Herein I discuss Benjamin Franklin and founding founders and subsequent leaders. The intent is to inform us as to the thinking, inner conflicts and contradictions of the soul as well as conflicts between persons regarding earlier Americans and the institution, promulgation, sustainment, and eventual abolishment of slavery in America.
Indeed, in a document by Benjamin Franklin entitled “Observations concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries” in which he addresses how nations populate he writes in paragraph #12: “Why then will Americans purchase Slaves? Because Slaves may be kept as long as a Man pleases, or has Occasion for their Labour; while hired Men are continually leaving their Master (often in the midst of his Business,) and setting up for themselves.”
I find this sentence of 1751 by Benjamin Franklin instructive as to language used to distinguish enslaved servants (involuntary servitude) from hired servants (voluntary servitude). Note that with respect to the hired servants the word Master is used. So then this usage of the word Master in relations to the hired servants indicates to me that the master/servant mentioning scriptures of the New Testament considers the master/servant relationship to at least include that of the employer/employee relationship where employer/employee are words we use today more often instead of master/servant but yet captures a principle of obligation broader than the present day concept of employer/employee and is more akin to the independent contractor concept where one is under contract enforceable in a court of law whereas an employee generally can leave at will.
The purpose of the Article is to speak about scientific aspects of populating nations. In the article Franklin notes that the worldwide population of pure Whites is proportionally very smaller than that of non-Whites. In the article Franklin explores the scientific differences between Whites and non-Whites which he gets extremely wrong perhaps due not to his heart but to flawed institutional and societal political, socio-economic, and scientific education and a lack of experience with non-Whites in general and Blacks in particular. Franklin lists non-Whites as Africans, Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes and Native American. It is noteworthy that he lists Native Americans as non-Whites mostly so if not altogether exclusively. Franklin using the three terms to refer to non-White skin complexions: black, tawny, and swarthy. Tawny is brown and I suppose swarthy means not white, not black and not brown as a distinction. He lists Africans as exclusively black or tawny (brown); Asians as chiefly tawny. He says Americans except for the new comers which seems to refer to whites like himself are black or tawny; this suggest to me he observed Native Americans or Indians to be non-white but black or brown/tawny. He lists Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, Swedes, and Germans as swarthy meaning he did not see them as white. He does except the German Saxons from being swarthy but instead count them among the whites. In other words, he sees the British, Saxons, and Americans like himself as white and all others as non-white.
Franklin sums it up by dividing people skin colors into two composite categories: (1) Black and Tawny/Brown and (2) White and Red. Thus, he seems to equate the word swarthy with the word red in this context. He makes this division in declaring that he views black and browns as inferior and less desirable than whites and red. Yet he says it is his natural human tendency to view those like him as more desirable and superior to those unlike him. Thus, he indicates that the inferiority of others in not necessarily scientifically so but emotionally so. Of course, we know and history has proven it is not scientifically so as no race is scientifically superior to another race.
Indeed, in paragraph #24 he concludes by saying the following:
“24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.”
In Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson also speaks to the issue of slavery and emancipation seemingly using the word red to include Native Americans or Indians. This shows the imprecision and historical uncertainty of such words as they were seemingly used in differing ways by differing people and even across contexts.
In 1858 before the Presidency, Abraham Lincoln in a debate with Stephen Douglas before the Illinois General Assembly Lincoln responded to the question of slavery and liberty which he had been trying to avoid. He said he was not in favor of slaves ever having social and political equality; but, he was in favor of giving them their freedom. Now one should remember Lincoln was a politician and politicians sometimes strategically make a first step which they think people may go for while waiting to make more steps. I don’t know for sure but I would think that Lincoln was intelligent enough to know that once slaves received their freedom they would eventually demand social and political equality.
The abolition of slavery had been long grappled with perhaps even in the minds of the founders when they established the no importation of slaves would cease after 1808. Perhaps even then they knew the American form of slavery was anti-Christian but lacked the faith to do away with it fully but instead thought of politics and economics. For as the scripture says the love of money (materialism) is the root of all evil. Yet, perhaps they were thinking along the lines of population control as Franklin indicates more than the evil of slavery to the enslaved or perhaps both thoughts entered their mind. Indeed, historical motivations as now are complex and not easily determined with certainty.
Indeed, Henry Berry in 1832 gave a speech before the Virginia House of Delegates on the abolition and evil of slavery in advocating for a gradual rather than rather sudden abolishment of slavery in America. An extract from he afore cited record of the speech follows:
“MR. berry rose and addressed the house. Mr. Speaker — Coming from a county in which there are about 4000 slaves, being myself a slave-holder;…That slavery is a grinding curse upon this state, I had supposed would have been admitted by all, and that the only question for debate here, would have been, the possibility of removing the evil. But, sir, in this I have been disappointed. I have been astonished to find that there are advocates here for slavery, with all its effects…But, sir, the plea of necessity will not answer in bar to a scheme for the future gradual emancipation and removal of this class — that measure is within our power. The evil was gradually entailed upon us, and can only be gradually removed. I admit that we are not to be blamed for the origin of this evil among us; we are not to be blamed for its existence now, but we shall deserve the severest censure if we do not take measures as soon as possibly, to remove it. Sir, every obligation of justice and humanity demands — the safety of the republic demands the adoption of a system which shall produce the certain, gradual emancipation and removal of this whole class. To liberate the after-born, is obviously practicable; it has been recommended by the immortal Jefferson, whose counsels we have followed in so many things, with such signal benefits, but have totally disregarded in this….”
