New audiobook release: An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes

Librivox ^ | 8/4/23

[Ultra Sonic 007]

It's interesting that you bring up George Bancroft's "A History of the United States" in your blog post, because a book review all the way back from 1835 was quite critical of Mr. Bancroft for...playing loose with history! To quote Tucker: "The histories represent Virginia as having been loyal to the last; as having stood in support of the title of Charles II, after every other part of the British dominions had submitted to Cromwell, and as having been the first to renounce the authority of the protector, and return to their allegiance. All this Mr. Bancroft denies; and all this, except the last proposition, (that in italics) we affirm. In proof, we appeal to the very authorities on which Mr. Bancroft relies."

But besides the point, with regards to the act you cite, you seem to be focusing solely on the end piece ("It is therefore our will and pleasure that you do not upon pain of our highest displeasure give your assent for the future, without our royal permission first obtained, to any law or laws...by which the importation of slaves shall be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.") when the actual context of the act in question is with respect to an additional increase on duties paid on slaves imported into Virginia (from 10% to 15%); it is with respect to impact on economic activity between Virginia and Britain that motivated the British Crown to negate that additional duty.

Now why would the colonial government of Virginia want to make it more expensive to import African slaves?

Ironically, the very same source cited — Bancroft — plays the "race card" your own blog post later decries (bold and underlined is emphasis mine): "The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and, under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear, will endanger the very existence of your Majesty's American dominions. We are sensible that some of your Majesty's subjects in Great Britain may reap emolument from this sort of traffic; but, when we consider that it greatly retards the settlement of the colonies with more useful inhabitants, and may, in time, have the most destructive influence, we presume to hope that the interest of a few will be disregarded when placed in competition with the security and happiness of such numbers of your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects."

Likewise, Bancroft is again cited as saying "Maryland, Virginia, even Carolina, alarmed at the excessive production, and consequent low price, of their staples, at the heavy debts incurred by the purchase of slaves on credit, and at the dangerous increase of the colored population, each showed an anxious preference for the introduction of white men; and laws designed to restrict importations of slaves are scattered copiously along the records of colonial legislation."

You then wrote, without even a hint of irony, "This used to be more widely known, hence why the race card couldn't have been played against the country until the progressives succeeded in removing the entire Founding from the history books."

Funny how that works.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"It's interesting that you bring up George Bancroft's "A History of the United States" in your blog post, because a book review all the way back from 1835"

That's very strange to see a book review from 1835 of a book series first published (as far as I can tell) in 1859. This considering the book's 10 volume series kept running well after a decade later, since time machines hadn't been invented in the 1830's, but it doesn't matter. I'm no fan of any one historian since they all say the same thing. Here is Alan Taylor in his

The Internal Enemy: Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832.

To discourage more slave imports, the colony's legislature levied a heavy tax, but the imperial government vetoed it in defense of the interests of British traders.

Knowing where to look, I could do this all day. A lot of historians have confirmed this. I'm on solid ground. And even without the historians I can still do it, I've got the original sources in hand.

"Now why would the colonial government of Virginia want to make it more expensive to import African slaves?"

Ask them, don't ask me, I have no interpretation for you to assail and take out of context; or impugn in light of some historian you have a personal grudge against. The Virginians living in 1772 will tell you. Ask the Virginians from 1772, what is their answer? Humanitarianism

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.001_0169_0169/

The Importation of Slaves into the Colonies from the Coast of Africa hath long been considered as a Trade of great Inhumanity, and, under its present Encouragement, we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very Existence of your Majesty’s American Dominions.

That's the beauty of this particular situation. Virginia passed the law. The King vetoed it. Virginia replied, begging the King to do the right thing. It was a three phase process, and we have all of it, right here in black and white text to look at. And again, Virginia was not the only colony who faced this garbage.

There is a very curious unwillingness to admit that the empire might have actually treated us badly. Maybe I'm the oddball who actually reads the Declaration of Independence from top to bottom in the beginning of July, including all the grievances. You know in my wacky pro-American jingoism and all that. If that's just me, that's fine. I will always put America first. What's wrong with that?

Yes. Britain treated us badly. Very badly. All I care about is what the historians are saying, and in particular what the original sources are saying. Don't misunderstand - It's not that the historians validate the documents, it's that the documents validate the historians. Your Bancroft navel gazing isn't necessary, I'm not a fan as I said. But he could've been a liar about everything on every page - this one is validated. It's confirmed. So, that's it. Now if there is something I am a fan of, it's this letter from the Library of Congress from the 1772 Virginians. THAT is a beautiful sight indeed. I'd suggest you print out the letter and frame it on your wall. It's only one page, it's a very short read. Want an mp3? I got that too.

