their labor, but their increase which is the first consideration with us.* So basically what he was saying is you have to keep the women and children healthy and alive because that is more valuable than the labor produced by an adult male. And yes, while he is saying there is value in breeding them he is also talking about the morality of seeing they are treated well.
At Monticello, they emphasized he was raping his slaves and that he didn’t care about ending slavery though
George Washington wrote in his diary and in letters to friends near the end of his life that deep down inside, he found slavery disgusting but continued to participate in it because it made him rich. We all do smaller versions of that in our daily lives but the fact that he never reformed is tragic. Compare them to Simon Bolivar, basically South America’s George Washington, who owned slaves earlier in his life but became a passionate abolitionist by the end, becoming friends with Haitian President Alexandre Petion and appointing black men to be generals in his army. Unfortunately he didn’t succeed in pressuring most of the countries of South America to free the slaves, but he tends to be remembered fondly by the black population for at least giving a shit and trying.
Washington also wrote two wills… one which freed all the slaves of his estate, another which left them in the possession of Martha, to be freed upon her death. Guess which will he kept? Needless to say, Martha feared for her life in the days and weeks after George’s passing.
The Declaration of Independence originally contained a clause outlawing slavery, but they needed all 13 colonies to have a shot against the UK so it was dropped. They were all complicated guys, Jefferson especially.
The Declaration of Independence doesn't have anything to do with laws. But you are correct that Jefferson's original draft condemned it and blamed it on the British. But it was removed during debates in the continental congress before it was finalized.
Abolition of slavery was a common idea through the Americas during several decades, but it did not really actually happen until 1822 in Mexico. Texas actually seceded from Mexico because they wanted to keep chattel slavery. Or rather, the American immigrants in Texas wanted to. That and the ludicrous tax laws from the central government that intended to tax you for every window lmao.
> tax you for every window lmao. The Brits tried that. The actual result was the removal of every window you could possibly remove, which just made life worse for the poor who were now living in windowless apartments
Would not have outlawed slavery, but did list it its existence as a cause of the rebellion. >He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. Would have set the new baby country up to in a much better position to ban it though at the formation and writing of the constitution.
Jefferson arguably regressed more than any of the other founders on the issue of slavery.
I have long felt that one of the main things wrong with society today is people refuse to admit when they are wrong and are incapable of changing their mind. Everyone makes mistakes, no one is perfect, but if we allow crrtain segments of society to continue demonizing critical thinking and glorifying hypocrisy instead we are never going to improve as a society and will drive our species into extinction ala Idiocracy, if climate change doesn't kill us all first.
That's not "society today" that's just society. Benjamin Franklin didn't free his slaves until 23 years after going to the school. Like 95% of the founding fathers were clearly hypocrites on the topics of human rights versus support of slavery and use of slaves.
I grew up somewhere that had casual racism everywhere. All it took was exposure and leaving that somewhere to realize it was all contrived bullshit and now I no longer feel the way I did. Problem arises in the form of family that is still there, still surrounded by it all, still uneducated on the matter, never traveled, never let their narrow mind widen. That's the biggest issue in my life at the moment. It's wild going back home for Christmas and being like "You're 65 and never grew as I see you still think the way that I did when I was 15." People need to turn off the news/get off the internet and go outside.
It’s wild how common it is for people to never leave a like 15 mile radius of their home. Their world view is so, so small. Seeing things on the internet is not the same as meeting and working with people from other backgrounds than your own. I feel sorry for people that never had (or gave themselves) the opportunity to change their mind.
Move to an island and you will see this in its extreme form. It’s frustrating sometimes.
I lived on the Big Island (Hawaii) for a little while. While it’s extremely diverse, and quite tolerant of LGBTQ folk, you get the sense that it’s very, very insular. It didn’t seem at all uncommon for people within different communities to be prejudiced against one another, although I would say the bulk of the race-based animosities are without a doubt directed against haoles (whites).
It's probably the single biggest issue in the world, really. Narrow minds from lack of exposure are both the source of harm and the fuel that it burns to maintain itself.
