I don't think this has been asked.

I think it's not a question of who is the "favorite" but who is the most influential.  In terms of all-around influence, I think Benjamin Franklin would get the vote for his statesmanship and his inventions, but in terms of the shaping of our country, I believe Thomas Jefferson would win hands down because of his drafting of the Declaration of Independence, his influence on the Constitution, and his Presidency in which he supported the expansion of the country and the exploration thereof.

I'm going to say Benjamin Franklin, just like he seems like he would have been a hoot to hang around.

I should have voted other for James Madison, but I voted for Jefferson....Franklin would have been a good choice too

Benjamin Franklin.  A key, a kite, and an electrifying good time

Tommy Jeff!

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are
servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion.
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one,
he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

--Thomas Jefferson

Tommy Jeff!

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are
servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion.
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one,
he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

--Thomas Jefferson


I was first going to pick T. Jefferson. Then I remembered the appauling defence of slavery composition of his I had to read for American History. I picked Ben Franklin because the man was simply a goddamn genius, and there ain't much more to it than that. He was also never a slave owner, was a deist, and discovered electricity (I mean, score one for the states!).

I was first going to pick T. Jefferson. Then I remembered the appauling defence of slavery composition of his I had to read for American History. I picked Ben Franklin because the man was simply a goddamn genius, and there ain't much more to it than that. He was also never a slave owner, was a deist, and discovered electricity (I mean, score one for the states!).

Good points.  My second choice was Franklin.  I mean, it's kind of a strange question, "who is your favorite founding father?" cannot really be posed like "what's your favorite flavor of ice cream?"
Franklin wasn't a slave owner, but via his press, he certainly helped many slave owners catch their runaway bondsmen. So...

I picked other. Quite frankly, none of them were my favorites. My vote will go to Betsy Ross!!!!!

Besides been a native Philadelphian, born and raised, you tend to learn more truths about them!!!!

Their are pros and cons to each and every single one of those men you mentioned.  I can list off great things as well as not so great things about them all.

However, I'd say....Ben Franklin.

I picked other. Quite frankly, none of them were my favorites. My vote will go to Betsy Ross!!!!!



No fair -- I was going to say that!  ;)

I selected George Washington for his roles as Commander in Chief of the Revolutionary War Army, as President of the Constitutional Convention, and as the first president.  He could have steered the nation in the direction of a monarchy or some other form of government with a leader selected for life, but instead he was very instrumental in defining the role of the elected president.

I also gave strong consideration to Thomas Paine (who should have been on the list), whose Common Sense was so well written and well read that it inspired the commitment to the revolution.

I am tossed. I first learned about John Adams when I was 9 years old (when I first saw the play 1776) and at that age I read all I could about him. He became my "historical idol" and I developed a life-long love for history. However, there is one thing about him that really disturbs me: Alien and Sedition Acts. But one thing that I still love about him was the wonderful love affair he had with his wife. I have a book of their letters and they are so beautiful.

But Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson also added much to the founding of this country. I don't think the U.S. would have been "born" if it wasn't for these 3 men. And I also think that we wouldn't still be here if it wasn't for James Madison.



I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, two men are called a Law Firm, and three or more are called a Congress.
                      --John Adams





Cat

Good points.  My second choice was Franklin.  I mean, it's kind of a strange question, "who is your favorite founding father?" cannot really be posed like "what's your favorite flavor of ice cream?"
Franklin wasn't a slave owner, but via his press, he certainly helped many slave owners catch their runaway bondsmen. So...


Touché.

There are so many, and all of them were essential in making our country what it became.

Jamed Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, John & Sam Adams, and more.

To be honest, one of my favorites is actually...  Benedict Arnold.  He is the "Judas Iscariot" of the Revolution.  A true revolutionary, who felt that the cause was betrayed, and did what he thought was best.

And don't forget, the original goals of the "Revolution" was not a seperation of the Colonies from England, but a more fair system of government.  The original goals was for them to receive "their rights as Englishmen".  It was only after things spiraled out of control that they realized that that was no longer an option, and the only recourse was total seperation.

Franklin wasn't a slave owner, but via his press, he certainly helped many slave owners catch their runaway bondsmen. So...


Actually, Ben was a slave owner!  He at one time owned 2 slaves, "George" and "King" (he named them out of spite for "King George").

During their bondage to him, he realized that most things he learned growing up about "Africans" were false, and it converted him to an Abolitionist.  In fact, in 1863 he wrote a letter to a friend after visiting a "Black School", and wrote the following:

"I was on the whole much pleased, and from what I then saw, have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children."

In fact, it was growing belief in Abolition that led him to support greater independence from England.  And the continuance of the slave trade was one of the crimes that he blamed England for.  One of the reasons that so many slaves were needed was to pay the taxes and financial levies due to the "Mother Country".  After his return from France in 1785, he became a charter member of a Quaker abolitionist group, and eventually became it's president in 1789.

And in fact, Ben himself was a "Runaway".  He was indentured as a child, and ran away from his "Master".  If caught, he could have faced the same punishment as a runaway slave.

As far as his helping capture runaway slaves through his newspaper, I find that a lot of coprolite to be honest.  He was a journalist, and he has to report what happens, and also to print legal notices that were brought to him.  After all, is it not the idea that the press is "fair and unbiased"?  Turning away things that are legal ibut agauinst your beliefs is a good way to loose money, readership, and credability.

I mostly like "the sage of Monticello", and it would certainly be a kick to carouse with old Ben, and one could make a case for all the other chioces, I vote for an obscure Connecticut farmer named something something Martin.  He was a common soldier in the Conn. militia who fought in several major battles without any stellar distinction, but did his part.  While the great men pondered, provaricated, compromised, and diddled and daddled in Philidelphia, Martin and his like, the simple farmers, merchants and craftsmen in the field defeated the best military machine of the time.  It is to them that we own our independance and our democracy.  Adams recognized this (sort od) when he said "one useless man is a disgrace, two are a law firm, and three or more are a Congress".  You can read about hius wartime experiancxe in a book called Common Courage by his decendant, James Kirby Martin.

Actually, Ben was a slave owner!  He at one time owned 2 slaves, "George" and "King" (he named them out of spite for "King George").

During their bondage to him, he realized that most things he learned growing up about "Africans" were false, and it converted him to an Abolitionist.  In fact, in 1863 he wrote a letter to a friend after visiting a "Black School", and wrote the following:

"I was on the whole much pleased, and from what I then saw, have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children."

In fact, it was growing belief in Abolition that led him to support greater independence from England.  And the continuance of the slave trade was one of the crimes that he blamed England for.  One of the reasons that so many slaves were needed was to pay the taxes and financial levies due to the "Mother Country".  After his return from France in 1785, he became a charter member of a Quaker abolitionist group, and eventually became it's president in 1789.

And in fact, Ben himself was a "Runaway".  He was indentured as a child, and ran away from his "Master".  If caught, he could have faced the same punishment as a runaway slave.

As far as his helping capture runaway slaves through his newspaper, I find that a lot of coprolite to be honest.  He was a journalist, and he has to report what happens, and also to print legal notices that were brought to him.  After all, is it not the idea that the press is "fair and unbiased"?  Turning away things that are legal ibut agauinst your beliefs is a good way to loose money, readership, and credability.

That was actually very enlightening. Thank you, and I think my respect for old Ben just doubled.