Why is it so terribly difficult to accept that Americans were abolitionist in the transatlantic diaspora context before the British were when all the facts say that that's undeniably true?

[ProgressingAmerica]

I meant to add - the Virginians in 1772 calling the slave trade a great inhumanity mirrors (more or less) what Jefferson wrote in the original draft of the Declaration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-XJcYxRziE

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

That's very strange to see a book review from 1835 of a book series first published (as far as I can tell) in 1859.

The book review in question was of Volume I; from what I've been able to ascertain, Bancroft published it originally in 1834. You may be referencing a later edition.

That's the beauty of this particular situation. Virginia passed the law. The King vetoed it. Virginia replied, begging the King to do the right thing. It was a three phase process, and we have all of it, right here in black and white text to look at. And again, Virginia was not the only colony who faced this garbage.

I have not stated one whit about the characterization of the slave trade.

What I found odd was that you decried modern historians for "playing the race card" when the same source you relied upon regarding the slave trade (inhumane as it was) likewise stated that their opposition to it was also rooted in preference for whites over blacks. (And all the other primary sources pulled by woodpusher more than suffice to validate this sentiment.)

Even as tensions over slavery grew through the antebellum years, prominent voices in the North and South likewise showed a general preference for one race over another.

It is true that many Founders were opposed to the slave trade for moral reasons. It is also true that many of the same retained their slaves after slipping free of Great Britain after the Revolution (at which point maintaining that the British Crown still imposed the institution upon them becomes a nonsensical proposition).

It is also true that many of these Founders openly disclosed a preference for white folk (or people of European stock in general) over that of black folk from Africa.

These are not mutually exclusive positions.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"The book review in question was of Volume I; from what I've been able to ascertain, Bancroft published it originally in 1834."

Fair enough. I'm in agreement to move on from Bancroft.

"What I found odd was that you decried modern historians for "playing the race card" when the same source you relied upon regarding the slave trade"

I think you didn't realize I had such quick access to the original sources and could do it without needing a historian at all.

Unless I'm reading this wrong. I could infer another meaning from this phrase. Are you actually admitting openly that the idea is the pettiest and deepest form of gotcha, devoid of any real result whatsoever? -And wouldn't add any value at all to the discussion either. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here and stay more with the topic, but wow. That's quite a shallow thing to admit to.

Unless both of those two are wrong, and you're trying to defend left wing historians who are the source of all this poison. But why would you do that when they're working hand and glove with the media to destroy everything?

"likewise stated that their opposition to it was also rooted in preference for whites over blacks."

The document I cited does not state that. You're inserting your own racial bias. Here is what the text says:

We are sensible that some of your Majesty’s Subjects in Great Britain may reap Emoluments from this Sort of Traffick, but when we consider that it greatly retards the Settlement of the Colonies with more useful Inhabitants, and may in Time, have the most destructive Influence, we presume to hope that the Interest of a few will be disregarded when placed in Competition with the Security and Happiness of such Numbers of your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal Subjects.

A slave is generally less useful than a free citizen, that's not a skin pigment issue. Adam Smith talks about that, among numerous others. The Pilgrims talked about that, in their notes from that first year when they almost died, the whole lot of them. They imposed a form of collectivism at Plymouth Rock, and everybody felt they were made into slaves so nobody did any work and everybody starved. This is simple classic capitalism 101 here, nothing at all racist about it.

"at which point maintaining that the British Crown still imposed the institution upon them becomes a nonsensical proposition"

On the contrary. The Founders may have potentially had (and very likely did have) a sense that being an independent country was a foregone conclusion. When the war was coming was only a matter of time. So setting up a new country that has 2, 3, or 4 or more free-soil "states" within it and perhaps only 9 slave states, that's a much more favorable situation to have to deal with than setting up a new country that is 13 to 0 all slave, all the time. This simply makes a ton of plain common sense.

I will not back off the notion that the empire forced slavery on the United States. A monarch's veto or a governor's non-compliance is not a 20 second proposition. It's results reverberate for decades. Especially something such as this which lands in the timing of when it does. And double especially since it was done numerous times across numerous colonies. There were enough Americans who had had enough of slaving to make a good show of it and actually get some laws passed. This was NOT an American problem. America was the SOLUTION to the problem, as America usually is.

Had the crown not interfered, at least 2-4 colonies would've been unmistakenly abolitionist prior to Independence. That's simply a matter of the unmistakable historical record.