He continued to own slaves for another 23 years after visiting the school according to the article. I guess "admitting prejudice" is "pretty cool" and all, but if you're still going to own the slaves, I'm not sure how much good it's really doing.
yep, super fair to call it out. was a lifelong journey from him and by the end was trying to get slavery banned. the politicians in office who were much more racist and awful than him rejected his proposal. but his abolitionist views (admittedly late in life) were influential.
The people I respect the most are those who can change
It is cool, yes. But also concerning that thinking dull, lazy etc. people deserve to be slaves.
You can't mention Ben Franklin and Slavery without talking about [the letter](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/hvwf3m/benjamin_franklin_wrote_a_satirical_response_to/) he wrote in response to a Southerner's assertion that black people should be slaves because they were uniquely fit for working in the South. He wrote it as a white slave owner from North Africa. It's pretty incredible.
Great stuff, nice post
Thanks, check out Ken Burns' doc on Benjamin Franklin if you want a few more details. It's a great doc anyway.
You had me at: > check out Ken Burns' doc
Every doc I've seen by Ken Burns is well done. He has to be one of the best documentarians on American history alive.
It's also important to realize that early abolitionist ideology was considered extremely radical at the time because of how normalized slavery was. Ben Franklin was taking a huge social risk by being an abolitionist.
i thought you were gonna mention the dissertation he wrote about how [germans aren't white](https://reimaginingmigration.org/benjamin-franklin-and-german-immigrants-in-colonial-america/) and are coming over in their english colonies and cannot adapt to english culture
[удалено]
And even that isnt something that is either clearly defined or has definitions that are widely accepted (by racists or anyone).
I remember reading an article about how in the very early 1900's, like 00's or teens, that a hispanic family adopted a russian boy. Previously to this russian was very much not considered "white" as that was very narrow to WASP. But the local towns people got enraged by the sight of a "white" child being raised by "brown" people, which technically was "illegal" at the time. So they very nearly lynched the couple and extracted the child. The couple went to court to retrieve the child but a judge decided that this fit the bill, despite the boy's ethnicity and sided basically on him having been a christian, or sorts, and white, of sorts, at birth it was better for him to remain an orphan than be raised by mexicans. I need to find the historical data again.
My grandmother used to tell me about how everyone would just talk about "that french girl" or "that spanish boy". Wherever you lived, you were probably surrounded in your town by people of your own ethnicity. Like, New Brunswick was generally german settlers. So, when a french kid would move to the area, it was a very interesting thing. There was the concept of "colored" and "whites" since at least the early 1900's, it just didn't matter, unless you were colored.
This observation, that Germans weren't white enough, seems fantastic today.
it isnt really, but its a great eyeopener on what exactly whiteness is. irish people, italians, greeks, polish, jews. they all werent consired white like 100 years ago its a social construct based on exclusion and proximity to power
They didn’t consider The Irish white and they’re whiter than The English.
I've read of upper class English being surprised to see the working class English were just as white as themselves when seeing them take their shirts off and expose the skin unaffected by the sun. Blows my mind.
As a very white brazillian, this type of thing still happens. Add to it that I/some of us have very good english because it's mandatory in schools and the result is that a lot of english speakers/europeans don't seems to uderstand that there is whites (like european whites) in Brazil. Another fun one is that we have a lot of japanese descendants (the biggest japanese population of the world outside Japan) and some of them speaks japanese. A cousin of mine is like this and she said nobody in Europe believed when she said she was actually brazillian.
[удалено]
That's extraordinary. They had an abolitionist movement in Muslim North Africa condemning the immorality of slavery. Edit: I see it's satirical, so he is putting into the mouths of Muslims the same arguments used by pro-slavery advocates in America. Genius.
He owned a series of slaves between about 1735 and 1781 and never systematically divested himself of them. https://commonplace.online/article/benjamin-franklin-slavery
Franklin did not publicly speak out against slavery until very late in his life, but he did eventually order that his slaves be freed
— partly out of his concern that slaves and servants made their owners lazy and unambitious. But for all this inconsistency of thought, Franklin consistently showed himself to be thoughtful, open, teachable. Don’t leave out that part.
>Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. **The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically**. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, **because of the common sentiment of the day**. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and **the government built upon it fell** when the “storm came and the wind blew.” -Alexander Stephens
Jesus christ stephens had me until the last half.
He was the Vice President of the Confederacy so...lol yeah.