They were all very intelligent and brave, but I could never vote for any who continued to own
slaves.  Considering the color of my skin I would say that there were more than one Sally
Hemings' in my family, From the list printed I would have to say Ben Franklin, with a nod to
Thomas Paine who was a thorn in the conscience of them all.

My answer to this question shall remain a SECRET ...

... unless you click on the following link ...

http://www.amiright.com/parody/misc/traditional816.shtml

Before anybody reads this, realize that I do not support slavery, this is just a commentary on looking back at things like this in history.

One thing I do when I look back in time like this is to see what the character of the person was.  And most notably, how they ranked when compared to most of their "Peers".

In the 18th Century, Slavery was common, not just in the US but worldwide.  And before condemning our ancestors, compare them to other slave nations, like Haiti.  The majority of slaveowners in the US were very enlightened when compared to those in French Haiti.

And I also consider how they would treat their slaves.  For the most part, slaves at the time were valuable property, so were treated "reasonably".

One of the great stories in reguards to "slave owning founding fathers" is how it affected them, most notably Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.  I already listed how owning and dealing with slaves changed him.  Now it is Tom's turn.

When writing the Declaration of Independence, one of the things that Thomas thought about over and over again was his phrase "All Men Are Created Equal".  And because of his frequent abscences from his Plantation, his more trusted slaves had to take more and more responsibility.  When he returned after the war was over, he made several of them the equivelent to "Trustees".  They had great leverage in what they did, and gave them areas of his plantation to work for themselves.  While technically "slaves", they were free to go wherever they wanted, and leased their land in exchange for part of their crops.

One of the reasons for this was the the Commonwealth of Virginia did not allow the manumission of slaves.  The only legal way to give them absolute freedom was to specify it in a will, or after the death of their former "Owner" by the next of kin.

Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lived in Virginia.  And both of them freed their slaves upon their death.  George's son-in-law was Robert E. Lee's father-in-law; George Washington Parke Custis.  When  George Custis died, Robert Lee freed all of the slaves on Arlington.

Lee himself owned 5 slaves, a mother and her children.  And in his will, it stated that they would be freed upon his death.  And this was in 1846, long before the Civil War.  But this was the only legal way to free them.

There were several classes of "slaves".  Some were truely held in brutal bondage.  But there were also lucky ones who had "Enlightened Owners", that gave them as much freedom as they could under the laws, and granted them freedom after their death.  Thomas Jefferson, George Washinton, George Custis, and Robert E. Lee were all gentlemen of that group.

Before anybody reads this, realize that I do not support slavery, this is just a commentary on looking back at things like this in history.

One thing I do when I look back in time like this is to see what the character of the person was.  And most notably, how they ranked when compared to most of their "Peers".

In the 18th Century, Slavery was common, not just in the US but worldwide.  And before condemning our ancestors, compare them to other slave nations, like Haiti.  The majority of slaveowners in the US were very enlightened when compared to those in French Haiti.

And I also consider how they would treat their slaves.  For the most part, slaves at the time were valuable property, so were treated "reasonably".

One of the great stories in reguards to "slave owning founding fathers" is how it affected them, most notably Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.  I already listed how owning and dealing with slaves changed him.  Now it is Tom's turn.

When writing the Declaration of Independence, one of the things that Thomas thought about over and over again was his phrase "All Men Are Created Equal".  And because of his frequent abscences from his Plantation, his more trusted slaves had to take more and more responsibility.  When he returned after the war was over, he made several of them the equivelent to "Trustees".  They had great leverage in what they did, and gave them areas of his plantation to work for themselves.  While technically "slaves", they were free to go wherever they wanted, and leased their land in exchange for part of their crops.

One of the reasons for this was the the Commonwealth of Virginia did not allow the manumission of slaves.  The only legal way to give them absolute freedom was to specify it in a will, or after the death of their former "Owner" by the next of kin.

Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lived in Virginia.  And both of them freed their slaves upon their death.  George's son-in-law was Robert E. Lee's father-in-law; George Washington Parke Custis.  When  George Custis died, Robert Lee freed all of the slaves on Arlington.

Lee himself owned 5 slaves, a mother and her children.  And in his will, it stated that they would be freed upon his death.  And this was in 1846, long before the Civil War.  But this was the only legal way to free them.

There were several classes of "slaves".  Some were truely held in brutal bondage.  But there were also lucky ones who had "Enlightened Owners", that gave them as much freedom as they could under the laws, and granted them freedom after their death.  Thomas Jefferson, George Washinton, George Custis, and Robert E. Lee were all gentlemen of that group.


Actually, slaves in the Caribbean were treated better. They were allowed to read and own some property. Slaves in the United States were not treated reasonably. They were treated as chattel - animals. They were not allowed to read or they were subject to beatings or death. Women were raped at the slaveowners, their sons, and overseers leisure. Families were separated. They tried to separate them from the native culture (thankfully, they did not fully do so).

As for Thomas Jefferson, he silently owned up to fathering children with Sally Hemmings, although he did not do so publicly. Until this day, Ms. Hemming's descendents are fighting with Jefferson's descendents over true heritage.

Before you try to tell me that I'm wrong, understand this, I'm a descendent of slavery and I know what actually happened from stories past down, not what textbooks want you to think.

During their bondage to him, he realized that most things he learned growing up about "Africans" were false, and it converted him to an Abolitionist.  In fact, in 1863 he wrote a letter to a friend after visiting a "Black School", and wrote the following:


Are you still talking about Franklin?  There is no way he could have still been alive in 1863, he would have to have been at least 150 years-old.

I voted for Patrick Henry, the original American defender of states' rights.

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

1863 was probably a typo - supposed to be 1763

I voted for Patrick Henry, the original American defender of states' rights.

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Yep, "Give me liberty or give me death," owned sixty slaves!  In his time, that wasn't hypocrisy.  That's why I have a little trouble swallowing all this "original intent" poppycock!

^Exactly. They were fully aware of what they were doing.

Now aren't you glad that the Constitution allows amendments?  ;)

I chose Thomas Jefferson, although he was a slave owner, he was passive - at that. He and Ben Franklin were really the two incredible minds of all of them. Ben Franklin thought a bit too highly of his own intellect, but to me Thomas Jefferson was your true American in every sense of the word. I think he defined what an American is (sans slaveholding). Plus, his purchase of the Louisania and past that was what really set America free as a nation. If he hadn't done that, who knows where we'd be now.

Before anybody reads this, realize that I do not support slavery, this is just a commentary on looking back at things like this in history.

One thing I do when I look back in time like this is to see what the character of the person was.  And most notably, how they ranked when compared to most of their "Peers".

In the 18th Century, Slavery was common, not just in the US but worldwide.  And before condemning our ancestors, compare them to other slave nations, like Haiti.  The majority of slaveowners in the US were very enlightened when compared to those in French Haiti.

And I also consider how they would treat their slaves.  For the most part, slaves at the time were valuable property, so were treated "reasonably".

One of the great stories in reguards to "slave owning founding fathers" is how it affected them, most notably Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.  I already listed how owning and dealing with slaves changed him.  Now it is Tom's turn.

When writing the Declaration of Independence, one of the things that Thomas thought about over and over again was his phrase "All Men Are Created Equal".  And because of his frequent abscences from his Plantation, his more trusted slaves had to take more and more responsibility.  When he returned after the war was over, he made several of them the equivelent to "Trustees".  They had great leverage in what they did, and gave them areas of his plantation to work for themselves.  While technically "slaves", they were free to go wherever they wanted, and leased their land in exchange for part of their crops.