I would say just the same as how powerful of an effect that the empire's gun grabbing effect had in the mid 1770s. We were always going to end up with a second amendment. It was only a matter of time. The king ensure that one too. Much of what America was at the beginning came to be explicitly because the Founders looked at the tyranny across the atlantic and said "we want the opposite of that nonsense over there".

The slaving was masterminded over there. Not over here. Again, Bristol and Liverpool(U.K.); Spain and all they did, Portugal, France/New Orleans/Haiti, and more. James Otis Jr. said treat everybody the same regardless of color way back in 1765. Perhaps one of the first Americans, Otis's early speeches are considered some of the main sparks of actual Americanism, not just "hey some people on some land". Abolitionism was tied up with the Patriots movement. That wasn't Toryism. The crown was all in on slaving. The vetos are just icing on the cake.

Shameless plug article in case it is needed later:

The First Efforts to Limit the African Slave Trade Arise in the American Revolution: Part 1 of 3, The New England Colonies

"It is also true that many of these Founders openly disclosed a preference for white folk (or people of European stock in general) over that of black folk from Africa.

These are not mutually exclusive positions."

They're more mutual than you'll care to admit. Generally the differences of usefulness arise out of their status as slaves, that's not endemic to how people are born, and that's something that's seen in the old authors. Pretty sure Adam Smith. This very document cited above says that very thing. It's not racial, they're looking for more useful people - aka free people. When someone such as a Benjamin Banneker was spotted, he got simple respect because it was so patently obvious. Racialists don't care for excellence, they care for color absurdities. Most of that happened after the time frame of the American Revolution - and I do mean as well in the islands. The racial strife we spend so much time bickering about is not nearly as U.S.-American exclusive as we are lead to believe. Jamaica had some terrible issues of race after time frame of the American Revolution. Why do you think Jamaica is demanding reparations?

Of all the plantations known anywhere, the sugar plantations down on the islands may very well have been the very worst of all of them.

[jeffersondem]

“The colonies were involuntarily against their will forced to keep slavery going.”

Brings to mind the recorded incident from an earlier period.

“And He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?’”

“Then the man said, ‘The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.’”

And so Adam blamed the woman.

And came dangerously close to blaming the Creator: “the woman whom You gave to be with me.”

What you seek to do is not something new; very human.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

I think you didn't realize I had such quick access to the original sources and could do it without needing a historian at all.

You yourself were critical of modern historians in both your blog post and your own FR tagline. The inference made regarding your disdain for modern historians is obvious to see. (And I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong to be distrustful. However, just because something is older does not inherently make it more trustworthy.)

Are you actually admitting openly that the idea is the pettiest and deepest form of gotcha, devoid of any real result whatsoever?

It's not a "gotcha" when you criticize more modern writers (the putative progressives in question) for playing the race card, yet the sources you cite deliberately bring up racial preferences as part (not the entire, but part) of the rationale for stopping the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Unless both of those two are wrong, and you're trying to defend left wing historians who are the source of all this poison. But why would you do that when they're working hand and glove with the media to destroy everything?

To be charitable, it's called trying to avoid a "self-own", or an "own goal"; if you're going to criticize modern historians for playing the race card, you'd better make sure your own sources don't do it either.

Case in point, you state "The document I cited does not state that. You're inserting your own racial bias."

To quote Bancroft once more, from your very own post: "Maryland, Virginia, even Carolina, alarmed...at the dangerous increase of the colored population, each showed an anxious preference for the introduction of white men..."

I don't know about you, but that's pretty much a point blank preference for whites over blacks.

Then again, you're the one citing Bancroft. Was he incorrect in stating that Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina demonstrated "an anxious preference for the introduction of white men" versus an "increase of the colored population"?

[ProgressingAmerica]

You have a creepy fixation for Bancroft, we have already moved past that.

Have a good day.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Adam wrote a law saying he refused to eat from that one specific tree. God vetoes his law.

........ Says no Bible ever.

[jeffersondem]

“I argue that colonies as crown-subject organizations lacking in free will when attempting to do away with slavery were halted by a royal veto, a claim I an prove with the original source.”

So the colonists lacked free will?

That is an interesting comment.

My understanding is the successful bidder at slave auctions was the one willing to pay more than the other bidders.

You paint the picture of Red Coat soldiers yanking a random yeoman farmer from his field, ordering him to the bank to borrow money, and forcing him to bid high for a slave against his will.

Slave traders were shipping slaves from Africa to points where there was a market demand. I find it hard to believe slave traders were pursuing an economic model where they would repeatedly ship valuable cargo across an ocean to a place where there were no customers.

I am not following your thinking.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

You’re the one who cited Bancroft as a source to bolster your own argument. How is it a “creepy fixation” to point out that your own rhetoric is contradicted by the words of your own source?

