Current Events > Were the American Founding Fathers cowards when it came to slavery?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Apparently several Founding Fathers predicted that slavery was going to become an issue eventually but they chose to push it down the road and make future generations deal with it. Do you think they should have ended slavery when the US was founded?

why did we need to fight another war to end slavery? just make it a law in the constitution.

Some states wouldnt sign the declaration if they took out slavery.

---

Because they were profiting directly or indirectly from slavery. Also it wasnt ignorance of the times, in their writings concerning slavery they acknowledge how evil or immoral it is.

---

NocturneD85 posted...

Some states wouldnt sign the declaration if they took out slavery.

We might have been better off without them, tbh.

---

Zikten posted...

why did we need to fight another war to end slavery? just make it a law in the constitution.

Because then half of the states would pack up their shit and go home without signing said constitution?

---

No one watched libertys kids?

---

John Adams never owned slaves.
Ben Franklin did, but it's ambiguous if he even knew he did.

Farrakhan said this in a speech I listened to a few days ago. They wrote a great constitution but were too cowardly to do what was right.

---

There was a part in there originally, but science failed us

---

The thing is the southern states never would have gone along with signing the constitution.
---

They weren't cowards when it came to slavery so much as they were slavers when it came to slavery.

Tony_Biggie_Pun posted...

Farrakhan

ew

---

SiO4 posted...

The thing is the southern states never would have gone along with signing the constitution.

or the Declaration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeuaTpH6Ck0

(incidentally, that's one of the three musicals I can tolerate)

They looked after their interests. Those interests were incompatible with treating black people as human beings. A pattern that has continued.

---

Tony_Biggie_Pun posted...

Farrakhan said this in a speech I listened to a few days ago. They wrote a great constitution but were too cowardly to do what was right.

Why the fuck is anyone in 2020 listening to Farrakhan?

His supporters might as well admit they like to eat paint chips.

---

NocturneD85 posted...

Some states wouldnt sign the declaration if they took out slavery.

legendary_zell posted...

They looked after their interests. Those interests were incompatible with treating black people as human beings. A pattern that has continued.

It was more nuanced that that, but not very.

John Adams: Independence!!
Thomas Jefferson: Freedom, but also I have slaves.
Ben Franklin: Hold on, I have slaves?
The Entire South: SLAVES!!!

Questionmarktarius posted...

It was more nuanced that that, but not very.

John Adams: Independence!!
Thomas Jefferson: Freedom, but also I have slaves.
Ben Franklin: Hold on, I have slaves?
The Entire South: SLAVES!!!

I would add The Entire North: Gimme that sweet sweet slave money and raw materials.

---

legendary_zell posted...

I would add The Entire North: Gimme that sweet sweet slave money and raw materials.

fair

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Why the fuck is anyone in 2020 listening to Farrakhan?

His supporters might as well admit they like to eat paint chips.

He's an intelligent man. I learned a lot about history listening to him. And I've also seen the Wheels so I'm humble enough to listen to what he says. Just an inspirational person for me all around

---

Tony_Biggie_Pun posted...

He's an intelligent man. I learned a lot about history listening to him. And I've also seen the Wheels so I'm humble enough to listen to what he says. Just an inspirational person for me all around

Farrakhan invented "CEman" a few decades before the internet even really existed.

The Founding Fathers that were against slavery as an institution were a minority.

The rest made their riches on slavery so of course they weren't going to give it up.

---

George Washington had dower slaves from marrying Martha that neither he or her could free due to inheritance IIRC

Samuel Adams was given a slave named Surry whom he immediately freed and who ended up working for him for several years as a freed servant

I played Assassin's Creed 3 recently so these two are still fresh to me

---

legendary_zell posted...

They looked after their interests. Those interests were incompatible with treating black people as human beings. A pattern that has continued.

Tony_Biggie_Pun posted...

He's an intelligent man. I learned a lot about history listening to him. And I've also seen the Wheels so I'm humble enough to listen to what he says. Just an inspirational person for me all around

@Tony_Biggie_Pun
Since you responded very civilly, I will dial back my hostility (sorry about that) and look into any suggestions you have about what exactly you like or just agree with Farrakhan about. Maybe an interview or specific argument he made?

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

@Tony_Biggie_Pun
Since you responded very civilly, I will dial back my hostility (sorry about that) and look into any suggestions you have about what exactly you like or just agree with Farrakhan about. Maybe an interview or specific argument he made?

There's a lot of reasons but one is his inspiring do for self message

https://youtu.be/-e8yLx735UE

One example is his message to the Detroit City Council and him explaining how the citizens can rebuild their city if they had inspiration and the will to live and if they pooled their resources together and worked together. Even if you think you may be poor, with unity and numbers you can work together to become prosperous again

---

It's easier to demand martyrdom of others than it is to willingly become a martyr oneself.

---

Some of the modern progressives remind me of the crazed officer from the film Paths of Glory.