One of the reasons for this was the the Commonwealth of Virginia did not allow the manumission of slaves.  The only legal way to give them absolute freedom was to specify it in a will, or after the death of their former "Owner" by the next of kin.

Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lived in Virginia.  And both of them freed their slaves upon their death.  George's son-in-law was Robert E. Lee's father-in-law; George Washington Parke Custis.  When  George Custis died, Robert Lee freed all of the slaves on Arlington.

Lee himself owned 5 slaves, a mother and her children.  And in his will, it stated that they would be freed upon his death.  And this was in 1846, long before the Civil War.  But this was the only legal way to free them.

There were several classes of "slaves".  Some were truely held in brutal bondage.  But there were also lucky ones who had "Enlightened Owners", that gave them as much freedom as they could under the laws, and granted them freedom after their death.  Thomas Jefferson, George Washinton, George Custis, and Robert E. Lee were all gentlemen of that group.


People tend to forgive slave owning founders because of "the times" but the truth of "the times" is that
there were many, many people as committed to ending slavery as those who perpetuated it.  When you
consider the reality of it I find it hard to rationalize that aspect of their personalities. The thought of the enlighted or benign slave holder is just as abhorrent.  The slaves precarious existence depended on the
"enlightened" slave owner remaining alive, their lives were one continuing terror.

George Washington freed his personal slaves upon his death, when it was convenient for him, until that
time they still lived under the threat of having their babies, wives, husband, parents, sold never to be seen again(you go to bed with that thought tonight).

Robert E. Lee freed the slaves of his father-in-Law George Washington Parke Custis under the terms of the will left by GWP Custis. Robert E. Lee didn't own alot of slaves because his father Lighthorse Harry had squandered the family fortune(slaves included) and left his family very near destitue, they became the quintissential poor relations. As for making out a will in 1846, well that may have made him feel good but the slaves were well aware in 1846 what  could happen to rescind the terms of the will, like financial troubles leading to their sale.

It wasn't illegal to free slaves, but freed slaves had to leave Virginia within a certain amount of time, which was why John Randolph, cousin(well weren't they all) to TJ freed his all slaves and put them on a
train North so that they were able to stay together and get to freedom without fear of being re-enslaved.
I would say that slaves would opt for taking their families and going since that is what many of them did, but of course that was called "running away"

Thomas Jefferson absolutely did not free his slaves.  He freed his children, the rest were sold as part of his estate to pay his bills.

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Robert E Lee, were all educated men who were well aware
of the destructive nature of slavery but perpetuated it in their own lives for their own convenience. Jefferson fathered children, and there is evidence that Washington fathered a child, by a slave,  Gentlemen?  By no stretch of the imagination

Actually, slaves in the Caribbean were treated better. They were allowed to read and own some property.


I am sorry, but you really need to verify some of your facts.

Haiti was a disgrace.  Through much of it's history, the birth rate was actually exceeded by it's death rate!  "Dominica" (as it was called before it split into "Haiti and "Dominican Republic" was the site of the bloodiest slave revolt in history.  It started as a minor revolt, but then the National Assembly revoked all rights of all blacks.  This included both free blacks, and "mulattos".

The government back in France sent in troops, and England and Spain stepped in to assist the slaves.  After almost 3 years of bloody fighting, almost the entire white population of Dominica was dead.  The outcome caused a shift in French politics, brought down the party that controlled their National Assembly, and brought an end to all slavery in France and her colonies.

By 1800, Napolean came into power.  He reinstituted slavery, stripped all rights away from all blacks, and ordered the arrest and imprisonment of Toussaint L'Ouverture, the former slave turned General who controlled Dominica.  It was at Napolean's order that he was imprisoned and starved to death.

And the history of Cuba under Spanish rule is much the same.  Escaped slaves fleeing into the jungle, where they lived as brigands.  Several times they banded together into armies, and attacked Havana and other cities.  The backlash would invariably be against the freed blacks (who were suspected of giving them support) and tighter restrictions on the slaves.

Also check the history of Brazil and it's slave revolutions.  A 10% death rate in Brazil's slaves was considered "acceptable" to the colonial overlords.  This was because it only took 2-3 years to pay off their purchase price (16 lbs of sugar), and any amount made beyond that was profit.  The average life span of a slave in Brazil was only 8 years.

These actions scared the Southern US states, and in large areas plantation owners would build "Slave Shelters", to hide in in the event of a slave revolt.  This is actually very similar to the "Fallout Shelters" that would pop up 100 years later.

The US on the other hand was already divided on the topic.  With only a few exceptions (Nat Turner), the "Slave Revolts" in the US were led by White men, like John Brown.  And never got the kind of support that they achieved in other areas of the world.  And all areas of the South had freed and freeborn slaves living in it.  Louisiana had a very large population of "Free Blacks".

And it was not universal that blacks and slaves were not allowed to read and write.  Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in fact is known to have tought many of his uncle's slaves to read and write.  And a great many taught them to read, even in areas where it was illegal.

I find it hard to believe that anybody would state that slavery in the Carribean was kinder then it was in the USA at the time.  Of course, a big difference is that in the US, they were considered "Private Property".  Compare this to the Carribean, which was still under "Colonial Rule".  In a colony, everything is the possession of the Government.  People will always take better care of things they own themselves.  In the US, birth rates far exceeded death rates, and most slaves died of old age.  In the Carribean and Brazil, once a slave was no longer needed, he was disposed of.

... there is evidence that Washington fathered a child, by a slave.


I just have to respond to this:

George Washington fathered no children.

George Washington had what is now known as Klinefelter syndrome.  It is besically a genetical defect which causes the recipiant male to have an XXY chromosone buildup, instead of the normal XY Chromosone.  This is

Some of the things that are associated with this disorder is large size, "bulky" (or "ape like") facial characteristics, premature and severa dental problems, unusually large hands for body size, and extreme agression.  People with Klinefelter syndrome are always sterile.

George Washington fathered no children.  Period. 

People tend to forgive slave owning founders because of "the times" but the truth of "the times" is that
there were many, many people as committed to ending slavery as those who perpetuated it.  When you
consider the reality of it I find it hard to rationalize that aspect of their personalities. The thought of the enlighted or benign slave holder is just as abhorrent.  The slaves precarious existence depended on the
"enlightened" slave owner remaining alive, their lives were one continuing terror.

George Washington freed his personal slaves upon his death, when it was convenient for him, until that
time they still lived under the threat of having their babies, wives, husband, parents, sold never to be seen again(you go to bed with that thought tonight).

Robert E. Lee freed the slaves of his father-in-Law George Washington Parke Custis under the terms of the will left by GWP Custis. Robert E. Lee didn't own alot of slaves because his father Lighthorse Harry had squandered the family fortune(slaves included) and left his family very near destitue, they became the quintissential poor relations. As for making out a will in 1846, well that may have made him feel good but the slaves were well aware in 1846 what  could happen to rescind the terms of the will, like financial troubles leading to their sale.

It wasn't illegal to free slaves, but freed slaves had to leave Virginia within a certain amount of time, which was why John Randolph, cousin(well weren't they all) to TJ freed his all slaves and put them on a
train North so that they were able to stay together and get to freedom without fear of being re-enslaved.
I would say that slaves would opt for taking their families and going since that is what many of them did, but of course that was called "running away"

Thomas Jefferson absolutely did not free his slaves.  He freed his children, the rest were sold as part of his estate to pay his bills.