[ProgressingAmerica]

"So the colonists lacked free will?"

The colonists' free will led them to pass abolitionist laws.

The empire had a little something to say about that.

"That is an interesting comment."

They are interesting historical events.

"I am not following your thinking."

Agreed. You're not following at all, you have your own agenda to push.

"My understanding is the successful bidder at slave auctions was the one willing to pay more than the other bidders."

Again with the excessive levels of deceit.

Your understanding borders on anti-Americanism shilling for the empire who hurt us in at least the 27 different ways listed in the Declaration of Independence. I am clearly the first person who has ever mentioned to you that the Declaration says that Britain treated Americans badly. It is obvious that that's a new concept for you and you are struggling to put your arms around it. It is true though, Britain hurt America and we have a recorded statement of the facts. The Founders all put their signatures on the parchment. You might not want to believe that because you're more loyal to Britain than the U.S. but that is how it is.

Grievances of the United States Declaration of Independence

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica quoting Benjamin Franklin: "I have since had the satisfaction to learn that a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America..."

Thanks for your new quotes, I've added them to my collection of Founders' anti-slavery quotes.
Your Jay quote I had already, plus other quotes from Washington, Adams & Patrick Henry.

Indeed, the key point to remember here is that neither I nor anybody else has ever found a Founder's quote to the effect that slavery was a good thing and should be both preserved and expanded.
At best (or worst) our Founders believed slavery was a necessary evil which should be abolished wherever and whenever possible.

ProgressingAmerica: "Our country did not fail on race, not during the founding.
That was forced on us prior to independence and gained new life thanks to Eli Whitney."

Well... the question you raise here is whether slavery was a flaw in our Constitution or a feature of it?
The answer is, slavery was not just a flaw, rather, it was an essential feature, arguably the most essential feature, because, had the Founders not agreed to it, then there would be no United States.
Slave-states would have refused to ratify in 1788 and the Constitution would have failed ratification by 3/4 of states.
How long the old Articles of Confederation would have lasted after that is anybody's guess.

Gradual abolition was also one of our Founders' original intentions and it was well under way in 1787.
Our Founders had reasons to believe that abolition would be eventually accomplished, state by state, working from North to South.

That original plan was not fully abandoned until the Founding generation was gone and abolition failed in Virginia, circa 1835.
Only then did pro-slavery politicians begin to argue full-throated that slavery was a positive good thing that should be preserved and expanded as much as possible.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "Quoting lifelong slave owners as being morally opposed to slavery should not be a persuasive argument to anyone.
Selected pull quotes from two centuries ago are not an indicator of whether America is a racist nation today, or based on White supremacy today."

Two points here, first: the issue of alleged "racism" today is utterly ridiculous redefinitions & political weaponizing words against Republicans generally and conservatives specifically.
In the minds of our insane Democrats, "racist" simply means "you disagree with me on something important".
It has no other meaningful definition or usage.

Second, for reasons only they could refuse to acknowledge, our Lost Causers want us to forget that our Founders were, in fact, not just in words, opposed to slavery and did actually abolish it, usually gradually, wherever and whenever they could:

1. Beginning in 1775 the Atlantic slave trade was banned or suspended during the Revolutionary War.

2. Beginning in 1777 Vermont gradually abolished slavery.

3. Beginning in 1780, Pennsylvania gradually abolished slavery.

4. Beginning in 1783, Massachusett's new state constitution abolished slavery, and New Hampshire began gradual abolition, followed by Connecticut and Rhode Island.

5. Beginning in 1787, Congress outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories.

6. Beginning in 1794, the Slave Trade Act prohibited US ships from participating in imports or exports of slaves.

The list goes on and demonstrates clearly that our Founders were fully committed to restricting and gradually abolishing slavery wherever they could.

None argued explicitly that slavery should be both perpetual and expanded wherever possible.
That did not really begin until abolition failed in Virginia, circa 1835.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "As I recall, the main point I was making was that the notion that the U.S. was founded as racist was false, I even pointed to Al Sharpton while stating that fact.(among others)"

Again, it's worth repeating that the accusation of "racism" today is utterly devoid of meaning beyond insane Democrats saying, in effect, "you disagree with me on something important and that makes you racist!!"

So the accusation of "racism" has no objective meaning today, much less can it be projected back in time to an era when the political issues revolved around whether slavery should be abolished immediately (as it was in Massachusetts in 1783) or gradually (as in Pennsylvania beginning 1780) or not at all (as it turned out in Virginia in 1834), or in the Northwest Territories (1787) or in the international slave trade, etc.

