Florida school board votes to remove name of Confederate general

[happyslug]

61. Franklin defended Slavery too, and owned a couple.

Why else did he sign the US Constitution? In 1787 only Massachusetts had outlawed slavery, Slavery was legal is every other state of the Union.

Ben Franklin even owned slaves:

http://www.benjaminfranklinhouse.org/site/sections/about_franklin/Issue%205%20Spring-Summer%20200%20Benjamin%20Franklin%20and%20Slavery.pdf

http://articles.philly.com/2006-02-25/news/25409649_1_chattel-slavery-ben-franklin-kidney-stones

http://benjaminfranklinbio.com/benjamin-franklin-and-slavery/147/

Yes. in his old age and the problems slaves had caused during the Revolution, he came around to ending slavery, but he had owned slaves almost his whole adult life and except for his last years, defended the institution.

Forest never defended slavery as anything else then something to profit by, he never considered it good and proper, just profitable. He accepted the concept of Slavery coming to an end, even seeking out African American support it is later years (Something Franklin never did).

Now we are looking at the start of the movement to abolish slavery when it comes to Franklin, and the aftermath when it comes to Forest (who died in 1877). Over 30 years separate the death of Franklin and the birth of Forest. On the other hand, Franklin owned slaves when it was becoming easier and cheaper to free them, while Forest lived at a time where freeing slaves was almost illegal in most Slave States.

Another way to look it is, was Franklin did NOT have to own slaves to maintain his wealth, Forest, do to his profession as a trader had to keep them as an object of trade so Forest could maintain his wealth. Thus which is worse, someone who did NOT need slaves (Franklin) but owned them, or one that had to owned Slaves as part of how he made his living (Forest). I can make the argument Franklin was worse on that ground alone.

Now, Franklin did join in the movement to abolish slavery in the 1780s, but that was a time period when slavery was dying on its own (the invention of the Cotton Gin would reverse that movement). Thus Franklin was joining an on going and growing movement that appeared headed for victory (no one could predict the effect of the Cotton Gin in 1795 but it reversed the economic pressure from economic pressure to end slavery to economic pressure to expand it and make it worse then it had been). Forest lived in an area where Slavery was on the March, the Deep South. Abolishment of Slavery was not even talked about by the locals, thus not an issue to him or the people he associated with. Thus in many ways Forest was a victim of his time (as was Robert E, Lee, Mosby and other Southern Leaders), slavery was on the march and expanding. You either have to join the march or stay out of its way, and by the 1850s no one in the south could stay out of the way of the March for Slavery and thus Southern joined the movement to protect slavery in mass. It would be nice to say I would have avoided that movement if I lived in the South in the 1850s, but I have my doubts. I do not think anyone could have avoided that movement if they lived in the deep South (Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia yes, but not the other states of the Confederacy).