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Robert E Lee, were all educated men who were well aware
of the destructive nature of slavery but perpetuated it in their own lives for their own convenience. Jefferson fathered children, and there is evidence that Washington fathered a child, by a slave,  Gentlemen?  By no stretch of the imagination


ill let others comment on Washington and Jefferson, but Im gonna comment on Robert E Lee.  The man was compleely against the notion of slavery.  He detested it and considered it a complete moral wrong.  When he inherited Arlington, he found it a wreck.  THe place was falling apart and the slaves were treated horribly.  He fixed the place up, sie by side with his "Slaves".  He fed them well every day and didnt make them work long hours.  They slept in the master house with him.  This went on for the duraton of the fixing of Arlington (I think about a year).  He then freed all the slaves because he couldnt live with the fact that these were people and even if he wasnt treating the poorly, others were. 

The only reason he sided with the confederacy during the Civil War was that he felt the national government had no right to tell the states how to make laws (including on slavery) and that was the discrection of the states alone.  It was the values of the Declaration of Independance vs the values of the Constitution. 

I mostly like "the sage of Monticello", and it would certainly be a kick to carouse with old Ben, and one could make a case for all the other chioces, I vote for an obscure Connecticut farmer named something something Martin.  He was a common soldier in the Conn. militia who fought in several major battles without any stellar distinction, but did his part.  While the great men pondered, provaricated, compromised, and diddled and daddled in Philidelphia, Martin and his like, the simple farmers, merchants and craftsmen in the field defeated the best military machine of the time.  It is to them that we own our independance and our democracy.  Adams recognized this (sort od) when he said "one useless man is a disgrace, two are a law firm, and three or more are a Congress".  You can read about hius wartime experiancxe in a book called Common Courage by his decendant, James Kirby Martin.


His name was Joseph Plum Martin (Im not sure on the correct correct spelling of his first two names, but I believe that was it). 

I just have to respond to this:

George Washington fathered no children.

George Washington had what is now known as Klinefelter syndrome.  It is basically a genetically defect which causes the recipient male to have an XXY chromosome buildup, instead of the normal XY Chromosome.  This is

Some of the things that are associated with this disorder is large size, "bulky" (or "ape like") facial characteristics, premature and severe dental problems, unusually large hands for body size, and extreme aggression.  People with Klinefelter syndrome are always sterile.

George Washington fathered no children.  Period. 


Klinefelter is speculated, not proved in the case of Washington, as well as Lincoln.  Lincoln fathered
sons, infertility is not always present in the case of Klinefelter. 

The story of George Washington fathering a son, West Ford, is a story passed down by his descendants
much in the same way that the story of Jeffersons children were passed down, and similarly scoffed at.
The DNA evidence is there in both cases for the relationships to be extremely close.  To actually 100%
verify the connection would take samples of DNA which the respective "white" families possess but
will not, at this time, make available.  This after decades of refuting any relationship whatsoever, and
being proved wrong by family members willing to take the first step in acknowledging the truth, and redeeming those vilified for claiming the birthright that is the name of their ancestor.

ill let others comment on Washington and Jefferson, but Im gonna comment on Robert E Lee.  The man was compleely against the notion of slavery.  He detested it and considered it a complete moral wrong.  When he inherited Arlington, he found it a wreck.  THe place was falling apart and the slaves were treated horribly.  He fixed the place up, sie by side with his "Slaves".  He fed them well every day and didnt make them work long hours.  They slept in the master house with him.  This went on for the duraton of the fixing of Arlington (I think about a year).  He then freed all the slaves because he couldnt live with the fact that these were people and even if he wasnt treating the poorly, others were. 

The only reason he sided with the confederacy during the Civil War was that he felt the national government had no right to tell the states how to make laws (including on slavery) and that was the discrection of the states alone.  It was the values of the Declaration of Independance vs the values of the Constitution. 


www.nathanielturner.com/willofgeorgewashingtonparkecustis.htm

In the name of God, amen. I, George Washington Parke Custis, of Arlington House, in the county of Alexandria and State of Virginia, being sound in body and mind, do make and ordain this instrument of writing as my last will and testament, revoking all other wills and testament whatever,....

And upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, and my estates that are required to pay the said legacies, being clear of debts, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executors in such manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease.

And I do constitute and appoint as my executor Lieut. Col. Robert Edward Lee, Robert Lee Randolph, of Eaton View, Rt. Rev. Bishop Meade, and George Washington Peter.

This will written by my hand, is signed, sealed, and executed the twenty-sixth day of March, eighteen hundred and fifty-five.

                                                                        George Washington Parke Custis (Seal)

26th March, 1855

Witnesses:

Martha Custis Williams

M. Eugene Webster

Source: Historic Arlington, By Karl Decker and Angus McSween, pages 80-81 / Leslie S. Smyth, Contributor

Robert E. Lee freed the Custis slaves because that was what was stated in the will of George Washington Parke Custis.  If any of these men were as honorable as you would like to believe in this
area they could have made a huge start in a simple way.  They could have paid them wages, and not
sold any.  They didn't pay wages, and they did sell slaves.

I really can't choose one particular man because all the founding
fathers complimented each others talents.They all worked well
together and no one man stood out above the rest.
Most people resent the fact that they were slave owners but
slavery,though morally wrong,was prevalent at the time and a
widely accepted practice.You can't put moral issues of today
into the head of someone in 1776.Please don't forget  that
many African people became extremely wealthy trading slaves
for arms and other goods.No one was blameless in the slave trade.

Most people resent the fact that they were slave owners but
slavery,though morally wrong,was prevalent at the time and a
widely accepted practice.You can't put moral issues of today
into the head of someone in 1776.Please don't forget  that
many African people became extremely wealthy trading slaves
for arms and other goods.No one was blameless in the slave trade.


Because a practice is prevalent does not mean that it was considered acceptable.  It is
understandable to hold these men to a higher standard of conduct considering their own words
contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I am sorry, but you really need to verify some of your facts.

Haiti was a disgrace.  Through much of it's history, the birth rate was actually exceeded by it's death rate!  "Dominica" (as it was called before it split into "Haiti and "Dominican Republic" was the site of the bloodiest slave revolt in history.  It started as a minor revolt, but then the National Assembly revoked all rights of all blacks.  This included both free blacks, and "mulattos".

The government back in France sent in troops, and England and Spain stepped in to assist the slaves.  After almost 3 years of bloody fighting, almost the entire white population of Dominica was dead.  The outcome caused a shift in French politics, brought down the party that controlled their National Assembly, and brought an end to all slavery in France and her colonies.

By 1800, Napolean came into power.  He reinstituted slavery, stripped all rights away from all blacks, and ordered the arrest and imprisonment of Toussaint L'Ouverture, the former slave turned General who controlled Dominica.  It was at Napolean's order that he was imprisoned and starved to death.

And the history of Cuba under Spanish rule is much the same.  Escaped slaves fleeing into the jungle, where they lived as brigands.  Several times they banded together into armies, and attacked Havana and other cities.  The backlash would invariably be against the freed blacks (who were suspected of giving them support) and tighter restrictions on the slaves.

Also check the history of Brazil and it's slave revolutions.  A 10% death rate in Brazil's slaves was considered "acceptable" to the colonial overlords.  This was because it only took 2-3 years to pay off their purchase price (16 lbs of sugar), and any amount made beyond that was profit.  The average life span of a slave in Brazil was only 8 years.