So, once you start talking about "racism" as used in our current degraded political discourse, then you've wandered into a swamp of rhetorical quick-sand, from with there is no escape and no return.

Best to avoid it altogether.

[jeffersondem]

“Your understanding borders on anti-Americanism shilling for the empire who hurt us in at least the 27 different ways listed in the Declaration of Independence.”

One of the reasons that the 13 slave states rebelled was because the King was threatening to “free the slaves.”

Read your attachment again; for the first time.

[BroJoeK]

x: "They thought slavery would go away on its own"

Progressing America: "They were wrong.
I think it's important to admit that succinctly.
There's a huge gulf in between a miscalculation based on reason and hope on one side and a cold, calculated racist agenda on the other."

No, they were not wrong, and they were not stupid.
They expected just what happened during their life-times -- gradual abolition beginning with the northernmost states, the Northwest Territories, international slave imports and then abolition working its way gradually south.
And that's just what happened.

Until roughly 1834, when all the Founders had passed away and it became Virginia's turn to begin abolition, but Virginians balked and would not pass the proposed abolition state law.
Why?

Well, we hear a lot about the newfangled cotton gin, but there was something much more compelling -- Nate Turner's 1831 slave revolt, combined with the failures of recolonizing freed-blacks to Africa (or elsewhere) scared Virginians into voting against abolition in 1834 and soon after we begin to see a complete shut-down of rational discussions in the South about abolition.
In 1836 Congress imposed a "Gag Rule" to prevent debate there on the merits of slavery or abolition.

So our Founders were not wrong, concerning their own lifetimes, though they couldn't foresee events that happened long after they themselves were gone.

[jeffersondem]

“The list goes on and demonstrates clearly that our Founders were fully committed to restricting and gradually abolishing slavery wherever they could.”

Charles Pinckney.

Start with that.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Charles Pinckney. Start with that."

We've discussed Pinckney before and noted that he is the reason for the Constitution's Fugitive Slave Law, having informed the 1787 Convention that South Carolina could not support the new Constitution without it.
So there's no doubt Pinckney defended slavery in that case.

However, compared to what later Southern slavery defenders defended, proposed or enforced, even Pinckney was much more of a 1787 Federalist Founding Father than he was an 1860 era Democrat Fire Eater.
The list of abolitionist laws which Pinckney supported, or at least did not strongly oppose included:

1. Abolition of international imports of slaves.

2. Abolition in Northern states like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

3. Abolition in the Northwest Territories.

4. Discussions of slavery subjects like restrictions and abolition in the US Congress -- no Gag Rule then.

Yes, in 1819, Pinckney did oppose the Missouri Compromise, which did restrict slavery's expansion in some US territories, however, unlike 1850s era Southern Fire Eaters, Pinckney did not threaten secession over these restrictions.

So, my argument still stands that there was a qualitative difference regarding slavery between our Founders in 1787, even the Southern-most, versus Fire Eating Democrats in 1860.

[woodpusher]

woodpusher: "Quoting lifelong slave owners as being morally opposed to slavery should not be a persuasive argument to anyone.

Selected pull quotes from two centuries ago are not an indicator of whether America is a racist nation today, or based on White supremacy today."

Two points here, first: the issue of alleged "racism" today is utterly ridiculous redefinitions & political weaponizing words against Republicans generally and conservatives specifically.

Racism has not been eliminated but has been greatly reduced. It is no longer official government policy. Race pimps such as Al Sharpton just wield race accusations as a political weapon.

It is undeniable that the Constitutional union featured slavery as an integral and protected part. That was done with the unanimous ratification of all the states.

Quotes of a slave owner expressing his desire to eliminate slavery, while never freeing his own slaves in his lifetime, fail to note that the sentiments expressing the desire to be free of slaves was part and parcel of the desire to be free of Blacks. Those two desires were one and the same, and freely expressed as such from Jefferson to Lincoln.

Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [Blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers.

Allen T. Rice, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time, New York, 1888, pg 61

Few subjects have been more debated and less understood than the Proclamation of Emancipation. Mr. Lincoln himself opposed to the measure, and when he very reluctantly issued his preliminary proclamation in September 1862, he wished it distinctly understood that the deportation of the slaves was, in his mind, inseparably connected with the policy. Like Mr. Clay and other prominent leaders of the old Whig party, he believed in colonization, and that the separation of the two races was necessary to the welfare of both. He was at that time pressing upon the attention of Congress a scheme of colonization in Chiriqui, in Central America, which Senator Pomoroy espoused with great zeal, and in which he had the favor of a majority of the Cabinet, including Secretary Smith, who warmly endorsed the project.