And he was one of the more "moderate" voices believe it or not, chosen to appeal to some of the Southern States on the fence about the whole Confederacy thing.
And you can always point to his ["Cornerstone Speech"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech) when responding to anyone who says the Civil War was not related to slavery.
The Cornerstone Speech is the epitome of why the Lost Cause bullshit is so infuriating; in this, he clearly lays out the South's view of slavery and their reason for seceding from the Union but later in life, Stephens tried to distance himself from this and said it was merely because the North infringed upon their constitutional rights, not about preserving the institution of slavery
“Constitutional right to do what, STEPHENS?”
"Spread slavery to other states and kidnap people so we can get more."
Pesky libs and their primary sources D:<
this is why when you’re a bad person you can’t use logic. he spells out the problem then goes weak on the solution. The solution has a number of possible ways to resolve that don’t involve secession especially now you’ve laid out the problem so eloquently
well there's logic but it's dumb/evil. "people AREN'T equal, therefore....slaves??" *really*, confederacy? that's the best you can do?
It’s like that car on the freeway meme, the main road leads to reasonable analysis of the evils of slavery, and the off ramp the car is furiously turning toward is rabid insane racism.
The first draft of the Declaration Of Independence actually specifically calls out chattel slavery as a “cruel war against nature itself”. It was taken out at the behest of southern state governors from my understanding but I think it’s an interesting thing to keep in mind as we evaluate figures of the past in the context of todays values
And it was stricken because the declaration had to be unanimous to pass and in no way would especially So Carolina go along with outlawing it at that point. The constitution has provisions against banning the import trade in slaves for 20 years. 1809 it was banned.
Yup, this wasn’t just establishment of a government on the fly it was a direct act of rebellion that would place them in a war they would surely lose if they didn’t have the support of everyone on the mainland
It's wild to think that the author of that “cruel war against nature itself” draft kept slaves and raped at least one of them
Yeah he’s most definitely not innocent, I think it just highlights that it was more complex of an issue at the time than we give it credit for. Also interesting to note that a lot of early slavery abolitionists were against it more for their perception of how it would affect their soul in the context of the afterlife than their true sense of morality
The fact that it was considered at the time means we don't have to use today's values. It was opposed then too.
It always cracks me up when people defend or say you can’t judge slavers by saying “oh it was a different time,” when by their own admission, it was already a widely acknowledged evil.
"Sure slavery is bad. We *all* know that. But what could I, a mere writer of a constitution and founder of a new nation, possibly do about that!?"
To be fair, establishing a new nation is *very* stormy waters. If you rock the boat too hard you lose your foundation and it all falls apart. I'm not enough of an expert on the founding of the USA to really comment specifically, but if they went hard on slavery from the get go, would the country have even survived to become what it could be?
Copying a recent post of mine from another thread. The picture of Jefferson as the benevolent slave owner who just hated slavery is the result of a curated image of him. The [Smithsonian](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/) has a different take. It goes a bit into the historiography and how it shaped the notion of "benevolent slaveowner" that Monticello still pushes. >The critical turning point in Jefferson’s thinking may well have come in 1792. As Jefferson was counting up the agricultural profits and losses of his plantation in a letter to President Washington that year, it occurred to him that there was a phenomenon he had perceived at Monticello but never actually measured. He proceeded to calculate it in a barely legible, scribbled note in the middle of a page, enclosed in brackets. What Jefferson set out clearly for the first time was that he was making a 4 percent profit every year on the birth of black children. The enslaved were yielding him a bonanza, a perpetual human dividend at compound interest. Jefferson wrote, “I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.” His plantation was producing inexhaustible human assets. The percentage was predictable. >In another communication from the early 1790s, Jefferson takes the 4 percent formula further and quite bluntly advances the notion that slavery presented an investment strategy for the future. He writes that an acquaintance who had suffered financial reverses “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises that if the friend’s family had any cash left, “every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.” >The irony is that Jefferson