These actions scared the Southern US states, and in large areas plantation owners would build "Slave Shelters", to hide in in the event of a slave revolt.  This is actually very similar to the "Fallout Shelters" that would pop up 100 years later.

The US on the other hand was already divided on the topic.  With only a few exceptions (Nat Turner), the "Slave Revolts" in the US were led by White men, like John Brown.  And never got the kind of support that they achieved in other areas of the world.  And all areas of the South had freed and freeborn slaves living in it.  Louisiana had a very large population of "Free Blacks".

And it was not universal that blacks and slaves were not allowed to read and write.  Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in fact is known to have tought many of his uncle's slaves to read and write.  And a great many taught them to read, even in areas where it was illegal.

I find it hard to believe that anybody would state that slavery in the Carribean was kinder then it was in the USA at the time.  Of course, a big difference is that in the US, they were considered "Private Property".  Compare this to the Carribean, which was still under "Colonial Rule".  In a colony, everything is the possession of the Government.  People will always take better care of things they own themselves.  In the US, birth rates far exceeded death rates, and most slaves died of old age.  In the Carribean and Brazil, once a slave was no longer needed, he was disposed of.


Ooh, someone's been finding information on the internet!!!!! We could go back and forth about the conditions b/c in all seriousness it has been heavily argued about the plight of the Southern Slave and the Caribbean slaves. In some instances, yes, it was kinder to be a Caribbean slave. For example, they did not lose most of their culture (indigenous African that is) and were allowed to practice many of their cultural attitributes (the opposite of Southern slaves). However, one particular thing they did have in common is the plight of their descendents centuries later (e.g. poverty, education). While we (the descendents) have evolved greatly, there are still some remaining post-slavery issues (e.g. racism) encountered.

Please tell me something I don't already know about the revolutions.

1. Of course, people secretly broke the law about allowing slaves to read and write. Please tell me something I don't already know. It was commonplace to do so. However, publicly this practice could not exist.

2. Yes, Louisiana had a large number of Free Blacks. My paternal family hails from New Orleans and had many relatives working the octoroon-quadroon circuit. Once again, please tell me something I don't know. Yes, many southern states had "freed" slaves. However, it was also common law to place a "freed" slave back into slavery. Kidnappings were very commonplace. In addition, it was commonplace for most of these freed slaves to become sharecroppers (maybe two steps up from being actual slaves). You can still see the ramifications in the gulf states.

Because a practice is prevalent does not mean that it was considered acceptable.  It is
understandable to hold these men to a higher standard of conduct considering their own words
contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.


I agree with Loki on some levels.

Life was miserable back then for most everybody and everyone looked for an opportunity to leave from their miserably lives. One opportunity was indentured servantry. Many people literally worked years of their life so they could come to the "New World" as indentured servants and eventually own a piece of the land.

As some stated on here, African slaves were previously from African jails and were sold to the colonials/British Statesmen. We can't hold those few men accountable for the problem of slavery to have been immediately solved no matter what their intelligence was. 

Yes, Louisiana had a large number of Free Blacks. My paternal family hails from New Orleans and had many relatives working the octoroon-quadroon circuit.



Cousin!!!!
 

I agree with Loki on some levels.

Life was miserable back then for most everybody and everyone looked for an opportunity to leave from their miserably lives. One opportunity was indentured servantry. Many people literally worked years of their life so they could come to the "New World" as indentured servants and eventually own a piece of the land.

As some stated on here, African slaves were previously from African jails and were sold to the colonials/British Statesmen. We can't hold those few men accountable for the problem of slavery to have been immediately solved no matter what their intelligence was. 




Identured servants lead a similarly miserable life, but there was a date set to end their servitude. In the case of slaves their servitude was for life, and the lives of their children, and their childrens children, ad infinatum. In the beginning there were African Americans who came here as indentured servants only to be told that they were no longer indentured, and their status was changed to that of slaves. 

To say African slaves were previously from African prisons is an egregious half truth, an argument that tries to say that the slaves were criminals and that is why they found themselves in slavery.  This is
absolutely galling and for you to use this as an explanation shows an ignorance to the reality of the slave trade that is appalling.  Africans were from African jails because that is where they were held after their villages were ransacked and they were dragged from their homes.

The men that I am holding accountable for their actions are the men who put their names to the
Delcaration of Independence and the The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

^Tell it, Cousin!

Anyone ever seen the "Founding Fathers" skit on the old HBO show "Mr. Show With Bob and David?"

http://jaybabcock.com/bd_founding_fathers_lrg.gif

"FOUNDING FATHERS, HEY!  FOUNDING FATHERS, HO!  FOUNDING FATHERS, FOUNDING FATHERS, GO! GO! GO!"

I'm surprised nobody has said a thing about John Jay.

No respect.

I'm surprised nobody has said a thing about John Jay.

No respect.

No Adams or Madison either.  Hmmmm....

No Adams or Madison either.  Hmmmm....


They got no votes, but Billy talked of Madison and Catwoman talked about Adams.

What did John Jay do outside of being the first Supreme Court Chief Justice?

What did John Jay do outside of being the first Supreme Court Chief Justice?


Federalist Papers
Jay's Treaty
I think Governor of New York (I may be wrong of this)
Delegate
Thorn in the foot of many of the other founders

We had to pick one favorite, and I must say that it was difficult.  I am a fan of Adams 1and 2 and
have been to the family homestead.  The more you learn about them the more you tend to like them.
Adams did have the ugly mess of a presidential campaign, and the Alien and Sedition Act was not
anything to credit him for, but they seemed to try very hard to live by their convictions.  On a side note
Adams and Jefferson died on the same day-July 4, 1826 exactly 50 years after the signing of the
Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson died in the morning and Adams a few hours later.  Adams
last words were "Jefferson lives..."

They got no votes, but Billy talked of Madison and Catwoman talked about Adams.



I didn't vote because I said that I was tossed.




We had to pick one favorite, and I must say that it was difficult.  I am a fan of Adams 1and 2 and
have been to the family homestead.  The more you learn about them the more you tend to like them.
Adams did have the ugly mess of a presidential campaign, and the Alien and Sedition Act was not
anything to credit him for, but they seemed to try very hard to live by their convictions.  On a side note
Adams and Jefferson died on the same day-July 4, 1826 exactly 50 years after the signing of the
Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson died in the morning and Adams a few hours later.  Adams
last words were "Jefferson lives..."


I have been to the homestead, too. If I am not mistaken I think Jefferson's last words were about Adams. They did have somewhat of a love/hate relationship. But I am glad that toward the end, they seem to have mended some of the rift between them. I don't think it was totally mended but they both had a great respect for each other.




Cat

Identured servants lead a similarly miserable life, but there was a date set to end their servitude. In the case of slaves their servitude was for life, and the lives of their children, and their childrens children, ad infinatum. In the beginning there were African Americans who came here as indentured servants only to be told that they were no longer indentured, and their status was changed to that of slaves. 

To say African slaves were previously from African prisons is an egregious half truth, an argument that tries to say that the slaves were criminals and that is why they found themselves in slavery.  This is
absolutely galling and for you to use this as an explanation shows an ignorance to the reality of the slave trade that is appalling.  Africans were from African jails because that is where they were held after their villages were ransacked and they were dragged from their homes.