Freeing the slaves in order to remove them from an all-white paradise is not exactly a non-racist sentiment. That desire was made explicitly clear. No amount of cherry-picking quotations can make that disappear from history.

In the minds of our insane Democrats, "racist" simply means "you disagree with me on something important".

It has no other meaningful definition or usage.

If this were true, what would be the purpose of a collection of quotes from the Founders?

In the case of the really lunatic fringe who argue as if they fought to abolish slavery, and all opposed to their glorious mission from Dog were necessarily insane, it is unfortunate that they must consider the Founders as having been insane for creating a Union which incorporated and protected slavery.

Second, for reasons only they could refuse to acknowledge, our Lost Causers want us to forget that our Founders were, in fact, not just in words, opposed to slavery and did actually abolish it, usually gradually, wherever and whenever they could:

In fact, the Founders created a Union that incorporated slavery which endured until after each and every Founder was dead. It is like quoting politicians who are opposed to corruption.

1. Beginning in 1775 the Atlantic slave trade was banned or suspended during the Revolutionary War.

During the Revolutionary war, we sunk their ships and they sunk ours. We did not pull into each others ports as welcome guests. The curtailment of importation of everything was effected by the state of war. That was not an action aimed at the slave trade.

Over 90% of the African slave trade did not deliver slaves to the English colonies, but to Central and South America, and to the islands. That was not curtailed by the war. Upon termination of the war, the African slave trade to the former colonies resumed.

2. Beginning in 1777 Vermont gradually abolished slavery.

Beginning in 1777, Vermont waged a successful revolution and established itself as a free, sovereign, and independent state, with self-appointed borders; not part of any Union. It remained a free, sovereign and independent state until 1791 when it joined the constitutional union.

2. Beginning in 1777 Vermont gradually abolished slavery.

From 1777 to 1791, Vermont was free, sovereign, and independent state, and not part of the United States.

3. Beginning in 1780, Pennsylvania gradually abolished slavery.

The Fugitive Slave Clause still applied in Pennsylvania and a slave who escaped and fled to Pennsylvania no more enjoyed free status when than he was on the plantation.

4. Beginning in 1783, Massachusett's new state constitution abolished slavery, and New Hampshire began gradual abolition, followed by Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Rhode Island remained the foremost United States purveyor of slaves from the African coast. Your unsubstantiated claim has a large clash with reality. Rhode Island abolished slavery in its constitution of 1842, Art. 1, sec. 4. That constitution, replacing the charter of 1643, went into effect May 2, 1843.

https://www.the74million.org/article/slave-money-paved-the-streets-now-this-posh-ri-city-strives-to-teach-its-past/

Some 60% of all slave trading voyages that launched from North America — amounting to 945 trips between 1700 and 1850 — began in tiny Rhode Island. In some years, it was more than 90% and most of those journeys set out from Newport, making it the most trafficked slaving port of origin on the continent.

“The streets of Newport were paved with the duties paid on enslaved people,” said the UW-Madison scholar, who wrote the book Dark Work: The Business of Slavery in Rhode Island.

[...]

Although the city of 25,000 people is now over 80% white and only 8% Black, in the mid-1700s, approximately a quarter of Newport’s population was Black or African, the second-highest share in the U.S. at the time behind Charleston, South Carolina.

http://smallstatebighistory.com/rhode-island-dominates-north-american-slave-trade-in-18th-century/

African enslaved persons were sparse in the colony of Rhode Island throughout the 17th century, with only 175 in total in 1680. Prior to 1696, the English Royal African Company monopolized the Atlantic slave trade. However, when this was lifted, Rhode Islanders aggressively expanded into the Atlantic trading system, and therefore, the slave trade.

Within 30 years the colony of Rhode Island, and in particular Newport, came to dominate the North American slave trade. Even though it was the smallest of the colonies, the great majority of slave ships leaving British North America came from Rhode Island ports. Historian Christy Clark-Pujara, in her book Dark Work, The Business of Slavery in Rhode Island, indicates that during “the colonial period in total, Rhode Island sent 514 slave ships to the coast of West Africa, while the rest of the colonists sent just 189.” Historian Jay Coughtry in The Notorious Triangle, argues that “the Rhode Island slave trade and the American slave trade were virtually synonymous” and that “only in Rhode Island was there anything that can properly be termed a slave trade.”

http://southcountyhistorycenter.org/slavery-southern-rhode-island

The owners of these larger farms became known as “Narragansett Planters,” referencing southern Rhode Island’s nickname at the time, “Narragansett Country.” Through their connections to the Atlantic slave trade, these men began to buy enslaved African people from colonies in the Caribbean (and eventually directly from Africa) to work on their farms and increase production of goods for export. At the height of the Narragansett Planter’s operations in the mid-18th century, there were 25 – 30 large plantations, and it is estimated that between 15% and 25% of Washington County’s population was enslaved. The plantations in southern Rhode Island were very profitable. Their owners were some of the wealthiest people in the colony of Rhode Island, allowing them to develop a leisurely lifestyle that mirrored that of the upper classes in England.