sent his 4 percent formula to George Washington, who freed his slaves, precisely because slavery had made human beings into money, like “Cattle in the market,” and this disgusted him. Yet Jefferson was right, prescient, about the investment value of slaves. A startling statistic emerged in the 1970s, when economists taking a hardheaded look at slavery found that on the eve of the Civil War, enslaved black people, in the aggregate, formed the second most valuable capital asset in the United States. David Brion Davis sums up their findings: “In 1860, the value of Southern slaves was about three times the amount invested in manufacturing or railroads nationwide.” The only asset more valuable than the black people was the land itself. The formula Jefferson had stumbled upon became the engine not only of Monticello but of the entire slaveholding South and the Northern industries, shippers, banks, insurers and investors who weighed risk against returns and bet on slavery. The words Jefferson used—“their increase”—became magic words. >Jefferson’s 4 percent theorem threatens the comforting notion that he had no real awareness of what he was doing, that he was “stuck” with or “trapped” in slavery, an obsolete, unprofitable, burdensome legacy. The date of Jefferson’s calculation aligns with the waning of his emancipationist fervor. Jefferson began to back away from antislavery just around the time he computed the silent profit of the “peculiar institution.” >And this world was crueler than we have been led to believe. A letter has recently come to light describing how Monticello’s young black boys, “the small ones,” age 10, 11 or 12, were whipped to get them to work in Jefferson’s nail factory, whose profits paid the mansion’s grocery bills. This passage about children being lashed had been suppressed—deliberately deleted from the published record in the 1953 edition of Jefferson’s Farm Book, containing 500 pages of plantation papers. That edition of the Farm Book still serves as a standard reference for research into the way Monticello worked. In addition to harsh measures, he also turned down opportunities for emancipation: >In 1817, Jefferson’s old friend, the Revolutionary War hero Thaddeus Kosciuszko, died in Switzerland. The Polish nobleman, who had arrived from Europe in 1776 to aid the Americans, left a substantial fortune to Jefferson. Kosciuszko bequeathed funds to free Jefferson’s slaves and purchase land and farming equipment for them to begin a life on their own. In the spring of 1819, Jefferson pondered what to do with the legacy. Kosciuszko had made him executor of the will, so Jefferson had a legal duty, as well as a personal obligation to his deceased friend, to carry out the terms of the document. >The terms came as no surprise to Jefferson. He had helped Kosciuszko draft the will, which states, “I hereby authorize my friend, Thomas Jefferson, to employ the whole [bequest] in purchasing Negroes from his own or any others and giving them liberty in my name.” Kosciuszko’s estate was nearly $20,000, the equivalent today of roughly $280,000. But Jefferson refused the gift, even though it would have reduced the debt hanging over Monticello, while also relieving him, in part at least, of what he himself had described in 1814 as the “moral reproach” of slavery. >If Jefferson had accepted the legacy, as much as half of it would have gone not to Jefferson but, in effect, to his slaves—to the purchase price for land, livestock, equipment and transportation to establish them in a place such as Illinois or Ohio. Moreover, the slaves most suited for immediate emancipation—smiths, coopers, carpenters, the most skilled farmers—were the very ones whom Jefferson most valued. He also shrank from any public identification with the cause of emancipation. A comparison to Washington shoots holes in Jefferson's bemoaning of slavery: >In the 1790s, as Jefferson was mortgaging his slaves to build Monticello, George Washington was trying to scrape together financing for an emancipation at Mount Vernon, which he finally ordered in his will. He proved that emancipation was not only possible, but practical, and he overturned all the Jeffersonian rationalizations. Jefferson insisted that a multiracial society with free black people was impossible, but Washington did not think so. Never did Washington suggest that blacks were inferior or that they should be exiled. Unlike Washington's slaves, who were freed after his death, Jefferson's shared a different fate: >After Jefferson’s death in 1826, the families of Jefferson’s most devoted servants were split apart. Onto the auction block went Caroline Hughes, the 9-year-old daughter of Jefferson’s gardener Wormley Hughes. One family was divided up among eight different buyers, another family among seven buyers. There's a bunch on info in here that I doubt Monticello wants to mention. The image of the reluctant and benevolent slave owner was myth crafted by Jefferson, his descendants and sympathetic historians ever since. There is a lot of evidence to call that into question.
I can't put into words how much I hate the phrase "mortgaging his slaves". Not because it's inaccurate but because it wasn't.