He accuses his men of cowardice for allowing themselves to remain pinned down under relentless fire from the enemy. When told that the situation was impossible, he remarks that the only proof of that could be the foxholes filled with the bodies of the dead. Go out and get yourself killed in an impossible situation to prove you're not a coward.

If Benjamin Franklin had ended up with a rope around his neck, he'd have been a figure of infamy in slave states. It would've have done nothing to bring an end to the institution of slavery. Slavers were willing to go back to being a colony of England rather than letting the slaves go free. That's a mighty tall order to say, "Go out and die for what is right. You'll be remembered favorably centuries after you're gone."

---

So, in reality, the founders prior, during, and after the revolution were not a monolith and it was a complicated issue.

There were founders who had abolitionist sympathies and goals, but political compromises had to be made, because a number of states still relied on slavery to maintain their economy, to ensure there was any union to be had at all.

For example, Jefferson had abolitionist sympathies written into his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, admonishing the crown for its role in enslaving and transporting African slaves to the Americas, but that segment was edited out in committee. He expressed some unkind words about the practice and even advocated for some possible solutions, granted he failed to emancipate almost all of his own slaves.

We already know some of the colonies were pro-slavery and others worked on legislation for gradual emancipation of the slaves.

Its also good to remember that in the context of the revolution slavery eas being looked at in a similar vein to how we view gay rights or drug legalization.

The moral arguments then and now are there, but you're talking about uprooting norms that have existed for decades, if not centuries. And at least during the Revolution, Southern slavery hadn't yet started to decline, so you couldn't make the "unviable to continue" argument that could have a century afterwords if you were to ask if slavery would have really continued if the South won. It wouldnt have as the industrial revolution would have rendered it largely obsolete.

So were the Founders cowards regarding slavery? No, but thats like saying refusing to be a total paragon of virtue is cowardice, and in any age thats simply unrealistic.

---

SiO4 posted...

The thing is the southern states never would have gone along with signing the constitution.

came in here to post this

also, sowell put it best - something along the lines that the founding generation saw it as an immoral burden but also an inheritance many were bound to the maintenance of

a conflict of interest, if you will

their "compromise", then, was to ban the atlantic trade in 1808, left the question to the states, and let later generations sort out the question (which resulted in the civil war)

---

CommonJoe posted...

Its also good to remember that in the context of the revolution slavery eas being looked at in a similar vein to how we view gay rights or drug legalization.

The moral arguments then and now are there, but you're talking about uprooting norms that have existed for decades, if not centuries. And at least during the Revolution, Southern slavery hadn't yet started to decline, so you couldn't make the "unviable to continue" argument that could have a century afterwords if you were to ask if slavery would have really continued if the South won. It wouldnt have as the industrial revolution would have rendered it largely obsolete.

So were the Founders cowards regarding slavery? No, but thats like saying refusing to be a total paragon of virtue is cowardice, and in any age thats simply unrealistic.

Well, there is an argument to be made that slavery as an institution was gradually on it's way out, which may have been why the founder felt setting the issue aside for later was a viable option, until the cotton gin was invented. That caused a significant boom in the southern cotton plantation economy, which would've increased demand for slave labor and prolonged the practice longer than may have been foreseen in 1776.

It wasn't an issue of not being able to keep the union together it was an issue of people like Washington expressly desiring to continue to own their slaves

---

Esrac posted...

That caused a significant boom in the southern cotton plantation economy, which would've increased demand for slave labor and prolonged the practice longer than may have been foreseen in 1776.

I dont think that played a factor. The Founders faced an emergent nation that as it was was only just holding together, and that unity remained tenous up until the post Civil War era when the US as a single nation finally became an accepted part of American identities.

A lot of the Founders early decisions were based around appeasing the South to maintain unity. A good example: The "militia" lines in the Second Amendment? There to ensure the South that their militias wouldnt be disbanded in favor of the national army.

The North needed the South to do what it wanted to do, but the same wasnt true in reverse. We have to remember that when we judge the Founders.

---

Doe posted...

It wasn't an issue of not being able to keep the union together it was an issue of people like Washington expressly desiring to continue to own their slaves

The two are not exclusive traits. (And im not agreeing that Washington wanted to keep his slaves either, but I dont know enough about him (nor care to) to dig that deeply into his life)

---

Crono99 posted...

I think they did what they could to make sure the country even existed. They had just fought a revolutionary war against the british... perhaps they felt it was too early for another war?

They hadnt won the war at that point. They declared their independence in 1776, but the war lasted until 1783. If the North tried ending slavery, the southern states would back and the 2 sides divided would easily be retaken by England, and everyone would be oppressed. Thanks SJWs!

CommonJoe posted...