Vermont gradually eliminated slavery by selling its slaves south. It did not eliminate slavery, it ethnically cleansed Rhode Island and relocated its slaves. It continued to go to Africa, obtain slaves, and deliver them to the colonies, and later states.

4. Beginning in 1783, Massachusett's new state constitution abolished slavery, and New Hampshire began gradual abolition, followed by Connecticut and Rhode Island.

As stated above, Vermont waged a successful revolution beginning in 1777, and was a free, sovereign and independent state from 1777 to 1791.

The Fugitive Slave provisions of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution remained in effect in all the states.

Under either the Articles or the Constitution, the Founders or Framers could have elected to make slavery unlawful. It was a freely made decision by the States to not make slavery unlawful. Neither the British nor the Evil Empire made the Framers or the States do anything. The North could have chosen differently, but then there would have been two Unions, and the Northwest Territory would have belonged to the one with Virginia.

5. Beginning in 1787, Congress outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories.

What Congress was that in 1787?

The Federal law later enacted under the Constitution was struck down as unconstitutional.

I believe you do not refer to a law but The Ordinance of July 13, 1787. That was an Ordinance for the Territory, not a Federal law. It organized the first government of the Territory.

There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; provided always, that any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.

The portions of the Ordinance underlined by the editor were added to the original report by amendment during the debate.

https://archive.org/details/lawsofnorthwestt17nort

The Laws of the Northwest Territory, 1788-1800

This volume contains the first laws passed by the government of the Territory. Among them, at page 255, is a law on Common Law, 1795:

COMMON LAW, 1795

TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES
NORTH WEST OF THE OHIO

A LAW declaring what laws shall be in force. Adopted from the Virginia code, and published at Cincinnati, the fourteenth day of July, one thousand, seven hundred and ninety-five; by Arthur St. Clair, governor, and John Cleves Symmes and George Turner, judges, in and over the said Territory.

The common law of England, all statutes or acts of the British parliament made in aid of the common law, prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first (and where are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom) and also the several laws in force in this Territory, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered, as of full force, until repealed by legislative authority, or disapproved of by congress.

THE foregoing is hereby declared to be a law of the Territory; to take effect on and from the first day of October, next coming; IN TESTIMONY whereof, as we Arthur St. Clair, John Cleves Symmes and George Turner, have caused the seal of the Territory to be thereunto affixed, and signed the same with our names.

AR. St. CLAIR,
JOHN C. SYMMES,
G. TURNER.

6. Beginning in 1794, the Slave Trade Act prohibited US ships from participating in imports or exports of slaves.

The claim is nonsense. The Act applied explicitly only to exports. It is impossible to read the act and draw the ridiculous conclusion that it applied to imports. Rhode Island was synonymous with the American slave trade for a long time after 1794.

1 Stat. 347, Third Congress, Sess. I., Ch. 11, 1794, The Slave Trade Act of March 22 1794. "An Act to prohibit the carrying on the Slave Trade from the United States to any foreign place or country." Please stop citing sources you have never seen. If your source is Wikipedia, just go ahead and cite Wikipedia.

"The African slave trade is a trade which has been authorized and protected by the laws of all commercial nations. The right to carry it on has been claimed by each, and exercised by each; and it therefore cannot be considered as contrary to the laws of nations. The slave trade remains lawful to those nations which have not forbidden it. The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66; 6 Cond. Rep. 30." At 1 Stat. 347.

https://www.loc.gov/resource/llsalvol.llsal_001/?sp=470&st=image

The list goes on and demonstrates clearly that our Founders were fully committed to restricting and gradually abolishing slavery wherever they could.

Your list may go on, but you have only documented that you never looked at your claimed source material.

As is firmly documented in the statements of the historical characters, they were firmly committed to removing the Black presence from the country and its territories. As Jefferson stated it, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers."

When, in 1855, Lincoln's best friend, Joshua Speed, asked him to clarify his position on slavery, he said frankly, "I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery, (CW 2:233, Lincoln's italics). Lincoln said this so often and so loud that it is astounding that some people, even some historians, claim to misunderstand him.

