The Founders

[Ethereal]

Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton were both abolishionists IIRC.

The civil war wasn't about abolitionism. And both Franklin and Hamilton helped to enshrine slavery into the US Constitution. Clearly, then, they were not the least bit interested in using the US government to abolish the institution.

[Ethereal]

@Chris @Mister D @Ethereal

You guys often talk over my head about the founders. I would really like your input here.

I'm generalizing here, but none of the founders, as far as I am aware, had any interest in using the US government to abolish slavery anywhere in the USA. In fact, they all helped to effectively legalize slavery in the context of the constitution. That said, there was a pretty clear divide between them as it concerned federal power and authority. Hamilton and his so-called "federalists" generally favored a stronger central government whereas Jefferson and his Republicans generally favored a weaker one. It's worth noting that Jefferson and Madison wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions which espoused the right of states to nullify or intercede with regards to federal usurpation of local authority, which would lend itself to secessionist arguments. Indeed, the southern political class relied heavily on the ideals of people like Jefferson to justify their secession from the union.

[Bethere]

The civil war wasn't about abolitionism. And both Franklin and Hamilton helped to enshrine slavery into the US Constitution. Clearly, then, they were not the least bit interested in using the US government to abolish the institution.

By 1787 Franklin had freed his slaves and had become an abolitionist.

[Crepitus]

The civil war wasn't about abolitionism. And both Franklin and Hamilton helped to enshrine slavery into the US Constitution. Clearly, then, they were not the least bit interested in using the US government to abolish the institution.

So what the men themselves said carrys less weight than your opinion of them 200 years later?

[Chris]

So what the men themselves said carrys less weight than your opinion of them 200 years later?

Cite what they said or wrote to support your opinion.

[Chris]

By 1787 Franklin had freed his slaves and had become an abolitionist.

Paine, so instrumental in the revolution, was an earlier abolitionist.

That doesn't mean that's what the Civil War was about.

[Crepitus]

Cite what they said or wrote to support your opinion.

Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils. The unhappy man who has been treated as a brute animal, too frequently sinks beneath the common standard of the human species. The galling chains, that bind his body, do also fetter his intellectual faculties, and impair the social affections of his heart… To instruct, to advise, to qualify those, who have been restored to freedom, for the exercise and enjoyment of civil liberty… and to procure for their children an education calculated for their future situation in life; these are the great outlines of the annexed plan, which we have adopted.[For the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, 1789]

There are other things, but sadly I gotta go for now. Remind me later.

[Chris]

There are other things, but sadly I gotta go for now. Remind me later.

The fact Franklin found slavery morally repugnant doesn't imply the Civil War was fought for that reason. General Lee also found it morally repugnant.

[Crepitus]

The fact Franklin found slavery morally repugnant doesn't imply the Civil War was fought for that reason. General Lee also found it morally repugnant.

This angle have been pretty well covered in another thread. Let's not rehash it in this one.

[Captdon]

When Rhode Island refused to adopt the Constitution the federal government wouldn't allow any trade with them. They wouldn't allow them to enter the United States. Rhode Island got the message.

They would never have gone along with secession.