The men that I am holding accountable for their actions are the men who put their names to the
Delcaration of Independence and the The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


It is a truth that I read and have been taught about in college level courses that most African slaves being sent here were formally in African jails (regardless of their crime, that was probably to no one's concern as the purchasers did not put them there in the first place.)  It isn't my total belief that that was the end of an argument. I wasn't using it in that manner. I was only going by what I have read. To call me ignorant (mistake me if I am wrong, as I don't want to point fingers or anything - I just find it unfair to be called ignorant, if that's the case), is to have taken what I had written out of context.

I am in no way accepting slavery and saying because they were in jail was a justification. It is just an unusual fact that helps put it into perspective more and helps realise people's motives behind such acts.

It is a truth that I read and have been taught about in college level courses that most African slaves being sent here were formally in African jails (regardless of their crime, that was probably to no one's concern as the purchasers did not put them there in the first place.)  It isn't my total belief that that was the end of an argument. I wasn't using it in that manner. I was only going by what I have read. To call me ignorant (mistake me if I am wrong, as I don't want to point fingers or anything - I just find it unfair to be called ignorant, if that's the case), is to have taken what I had written out of context.

I am in no way accepting slavery and saying because they were in jail was a justification. It is just an unusual fact that helps put it into perspective more and helps realise people's motives behind such acts.


I'm sorry to say this, but you should seek a refund from those courses because they gave you some seriously wrong information! It's ignorant to believe that what you were taught is the truth without seeking outside information. I'm not calling you ignorant. However, whenever others tend to you use the lines of "That's what I was taught" or "that's what I've read/seen on tv" without seeking other substantial information then the act justifies the term. Once again, I'm not calling you ignorant per se, but just seek other information b/c such information is blatantly wrong.

What you may have misunderstood is that in processing the slaves were put in jails. They did so to check numbers and to see where the slaves were going to be placed, sold, or taken. But, the slaves themselves did not originate from jails.

I'm sorry to say this, but you should seek a refund from those courses because they gave you some seriously wrong information! It's ignorant to believe that what you were taught is the truth without seeking outside information. I'm not calling you ignorant. However, whenever others tend to you use the lines of "That's what I was taught" or "that's what I've read/seen on tv" without seeking other substantial information then the act justifies the term. Once again, I'm not calling you ignorant per se, but just seek other information b/c such information is blatantly wrong.

What you may have misunderstood is that in processing the slaves were put in jails. They did so to check numbers and to see where the slaves were going to be placed, sold, or taken. But, the slaves themselves did not originate from jails.


OK. It's okay to call me ignorant. I can handle it. Just don't say it under your breath and then say that I'm not.
I hardly credit television as a source of reference, although some of it can be reputable. I am sure you're only going by what you've read or heard - I was just doing the same. I apologize.

OK. It's okay to call me ignorant. I can handle it. Just don't say it under your breath and then say that I'm not.
I hardly credit television as a source of reference, although some of it can be reputable. I am sure you're only going by what you've read or heard - I was just doing the same. I apologize.


Ignorant is different from misinformed. That's why I didn't call you ignorant at all. I have no problems calling it as I see it. I'm going by various sources, including my family line as well as books and my college courses. So, not only am I going by what I was presented in school, but I'm going by what has been passed down to me and other areas where I've researched.

No need to apologize at all.

Ignorant is different from misinformed. That's why I didn't call you ignorant at all. I have no problems calling it as I see it. I'm going by various sources, including my family line as well as books and my college courses. So, not only am I going by what I was presented in school, but I'm going by what has been passed down to me and other areas where I've researched.

No need to apologize at all.


Okay. I guess I stand corrected. But, I do apologize, as I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings on this topic - and it just felt I had struck a chord where I was not looking to do so. I don't want to put my college professor's at fault for this, because obviously they have been misinformed, and whoever taught them were misinformed, etc.

I just also want to state my case that I am a thorough researcher on many topics. I always do my homework on topics before I point out things or make certains statements at the risk of being misinformed. Otherwise I don't say anything at all. That's just been my policy.

Okay. I guess I stand corrected. But, I do apologize, as I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings on this topic - and it just felt I had struck a chord where I was not looking to do so. I don't want to put my college professor's at fault for this, because obviously they have been misinformed, and whoever taught them were misinformed, etc.

I just also want to state my case that I am a thorough researcher on many topics. I always do my homework on topics before I point out things or make certains statements at the risk of being misinformed. Otherwise I don't say anything at all. That's just been my policy.


No problems, love!! Please feel free to add what you know. I love interesting conversations and debate. Do not stiffle what you know! LOL

It is a truth that I read and have been taught about in college level courses that most African slaves being sent here were formally in African jails (regardless of their crime, that was probably to no one's concern as the purchasers did not put them there in the first place.)  It isn't my total belief that that was the end of an argument. I wasn't using it in that manner. I was only going by what I have read. To call me ignorant (mistake me if I am wrong, as I don't want to point fingers or anything - I just find it unfair to be called ignorant, if that's the case), is to have taken what I had written out of context.

I am in no way accepting slavery and saying because they were in jail was a justification. It is just an unusual fact that helps put it into perspective more and helps realise people's motives behind such acts.


I admit my comments were a bit harsh, but it hit a real sore nerve.  I agree with Tanya that you should get
a refund from whatever school/professors who suggested that slaves were little more than criminals.  Reading your post it does seem to make that argument. They actually were not jails, to call them that is
a misnomer, the were holding pens, much like the ones used for cattle, which is how the men, women, and children were treated. To  term them jails makes it seem as if it is an unusual fact when it is more of a clouding of the reality, taking it all of of perspective.

Not surprisingly, I don't put a lot of thought (or ANY thought) to this question.

But having looked at the list, I was surprised to see a name I have never even heard of : "John Jay"

Was he the silent partner or something ?  Seriously.  All the rest are in my head for one reason or another.  Just what did JJ do ?  Or is that question in itself the problem ?

When people think of the Founding Fathers it is almost as if the term has been delegated to only
the ones who bacame President(Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison) with Hamilton and
Frankling thrown in.  Many think Franklin and Hamilton made President because the are on our
paper currency, but that is not the case.  I think that the list should be those who signed the
Declaration,  those who signed the Constitution, and drafted the Bill of Rights. This is the Wikipedia
List

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

Constitution

William Samuel Johnson, Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, James McHenry Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, William Livingston, David Brearly (Brearley), William Paterson (Patterson), Jonathan Dayton, Alexander Hamilton, William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons (FitzSimons; Fitzsimmons), Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler, John Blair, James Madison Jr., George Washington

Signers of the Declaration
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery, Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott, William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark, Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross, Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean, Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton, William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn, Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton.

Others
Richard Bland, Aaron Burr, George Clinton, William Eustis, Patrick Henry, Levi Lincoln, Henry Lee III, John Marshall, George Mason(Father of the Bill of Rights) Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, Peyton Randolph.

You can't put moral issues of today
into the head of someone in 1776.Please don't forget  that
many African people became extremely wealthy trading slaves
for arms and other goods.No one was blameless in the slave trade.


Nonsense.  Slavery was a moral issue then as well.  And what does the fact that blacks were engaged in the trade have to do with its moral reprehensibility?

I admit my comments were a bit harsh, but it hit a real sore nerve.  I agree with Tanya that you should get
a refund from whatever school/professors who suggested that slaves were little more than criminals.  Reading your post it does seem to make that argument. They actually were not jails, to call them that is
a misnomer, the were holding pens, much like the ones used for cattle, which is how the men, women, and children were treated. To  term them jails makes it seem as if it is an unusual fact when it is more of a clouding of the reality, taking it all of of perspective.