The two are not exclusive traits. (And im not agreeing that Washington wanted to keep his slaves either, but I dont know enough about him (nor care to) to dig that deeply into his life)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ george-and-martha-washington-enslaved-300-people-lets-start- with-their-names/2020/06/26/d3f7c362-b7e7-11ea-a510-55bf26485c93_story.html

Spaces because dumb character limit

---

looked posted...

everyone would be oppressed

Lmfao don't compare English taxes on colonies founded and lived in by the English to fucking slavery

---

anyway, sometimes I think we would be better off if we had not fought the revolutionary war. we would by now be free anyway, like canada. the modern US government oppresses it's own citizens more today than the british were to the colonists back then

John Laurens was an abolitionist during the American Revolution. It's sad that it wasn't abolished in 1776. But when you think about it, we needed the American Civil War to abolish slavery. It wasn't going to end easily. Perhaps Washington could have put his foot down and accomplished it. Or perhaps the country wouldn't have survived the war.

---

Zikten posted...

anyway, sometimes I think we would be better off if we had not fought the revolutionary war. we would by now be free anyway, like canada. the modern US government oppresses it's own citizens more today than the british were to the colonists back then

You do realize that in doing this you likely would have still had a revolution anyway right? Almost to the day of the Civil War, as Britain would abolish slavery in 1833, and it absolutely would have sparked a revolt in the South.

And that in turn, presuming a Southern win, would have led to much of the area we call the US now likely being a third world shithole, instead of a rich second world shithole.

And nevermind that the UK can hardly claim to be that much better. Their political climate isnt that different from ours, and just as an example of their modern violations of civil liberties is using children as spies against terrorists, gangs, and other criminals. Need I mention the mass surveillance thats been rendered normal in the UK?

---

CommonJoe posted...

I dont think that played a factor. The Founders faced an emergent nation that as it was was only just holding together, and that unity remained tenous up until the post Civil War era when the US as a single nation finally became an accepted part of American identities.

A lot of the Founders early decisions were based around appeasing the South to maintain unity. A good example: The "militia" lines in the Second Amendment? There to ensure the South that their militias wouldnt be disbanded in favor of the national army.

The North needed the South to do what it wanted to do, but the same wasnt true in reverse. We have to remember that when we judge the Founders.

I think it did play a factor in the slave economy seeing a boom. The cotton gin is an invention that made cotton plantations much more profitable, and one that the founders couldn't have foreseen 20 years earlier.

But, yes, a lot of the political decisions they made before, during, and after the revolution required compromise with the states that were pro-slavery. I stated as much already. Without the southern states, there really would have been no chance at a successful revolution.

Refraining from freeing the slaves, with the intention to revisit the issue later, was probably the best choice they could have made at the time to maintain what unity they could. The early years of the US had a lot of disagreement over what form and direction the new nation would take.

Many of the founding fathers were against slavery but could not convince the south to give them up. So they compromised with the North/South dichotomy.

Nobody was happy but they weren't unhappy enough to refuse to ratify the constitution.

The 3/5ths compromise was another thing that made no one happy. That was 2/5ths less than what the slave owners wanted and 3/5ths more than what the free states wanted but it made them not unhappy enough to ratify the constitution.

---

SiO4 posted...

The thing is the southern states never would have gone along with signing the constitution.

TheMikh posted...

came in here to post this

also, sowell put it best - something along the lines that the founding generation saw it as an immoral burden but also an inheritance many were bound to the maintenance of

a conflict of interest, if you will

their "compromise", then, was to ban the atlantic trade in 1808, left the question to the states, and let later generations sort out the question (which resulted in the civil war)

Thank you. I am surprised at how few seem to understand that.
---

An important thing to keep in mind: even the Founders who were against slavery really didnt grasp just how evil it was. They didnt see black people as people, so the stakes seemed much lower to them. It was easy for them to prioritize their collective interest in presenting a united front against the British.
That was also true of basically all of the abolitionists John Brown being the most notable exception. White America was almost united in seeing black people as less. You could argue convincingly thats still a widespread view.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

An important thing to keep in mind: even the Founders who were against slavery really didnt grasp just how evil it was. They didnt see black people as people, so the stakes seemed much lower to them. It was easy for them to prioritize their collective interest in presenting a united front against the British.
That was also true of basically all of the abolitionists John Brown being the most notable exception. White America was almost united in seeing black people as less. You could argue convincingly thats still a widespread view.

I wouldn't agree that they didn't see black people as people, save perhaps the more malevolent slave masters, though they generally did think of them as less intellectually capable than whites. I do think there was a certain level of disconnected compartmentalization with the founders who spoke against slavery, but still owned slaves.

Like Jefferson who wrote about how terrible slavery was and proposed legislation against it, but still owned his own slaves. I suspect, in his case, if he had not been in such significant financial debt, he may have emancipated them upon his death as Washington did. But that is just speculation on my part.

We might still be a British colony if they had drawn a hard line on slavery

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

We might still be a British colony if they had drawn a hard line on slavery

Canada isn't. We wouldn't be either