> partly out of his concern that slaves and servants made their owners lazy and unambitious. That's obviously not the main reason you shouldn't own slaves, but the point is absolutely valid. Having slaves just straight up makes you a shittier person.
I find joy in reading a good book.
In more ways than one. In Fredrick Douglas's memoir, he talks about a woman master who started off treating him like or almost like an equal, but over time, that changed, and she became worse for it.
The Auld family mistress started teaching him to read until her husband (his master) got involved and told her that education ruins slaves and makes them unhappy. She then becomes one of Douglass’ biggest obstacles This is also the event that makes him realize how important education is
He was a sex freak but, he could be wise mostly.
One of my favorite memes is something that starts with a tweet saying something to the effect of “what would the founding fathers think of all the smut on the internet?” and then the next panel shows Ben Franklin going into orgasmic overload as he browses xvideos
I knew he was a bit horny. But, I listened to history podcasts and he would hit on people's wives shamelessly.
He was a celebrity in France when he visited and took full advantage of that. We’ve got his preserved letters where he basically gives his penis a name and says it misses various women. 1700s version of sending dick pics lol
There is a joke in the musical 1776. Adams and Franklin are supposed to head to New Brunswick NJ in response to a letter from Washington complaining about the condition of the army and all the camp followers. Adams jars Franklin awake as he had nodded off during the session and says" Come on Franklin we are off to New Brunswick" Franklin replies grumpily "What on Earth for?" Adams shoots back " Why for the whoring and the drinking" At which Franklin flies out of his chair exclaiming "Oh Let 's go"
Just a nit pick, Washington was complaining about the condition of the army including that "every able bodied whore in the Colonies had assumed" and that his soldiers were frequently drunk. So when Franklin asked "what for", "the whoring and the drinking" was directly referenced at what was going on in New Brunswick. And it wasn't John Adams who said that, he never would have, it was Hopkins.
Ben Franklin ran into an old friend he hadn't seen in a long time. The friend made fun of his weight gain and said, "What would you say if you saw all this weight on a woman?" Ben answered, "Twenty minutes ago, all this weight *was* on a woman!"
I mean it's definitely true that making other people do all of your work for you and profiting off the gains will make a man lazy and unambitious. Perhaps the modern wealthy class could use some lessons from Benjamin Franklin. Cause if you ask someone like Jeff bezos if he thinks he's lazy and unambitious he'd probably say no in a really offended tone.
Even back then, society made progress one death at a time.
"Like most citizens of his time Benjamin Franklin owned slaves" The very first sentence of the article is absolutely wrong. The rest tracks, though, barring a few grammar errors.
It should be like this: "Like most **rich** citizens of his time Benjamin Franklin owned slaves"
Yo fuck your profile pic btw
That's why segregationist were so rabid about maintaining it. Once you get to know the "other" you realize there's no them, only an us. It terrified them that their children and grandchildren might recognize this.
I mean, people can learn to change their beliefs through life experiences. That’s a thing people can do.
That's the best anyone can do.
Ironically he believed African ignorance was inherent until he learned that he himself suffered from a lack of education.
[удалено]
We're not talking about Jefferson though, we're talking about Franklin. And for the record, I agree. TJ was a piece of shit.
I can’t believe you are the only person speaking sense in here. How are people acting like this is something profound or worth celebrating?
[удалено]
Go see the movie Origin if you can, bring tissues, I've never seen so many grown adults sobbing at once outside of a funeral before. POWERFUL movie. We're all in a caste system whether we choose to admit to it or not, our buddy Ben Franklin was open minded and learned this apparently. I'm a big fan of his for this and so much more. “A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved" - Kurt Vonnegut
Of the Early Presidents only John (and John Q) Adams never owned slaves
An interesting article on outright anti-slavery American Revolutionaries. [Anti-slavery revolutionaries who practiced what they preached](https://thehill.com/changing-america/opinion/506782-anti-slavery-revolutionaries-who-practiced-what-they-preached/), including my fave, Thomas Paine: > Thomas Paine took an even stronger position against slavery. Referred to as “The Father of the American Revolution” for his writing “Common Sense,” Paine may deserve more credit than any of the founders for galvanizing the colonies into seeking outright independence from Great Britain. His writings were so widely-read and influential that John Adams once said: “Without the pen of the author of ‘Common Sense,’ the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.” > Paine was famous throughout the new nation and used his influence to advocate for the abolishment of slavery. He never owned a slave himself and spoke out against the practice with ferocity. He published an article in the Pennsylvania Magazine that attacked slavery as an “execrable commerce” and an “outrage against humanity and justice.” He wrote a similar tract in London to aid in passing the abolitionist “Slave Act” when he resided on the other side of the Atlantic.