It's okay. I have been enlightened and if it takes some harsh words to come at me, that's fine. I just felt you may have jumped on me before I could really state my case and to me *at the time* it wasn't fair judgement. But, I can understand that it hit a sore point and I didn't mean for that to happen. There are things like that which rub me the wrong way and I want to correct the insufficient data. Again, my apologies.

Ooh, someone's been finding information on the internet!!!!!


Yes and no.

Things like this I brought up because of my either having read it before years before, or even from my History classes.  I then go online to verify my memory.

One thing I tend to do before most of my posts is to "check my facts".  I often do 5-30 minutes of research before I make a post.  This is because I do not want to debate with "belief" and "feeling", but from facts.  I normally do a quick Wikipedia search, then another one in Google, throwing out any sources that seemed "baised" or fraudulent.

One thing that has been a life-long passion of mine is reading.  I read between 3-6 books a week, covering everything from history, politics and religion, to finance, geology and science-fiction.  Add to that the fact that I am a "trivia-junkie", and you find that very few things that I find "interesting" are truelly forgotten.

The book I am reading now is a combination "alternate-history" and "steam-punk".  It is 1 of a series of 3 books, and it features such people as John Stuart Mill, Gustavus Fox, and Ambrosio O'Higgins (I am sure that Don Carlos may be the only person in here to recognize 2 out of 3 names in that list).

One thing that reading so much "sci-fi" is that it has taught me the importance of looking at things dispassionately, and in context.  Whenever I enter a discussion like this, I will normally throw away things like "modern morality", and look at them in the proper context and perspective.

To me, bringing in modern concepts of a thing like slavery is just plain wrong.  In fact, it smacks strongly of "revisionist history".  I simply look at the founders through 18th and early 19th century values, and compare them to what was "common belief" of the time.

If you want to take some of the arguements here a step further, all of the "founding fathers" were sexist pigs.  They gave women no voice in government, no rights to property, and no vote.  After all, there are no "Founding Mothers" in the list or in history, right?  But looking at them in a modern view is just plain wrong.

I just never got a kick out of beating up people 100+ years dead.  I simply judge them by their peers, and make my decisions based upon that.

To me, bringing in modern concepts of a thing like slavery is just plain wrong.  In fact, it smacks strongly of "revisionist history".  I simply look at the founders through 18th and early 19th century values, and compare them to what was "common belief" of the time.

If you want to take some of the arguements here a step further, all of the "founding fathers" were sexist pigs.  They gave women no voice in government, no rights to property, and no vote.  After all, there are no "Founding Mothers" in the list or in history, right?  But looking at them in a modern view is just plain wrong.


Just because something's a common belief in a certain age does not excuse it as being right. Those beliefs carried into the present (and hopefully, that's where they will end). Many of these beliefs haven't been fully reconciled. That's the troubling issue.

And how common does a belief or practice have to be before we consider it acceptable or "not for us to judge"?  I have a difficult time accepting a philosophy that says that the moral legitimacy of an action is determined by how common it is.

And how common does a belief or practice have to be before we consider it acceptable or "not for us to judge"?  I have a difficult time accepting a philosophy that says that the moral legitimacy of an action is determined by how common it is.


It all has to do with being fair in the context.

We now have 3,000+ years of philosophy and morality to use to look at things.  It is very easy to look back even 50 years, and deplore something as barbaric.  But that is hardly fair, is it?  After all, how would you feel, knowing that in another 200+ years, somebody may be looking at you with their even deeper levels of history and philosophy, and decllairing that you are a crude barbarian?

One thing I look at as I said is context.  140 years ago, slavery was just comming to an end in the US.  However, it still continues today in many areas of the world.  In fact, hostry shows that having slavery is much more common that not having slavery.  And some may argue that it is a natural fact of life.

And 140 years ago, England still practiced "Drawing and Quartering" as a punishment!  For those that do not know what it actually is, let me expand.  "Drawing and Quartering" is a punishment where you hang somebody, and then cut them down right before they are dead.  Once they have revived sufficiently to understand, you have them pulled apart by 4 horses, 1 tied to each limb.  Truely horiffic.  But in the US, punishments like that had already been eliminated.  Yet England outlawed slavery before the US did.

And 150 years ago, "Prisons" as they are known today did not really exist.  Most punishment was of a corporal style, with flogging and maiming still common in most areas of the world.  In fact, England and most of Europe still practiced branding of convicts.  This also had been left behind in the US.

Remember, that when I make most posts like this, it truely is from a "position neutral" stance.  I myself am opposed to slavery, genocide, and all forms of cruelty.  But when I judge those of the past, it is largely with a neutral eye.  After all, I really have no right to judge them other then in comparison to other people and civilizations of the time.  They are all dead.  But I can use what happened in the past to build upon, and try to make the current era better.

And humans have a 10,000+ year history.  In all but the last 150 of those years, slavery has been a dominant form of culture and economy.  What gives us the right to go back and condemn those that lived even as recently as 225 years?  Why can't we judge them for what they did, and not try to saddle them with 225 years worth of hand-wringing?

But they are all dead white men, so what does it matter.

I'll have to agree with you on many of your points, Mushroom. I'll just leave it at that.

First, I don't recall anyone referring to anyone else as a crude barbarian, so either you're over-reacting, or I missed the posts you're referring to.

Second, if someone wants to call me such after I'm dead, I don't think it will bother me too much.

Third (and more importantly), how do you account for 17th Century abolitionists and some of the same "dead white men" who founded this country being able to recognize slavery as morally reprehensible?  I guess they were just self-righteous idiots.

Many of these beliefs will NEVER be fully reconciled......


I agree there.  That is one reason I live in the "here and now", and not in the "way back when".

I refuse to look at the past (or my past), and use it to justify where I am and where I am going.  The only person who determins who I am and where I am going is me.

I had family in my past that was sent here in slavery.  Of course, it was given a fancy name, "Indentured servitude".  But it was still slavery.  Most of Australia is descended from former criminals who were shipped out in the same way.  I also have a strong Native American heritage.  But I do not spend my life blaming others for the past.  In the same way that I do not blame the English for what they did to my Scottish and Irish ancestors.

I also refuse to take any "cultural blame" for what happened here in Alabama and other areas of the country during the Civil Rights era.  Most of that happened before I was born, or when I was a child.  But I do take responsibility for my actions and beliefs since then.  And since I have always felt that everybody is equal unless they prove themselves to be otherwise (on an individual basis, not as a group), then I have nothing to be ashamed of there.

In short, I am responsible for my own actions, and the actions of nobody else.  And nobody else is responsible for my actions but me.  I only want to be judged by the standards in action today, and not of some morality of the future.  And can anybody here truely say that they think they could stand (or even want) to be judged by the standards in use 200+ years in the future?  For all we know, the standards then may say that having only 1 spouse is morally wrong.  Or that marriage at all is a form of spousal slavery, and reprehensible.

It doesn't matter if you want your behaviour to be judged by future moral standards or not; they WILL be. And the people of the future will have every right to do it because they are using to the past to learn more about theselves, just as we do today. You suggest that we should look at the past from a neutral standpoint, irrespective of our present moral standards, but not only is that nonsense, but it's counter-productive. That doesn't let us learn FROM the past, it only lets us learn ABOUT the past. What's the point of learning about the past if you cannot consider your own moral standards so as to learn anything from it?

