Georgie don't know much about history

Watching the news today, where Li'l Georgie Stephanopoulos tried to trash Michele Bachmann for claiming that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly" to end slavery. Bachmann offered John Quincy Adams as an anti-slavery type... Actually her initial claim was correct.

Among the people at the Continental Congresses and the meeting in Philly where they wrote the Declaration of Independence, MOST of them regarded breaking away from England as the perfect opportunity to also end slavery. At the time, slavery was widely regarded as a hideous moral evil. Thomas Jefferson blamed the British for bringing it to the colonies, and even wrote that into the Declaration of Independence, though I believe it was struck out in revision.

George Washington was very much against slavery and freed all of his slaves upon his death. Jefferson wanted to, but he was so deep in debt, as he fell ill, his creditors began wheeling around Monticello like so-many vultures. Those slaves TJ didn't free before his death were taken up as payment for what he owed out.

And if you actually read the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, states: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

This clause actually abolished the importation of slaves into the colonies as of 1808. The British were doing something similar, so this was kind of in keeping with the international situation.

And interesting to note that it was the delegates from South Carolina and Delaware who most strenuously objected to the abolition of slavery -- to the point that they weren't going to join in any rebellion that did away with slavery. South Carolina because its economy depended upon slave labor; Delaware because a large part of its economy was involved in the slave trade. 

Take a look at the historical context for this. Many of the northern colonies were founded by religious groups -- Puritans, Calvinists, Quakers, Catholics in Maryland. The most influential of the southern colonies were based on land grants from the Queen/King of England -- like Elizabeth I gave Sir Walter Raleigh what is now much of Virginia and just about all of North Carolina.

These land grants were given out as payment for services rendedered, more or less. They were intended for money-making plantations -- like the "Sugar Islands" in Caribbean, for example. Also because such a grant to Raleigh gave Elizabeth a toehold in North America pretty much within shooting range of the Spanish in Florida. See, it goes way back...

So the northern colonies -- cold land, difficult to cultivate -- were to a pretty impressive degree populated by people who sort of generally didn't like slavery because it was morally wrong. In the south, they needed labor.

And there were white slaves -- indentures -- as well as black slaves. The Colonie of Virginia was the first to intitute a "Slave Code" differentiating white indentures from black slaves, and claiming that while whites should/could free themselves, blacks would always be slaves. "Blacks" were defined as people with a black mother, please note. The father could be any color. Black women slaves often were regarded as a sort of convenience for white masters -- but any resulting kids would have no birthright, no claims to any estates, etc. See how that works?

The northern colonies -- most of them -- were outlawing slavery even before the Revolution, on moral grounds. But the South was a different story.

At the time of the Revolution, the cash crops of the southern colonies were tobacco, hemp, rice, and indigo. Don't see any cotton? Cotton was nice but too damn hard to cultivate. The bolls from the plants are full of tiny seeds. By the time the slaves carded or picked out all those seeds, the selling price for cotton fiber made it non-economical.

Then the cotton gin was invented -- at almost the same time the U.S. Constitution was being written. Over the next 20 years, with the price of cotton very accessible, and cotton itself a very attractive alternative to wool and silk, the demand for cotton went through the roof.

So now slavery wasn't so terribly immoral anymore in the South. Cotton was (and still is) difficult to cultivate -- it take certain soil and sucks all the nutrients out of it. It has to be carefully hoed and constantly tended. Even before the boll weevil hit the U.S., cotton was prey for whole variety of destructuve bugs. In short, growing cotton -- even after the gin -- was a labor-intensive proposition.

And slavery became... not so bad. I mean, the slaves were learning "civilization" working from dawn to dusk, living in dirt-floor shacks, and denied their traditions, right? So went the harangue from southern pulpits, from southern agriculturists, yada-yada-yada. By God, the slave owners were positively ennobled by keeping slaves. Right? Noblesse oblige.

So, yes, the Founding Fathers were probably majority against slavery. They sort of pointed the nation in that direction. But then came the rise of King Cotton. And did I say cotton wrecked the soil? It did. And the planters knew it, but rather than replenish the soil, or leave it fallow for a couple seasons to "rest," they continued to overwork it until it became pretty much non-productive and then they moved .... west -- into Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. And started a profitbable agribuiness in sugar as well.

Meanwhile, the ol' Yankees up north just got more and more dead set against slavery. The Quakers not only gave it up and abolished it in Pennsylvania, but starting preaching to southern planters about the evil of their ways, passing out pamphlets and all...

And the rest is history, as they say. Jefferson gave up any efforts at even promoting abolition. And so did just about anyone else. Slavery became deeply entrenched in the southern states, an embedded feature of society and the whole culture. The rich planters learned they could treat "poor white trash" (and yes, that was how they referred to them, even then), like servants, yet maintain the status quo by reminding these guys that, yeah, they might be trash, but at least they were a step above the slaves.

Then we enter into the long, drawn out, bitter, violent and eventually near-terminal run-up to the Civil War.

And yes, the Founding Fathers started it all, and even predicted civil war or something like unless/until the issue of slavery was dealt with.

The Republican Party was founded on anti-slavery. When Abe Lincoln was elected as the first Republican president -- that was all the slave states needed to know. South Carolina officially seceded about six weeks after the election and months before Lincoln was inaugurated.

I could go on. But this is enough, I think. Georgie just don't know much about history, and clearly less than Michele Bachmann does.

Save the Republic.