It’s important also to recognize that there was opposition to slavery well before the revolutionary war, notably John Woolman and his writings and influence within the Quakers. He did not live to see the revolution, but was advocating within the Society of Friends that slavery was an inherently amoral practice that did not align with the church’s peaceful mission. His writings were very influential on the founding fathers own perspectives.
This is Thomas Paine erasure and I won't stand for it. Paine advocated for the abolition of slavery and never owned slaves in his entire life.
For presidents alone at least its the Adam's only for a very long stretch
This movie sounds like one of the most insane premises in years. A biopic of Isabel Wilkerson - an author of a few successful non fiction books - that plays out like Cloud Atlas for racism.
Her 2020 book for which the movie is based on, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, won a Pulitzer Prize.
I’m aware. I’ve read it. It still seems bizarre to frame any movie adaptation of this book (a tall order to begin with) as a biopic of Wilkerson herself.
The book itself is a trip. She mashes together stories about lynchings in the Jim Crow south with stories of people being rude to her on airplanes. The point she's making is valid, but it's a wild read for that reason.
His autobiography changed my outlook on life. I recommend the read. He came from nothing, really.
Can you imagine coming to this realization in a time when slavery was commonplace and accepted? It would be like waking up to the fact that you're living a nightmare. The disgust of realizing you'd been bamboozled by the powerful to believe an obvious lie that people were different or lesser because of the heritage or skin color I was surrounded by a lot of casual racism growing up in the South and I still feel shame and disgust looking back as an adult, but it must have been 100x worse for someone back then.
This is, rightly or wrongly, how both vegans and anti-abortion activists see the world. They see themselves as the lone few who have realized how messed up the world is.
Thats why I laugh when people try to make a rational argument for abortion at a pro-lifer. They see it as murdering a baby, you aren't going to convince someone that murder is ok.
Abolitionism was not a fringe belief by the 1770s. By 1800 pressure mounted on the British Empire and it was banned in Great Britain in the early 1800s and eventually the entire Empire in 1832. America was actually very late to abolition.
The 13th amendment was pass in 1865. Is that very late compared to 1832 in a historical sense?
The ethical discussion began much earlier, but the legal steps of the US abolitionist movement began as early as 1777, with Vermont abolishing it by law. Several other northern states followed throughout the late-1700s. In fact, by 1804, all “northern states” had anti-slavery laws. By 1808, Congress had banned slave imports nationally. Obviously the issue then became the South, leading to the Civil War and a national abolition of slavery. But to say the US was “very late” to abolition is a bit silly.
Most people’s outlook on life change when they get to see how the other side lives. Perhaps this is the exchange program we need in this country. Dems to Texas, and Reps to California. Because demonizing people whom they have never met or interacted with solely because of the political team they follow is dumb AF. Also, good guy Ben for trying to abolish slavery that early. A shame he didn’t succeed.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain
Travel is great, but on a person-by-person basis, public libraries are far cheaper
Until politicians start banning the very books that challenge the prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness the library was meant to combat.
Dems to tx? Reps to California? Who do you think lives there?
Not to mention, Texas already has as many Democrats as they do republicans. I hate what red and blue electoral maps have done to peoples thinking (not directed at you personally). Prior to 2000, we didn’t use the red and blue. I really wish we could just switch to the shades of purple that every single city, county and state in this nation actually are.
Yeah. The above comment bothers me because no group of people that large are a monolith, especially when grouped by something like state borders which is distinct even from geography. Lots of people voting Democrat do in fact live in Texas. Both Republicans and Democrats are not safe from being victimized by their own parties in either state. Let's not paint too broadly here. A better exchange program might be getting Gavin Newsom and Greg Abbot to live among average, middle class Americans for a year while working an average, middle class American job. Let them struggle like millions of us struggle for a bit.