Cultural blame? Who's talking about cultural blame? Blaming others for the past? So is it somehow dysfunctional to acknowledge that Nazi Germany was a moral breakdown? Are we somehow engaging in cultural blame to do so?

Wow, I guess I can excuse or justify anything, then. I just have to get sufficient numbers of people to buy into my depravity so it becomes the 'cultural norm', and we're instantly immunized against moral any and all ethical challenges from now 'til the end of time. Cool!

And I don't quite understand how we can embrace the idea of 'individual responsibility' while at the same time be so willing to absolve behavior simply because it is 'the norm'.

It doesn't matter if you want your behaviour to be judged by future moral standards or not; they WILL be. And the people of the future will have every right to do it because they are using to the past to learn more about theselves, just as we do today. You suggest that we should look at the past from a neutral standpoint, irrespective of our present moral standards, but not only is that nonsense, but it's counter-productive. That doesn't let us learn FROM the past, it only lets us learn ABOUT the past. What's the point of learning about the past if you cannot consider your own moral standards so as to learn anything from it?




Exactly.

It's possible, for example, that society at large will come to embrace veganism and that subsequent generations will look back on our flesh-eating ways with disgust. Why should the thought of that trouble me? It provides an interesting perspective for exploring our conflicting notions of many issues, including 'health', 'animal cruelty', 'respect for living things'. I have eaten my share of meat in my lifetime, and I do find many animal rights 'activists' annoying as hell. But I don't have such a fragile sense of self that I need to feel threatened by the idea of rethinking the issues and my own sense of morality.

The book I am reading now is a combination "alternate-history" and "steam-punk".  It is 1 of a series of 3 books, and it features such people as John Stuart Mill, Gustavus Fox, and Ambrosio O'Higgins (I am sure that Don Carlos may be the only person in here to recognize 2 out of 3 names in that list).



I can assure you that there is at least one more.  ;)

It would be one thing if these men thought that slavery was a good and proper institution.  They didn't.
They acknowledged it as evil.  By there own standardsthey were condemning themselves. Washington never offered a moral justification for the practice, he didn't believe there was one.

It would be one thing if these men thought that slavery was a good and proper institution.  They didn't.
They acknowledged it as evil.  By there own standardsthey were condemning themselves. Washington never offered a moral justification for the practice, he didn't believe there was one.


Ah, but let's not impose our 21st Century morality.  After all, they did have the "but mom, everybody else at school has slaves" defense.  ::)

Ah, but let's not impose our 21st Century morality.  After all, they did have the "but mom, everybody else at school has slaves" defense.  ::)


Right, and even though it is recognized in someplaces as bad, well,  I want one of
my own.  I'll take care of it, I promise.

I can assure you that there is at least one more.   ;)


I was not sure if I should have included you or not.  I know from earlier posts that we read a lot of the same style of books.  :)

By chance, have you read Harry Harrison's "Stars & Stripes" series?  It is not quite as good as Harry Turtledove's works, but it is still quite good.  He tends to work more useing historical figures, where as Turtledove tends to use fictional characters as the main figures.

All in all, an interesting look at a "What If" of the Civil war, from a little known (but highly important) chapter in that war.

Right, and even though it is recognized in someplaces as bad, well,  I want one of
my own.  I'll take care of it, I promise.


Well, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult these days to sell lots of people on the idea of enslaving anyone who "looks like they're probably a terrorist, or might become a terrorist, or might know someone who might sympathize with a terrorist". 

After all, history will excuse us.

I was not sure if I should have included you or not.  I know from earlier posts that we read a lot of the same style of books.  :)

By chance, have you read Harry Harrison's "Stars & Stripes" series?  It is not quite as good as Harry Turtledove's works, but it is still quite good.  He tends to work more useing historical figures, where as Turtledove tends to use fictional characters as the main figures.

All in all, an interesting look at a "What If" of the Civil war, from a little known (but highly important) chapter in that war.


Haven't done Harrison, although I have been told that he is very good.  Have done Turtledove with his
alternative Civil War. I'll put him on the list.

Well, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult these days to sell lots of people on the idea of enslaving anyone who "looks like they're probably a terrorist, or might become a terrorist, or might know someone who might sympathize with a terrorist". 

After all, history will excuse us.


It's really sad people would still buy into those brainwashing concepts - unfortunately, there are individuals who still think rather black and white.

Not surprisingly, I don't put a lot of thought (or ANY thought) to this question.

But having looked at the list, I was surprised to see a name I have never even heard of : "John Jay"

Was he the silent partner or something ?  Seriously.  All the rest are in my head for one reason or another.  Just what did JJ do ?  Or is that question in itself the problem ?


Seriously, I AM interested in knowing.  I was hoping that *someone* might reply...  :-\\

Seriously, I AM interested in knowing.  I was hoping that *someone* might reply...  :-\\


If I know my American history, then I believe John Jay was the very first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Seriously, I AM interested in knowing.  I was hoping that *someone* might reply...  :-\\


I kinda did. Here is a cut and paste of my reply on page 4(I think)


When people think of the Founding Fathers it is almost as if the term has been delegated to only
the ones who bacame President(Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison) with Hamilton and
Frankling thrown in.  Many think Franklin and Hamilton made President because the are on our
paper currency, but that is not the case.  I think that the list should be those who signed the
Declaration,  those who signed the Constitution, and drafted the Bill of Rights. This is the Wikipedia
List

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

Constitution

William Samuel Johnson, Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, James McHenry Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, William Livingston, David Brearly (Brearley), William Paterson (Patterson), Jonathan Dayton, Alexander Hamilton, William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons (FitzSimons; Fitzsimmons), Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler, John Blair, James Madison Jr., George Washington

Signers of the Declaration
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery, Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott, William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark, Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross, Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean, Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton, William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn, Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton.

Others
Richard Bland, Aaron Burr, George Clinton, William Eustis, Patrick Henry, Levi Lincoln, Henry Lee III, John Marshall, George Mason(Father of the Bill of Rights) Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, Peyton Randolph

Seriously, I AM interested in knowing.  I was hoping that *someone* might reply...  :-\\



Try this link.


http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/jay.htm




Cat

If I know my American history, then I believe John Jay was the very first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court


While I don't know much about him, J. Jay was the first chief justice, was on of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, and negotiated Jay's Treaty with England, which, if memory serves, had to do with establishing the western and northern boarders of the USA (before the Louisiana Perchase) and other issues.

And I would once again like to reaffirm my vote for Joseph Plumb Martin as a symbol for all the young men who fought and died to keep those on the list from being hung as traitors (to Fat George).  As Ben said, responding to John Hancock, "Yes, we must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang seperately."  The true "founding fathers" are the ones who put their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors on the line, on the fields of battle.

While I don't know much about him, J. Jay was the first chief justice, was on of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, and negotiated Jay's Treaty with England, which, if memory serves, had to do with establishing the western and northern boarders of the USA (before the Louisiana Perchase) and other issues.

And I would once again like to reaffirm my vote for Joseph Plumb Martin as a symbol for all the young men who fought and died to keep those on the list from being hung as traitors (to Fat George).  As Ben said, responding to John Hancock, "Yes, we must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang seperately."  The true "founding fathers" are the ones who put their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors on the line, on the fields of battle.


Or Thomas Paine who was able to articulate in plain language the reasons for the revolution, and
be a thorn in the side of those who compromised their principles.  He gave us
"summer soldier and the sunshine patriot"  and "These are the times that try mens souls".  He proved the addage that the pen is mightier than the sword.