Quotes By Our Founding Fathers. - Page 2 - Cigar Asylum Cigar Forum

Oddly, George Mason was a slaveholder from Virginia.
He's also the man who's mostly responsible for our Bill of Rights.

People today many times think that people spoke out of two sides of their mouths back then, which is understandable.
A large majority of the population DID support abolition, but could really only speak as hard as their income was indebted to slavery.
It was a strange, strange time that was completely polarized by slavery.

It was just in 1783 that Massachusetts made the first move to just flat-out abolish slavery in their state. Every slave was freed.
Before that, Pennsylvania and Vermont made gestures in that direction, partially putting a stop to slavery. They chose a more gradual abolition.
Between 75 and 83, all the 13 colonies had plans in place to end slavery.
Then it took 80 more years and millions of lives to put an end to it.
So sad.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by shilala:
I can see right where you're coming from on pretty much every point, Darren.
I certainly respect your point of view, as well.

Pretty much everything can be seen in more than one light.
Take Jefferson's debt, for instance.
He was deep in debt nearly his entire life.
He was a lousy farmer. Or had lousy Virginia farmer luck, as can be seen regularly to this day. Virginia can be hell to farm. That's why Monticello was so diverse.
He had many debtors, many in the same boat as he, and most of their debt ultimately went bad.
I can think of one story where he wrote a $20,000 note and the guy died before he could make a payment. Jefferson ate it. The way the economy worked at that time, that was at the very LEAST worth $500,000 in today's dollars, and worth as much as almost 500 MILLION.
He took on a huge amount of debt from his father-in-law.
His debt multiplied exponentially during the Panic of 1819.
When he died, he was maybe 2 million in debt. Or, more aptly, Monticello was.

His part in that was that he spent lavishly, liked to play the big shot, and mostly took advantage of his reputation so he could swing in style.

In my estimation, under the much greater umbrella of the times, he was about average in his typical politician tripe.
I probably give him a lot more stroke for the regular guy he was, and the flowery sentiment he spilled. He was fantastic at inciting a nation to do good, even if he was what he was.

I think if you and I had cigars with him, we'd find him a very likable guy, whereas, for instance, we'd find John Adams something of a dick. :-)

Anyways, thanks for the discussion, brother!!!
Add some more awesome quotes, will ya?

I'll bet you're right, Scott. Even John Adams himself thought he was difficult. I lived in his home town for about 12 years after I got married. It's been said that he was probably the most deserving, after Washington, but the least prepared to be President.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by dave:
As much as I value an union of all the states, I would not admit the southern states into the union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to the union.
---George Mason June 17.....1788

Let that year sink in a little bit.....had more of his generation thought the same way, I wonder how different the next 80 years would have been....or even the next 227 years

Until you realize that he owned more slaves than any other delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He was opposed to the slave trade, not slavery for purely economical reasons (his slaves wouldn't be as valuable to the Southern market if, "fresh" batches were coming in from Africa/the Caribbean).
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Stephen:
Until you realize that he owned more slaves than any other delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He was opposed to the slave trade, not slavery for purely economical reasons (his slaves wouldn't be as valuable to the Southern market if, "fresh" batches were coming in from Africa/the Caribbean).

I did not know that. Thanks, my man!!!
[Reply]

I didn't either. A little more interwebs reading clouds things a little more, however. I can't find much to support the reasons stated (devaluation.) What I've seen today seems to indicate that reasoning had more to do with being realistic about the issue in social climate of the time; and that big changes across the colonies was going to be slow going. All is just speculation, however, since his writings that have survived are a little contradictory, but don't seem to indicate his personal feelings/rationalizations. Entirely possible that a couple centuries treatment of a respected founding father have tried to smooth rough edges.
[Reply]

He was simply a man of his time, Dave.
We tend to look at these guys with the different morality of today's eyes.
The fact that he was in a position to give the northerners an abolishionist gift, yet better his lot, really just means he was a damn motivated businessman with a sensible head.
Were he from further south, there's no way he'd consider such a thing as giving up slave trade.
He could make that concession because of his proximity to the northern economy he served.

In short, he was certainly not a bad guy, and should be admired. :-)
[Reply]

Originally Posted by shilala:
He was simply a man of his time, Dave.
We tend to look at these guys with the different morality of today's eyes.
The fact that he was in a position to give the northerners an abolishionist gift, yet better his lot, really just means he was a damn motivated businessman with a sensible head.
Were he from further south, there's no way he'd consider such a thing as giving up slave trade.
He could make that concession because of his proximity to the northern economy he served.

In short, he was certainly not a bad guy, and should be admired. :-)

Hi Scott, I just can't compartmentalize morality like that. There were others who took a stand, like Hamilton, who never owned or allowed a slave to work for him. Once, when he was ill and stuck in the city, a friend sent him a servant to help. He sent her back at once. When Washington freed all of his slaves, he gave them money and land. Thomas Paine hated slavery in no uncertain terms. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution calls them Persons and bans their importation after 1808, so there certainly was a sense of the moral hypocrisy evident.
[Reply]

Agreed, Darren.
It remains that it was not even remotely the morality of the times.
Hell, 50 years prior nobody griped on slavery at all.
We as a country and culture evolved around it, albeit slower than most other civilized (and barely civilized) countries.
The big holdup here was, as remains today, money.
That treading into where we don't go here, let's get back on point.
I sure hope you and I can talk on this together someday.
I find it fascinating, although I don't get very emotional about it.
I just sincerely hope we've learned from it all, and continue to grow under God.
[Reply]