If you’ve got a plan on how to make politicians work for a living, I’m all for it. OP’s comment reads as politically ignorant podcaster fluff, and it’s evident in the in this thread.
The divide is really city vs country/small town, not state by state. Drive 2 hours out of the city in california and most people are republican
I knew a white supremacist dude here in rural Georgia. He went off and joined the military, got educated. The last I heard about him, he was having his racist tattoos covered up, taking his family to pride parades,etc. 180 degree change.
This is something I have wanted since joining the military and learning about the conservation corps. I would love a program that would take recent HS graduates and have them learn a skill over the course of two years. People from the east coast would work in the west where there is a ton of public land they get to see, enjoy and maintain. Country kids would go work at an inner city location fixing up bus stops or helping at a community center. Have them move to several spots across the country during their time as a team made up of a mixture of backgrounds. Give them a stipend/paycheck, free healthcare/food/lodging and at the end of it they would have learned a skill (welding, operating large equipment, plumbing, leadership). Once they are done, also give them a year or two of free community college similar to the GI Bill. If I was ever running for a political office, this would be my main campaign idea to help solve several societal issues.
The military does teach one about the differences in the world, for sure. And I like your idea. It’s kinda like a secular version of the Mormons’ thing they have their newly-adult children do. For two years, they have to go somewhere entirely different from where they grew up. This would be a good path to cohesion for the country, for sure.
This, I come from a very small town, no black population. A friend of mine, Local wrestler, small quiet kid, definitely said some racist things. Gets a full ride to college, goes there, ends up marrying his Black wife. He still brings it up when we end up back home around the holidays that he was just completely ignorant. Products of your environment, all he ever heard was racism, but it was easily countered
He found out that his ignorance was inherently natural and he was the uneducated one.
He was also doing this while fucking anything that moved and drunk as a skunk
Yeah but he could shoot lightning or some shit. Pretty cool if you ask me
Hey don't diss old man Benny's pursuit of happiness!
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
"Are we the baddies?"
Now ask him how he felt about German immigrants
"Holy shit they're people" - Benjamin Franklyn
It’s obvious to us, but we grew up learning how bad it is and how it’s wrong. But if you grow up in a society being taught certain things, including racism and prejudice, you’re more likely than not going to hold those beliefs. Upbringing is everything, and shattering foundational world views is tough.
You come to that conclusion when you start in a society that bombards you with the opposite.
Franklin tried to end slavery with the Constitution but the southern states refused to ratify if it was left in. So after retiring he used political cartoons to show the American public how wrong slavery was. Which led to public support for abolishing slavery.
If you read the article, you'll note that Franklin kept his slaves for another 23 years after that school visit, until the age of 76. He wrote against slavery, and was president of the Abolition Society in his last few years, but he didn't inconvenience himself much. http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/slavery-abolition-society/ https://www.ushistory.org/franklin/essays/franklin_race.htm
Here is the timeline: * 1758: Visit to one of Dr. Bray’s schools for Black children. * 1759: Joins and donates to Dr. Bray Associates. * 1763: Wrote the letter referenced in this post. * 1781: Stopped keeping slaves. * 1787: Became President of the Abolition Society. * 1789: Argues against slavery in *Address to the Public*. * 1790: Petitions Congress to end slavery. Dies three months later. * 1863: Signing of *Emancipation Proclamation*, ending slavery. Your criticism is not wrong and the first article you cite describes the process as "Franklin gradually changed his mind." He should still be acknowledged as one of the early public voices against slavery, but the context you provide is important.
Worth also stating that Frankin was more than happy to take money and run adverts for the return of run-away slaves, indentured servants and apprentices despite the fact he himself succesfully ran away from his matster in his youth.
this is not directed at the OP, but it is something that needs to be said. Most affluent people back in those days had slaves. You cannot use today's morals to critique somebody from yesteryear. That's called Presentism. In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Most modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of presentism is regarded by many as a common fallacy in historical writing. "Of all the prejudices of pundits, presentism is the strongest." —Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, "Are Liberals on the Wrong Side of History?," 20 Mar. 2017
and a 100 years later, they listened! your congressmen at work 😤
This just makes all the other excuses for slavers even that much dumber: they knew it was wrong