He said it in CAPITALS at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854:

I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me. (CW 2:248)

That didn't deter honest and dishonest men — then or now — and he said it again at Bloomington, Illinois, on September 4, 1858:

We have no right to interfere with slavery in the States. We only want to restrict it to where it is. (CW 3:87)

He said it at Ottawa, Illinois, on August 21, 1858, at the first Lincoln-Douglas debate:

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. (CW 3:16, italics added)

He said it at the second Lincoln-Douglas debate and the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth debate:

I expressly declared in my opening speech, that I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery or any other existing institution. (CW 3:277)

Challenged again at the seventh and final debate, he said it again:

Now I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge [Stephen] Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of slavery. (CW 3:300)

He said it in Illinois.
He said it in Michigan.
He said it in Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan, Connecticut, Ohio, and New York.
He said it everywhere.

We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution, and the pease of the country, both forbid us. (CW 3:435)

One has to feel sorry for Lincoln retrospectively and prospectively. For he declared it and, to use his word, "re-declared" it. He quoted himself and "re-quoted" himself. Yet honest and dishonest men — then and now — continued to misrepresent him, despite the fact that he said it a hundred times:

I have said a hundred times and I have no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always. (CW 2:492, italics added).

If he said it a hundred times, he said it a thousand times:

I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion, neither the General government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.. (CW 2:471)

Not only did he say it but he cited evidence to prove it.

He asserted positively, and proved conclusively by his former acts and speeches that he was not in favor of interfering with slavery in the States where it exists, nor ever had been. (CW 3:96)

See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., pg. 248-250.

- - - - - - - - - -

This is a pivotal point, one that has been masked by rhetoric and imperfect analysis. For to say, as Lincoln said a thousand times, that one is only opposed to the extension of slavery is to say a thousand times that one is not opposed to slavery where it existed. Based on this record and the words of his own mouth, we can say that the "great emancipator" was one of the major supporters of slavery in the United States for at least fifty-four of his fifty six years.

See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., pg. 251. Mr. Bennett was an editor with Ebony magazine for about a half century.

Regardless of pull-quotes from selected Founders, history bears one unassailable truth: the Founders never ended slavery in their lifetime. They talked about it. They didn't do it. They never found a solution to the deportation part of the problem. As Jefferson said, following deportation, "the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers."

Lincoln, CW 2:276, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, March 16, 1854:

Fellow countrymen—Americans south, as well as north, shall we make no effort to arrest this? Already the liberal party throughout the world, express the apprehension "that the one retrograde institution in America, is undermining the principles of progress, and fatally violating the noblest political system the world ever saw.'' This is not the taunt of enemies, but the warning of friends. Is it quite safe to disregard it—to despise it? Is there no danger to liberty itself, in discarding the earliest practice, and first precept of our ancient faith? In our greedy chase to make profit of the negro, let us beware, lest we "cancel and tear to pieces'' even the white man's charter of freedom.

Our republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not the blood, of the Revolution. Let us turn slavery from its claims of "moral right,'' back upon its existing legal rights, and its arguments of "necessity.'' Let us return it to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace. Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. Let north and south—let all Americans—let all lovers of liberty everywhere—join in the great and good work. If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union; but we shall have so saved it, as to make, and to keep it, forever worthy of the saving. We shall have so saved it, that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generations.

At Springfield, twelve days ago, where I had spoken substantially as I have here, Judge Douglas replied to me—and as he is to reply to me here, I shall attempt to anticipate him, by noticing some of the points he made there.

He commenced by stating I had assumed all the way through, that the principle of the Nebraska bill, would have the effect of extending slavery. He denied that this was INTENDED, or that this EFFECT would follow.

I will not re-open the argument upon this point. That such was the intention, the world believed at the start, and will continue to believe. This was the COUNTENANCE of the thing; and, both friends and enemies, instantly recognized it as such. That countenance can not now be changed by argument. You can as easily argue the color out of the negroes' skin. Like the "bloody hand'' you may wash it, and wash it, the red witness of guilt still sticks, and stares horribly at you.

Lerone Bennett, Jr. observed,

Lincoln said in passing: "You can as easily argue the color out of the Negroes' skin. Like the 'bloody hand' you may wash it, and wash it, the red witness of guilt still sticks, and stares horribly at you".

In this horrible and horribly revealing statement, which indicated unhealthy obsessions at clinical proportions, Lincoln, or Lincoln's subconscious, said that the color of blackness, like the "bloody hand" of the murderer, was a "witness of guilt"—what did Lincoln, or Lincoln's subconscious think the Black race was guilty of?—that "sticks and stares horribly at you."