Also they were mad at the British for not allowing them to steal Native American land in a disorganized way. You had to go the Crown which would negotiate with the tribe on your behalf etc. Washington (especially) of course had other ideas..
- 1706: Slaves entering England are freed
- 1772: no slaves can be removed from England,remaining slaves emanzipated
- 1779: all slaves fleeing from tha US are freed, regardless of their willingness to fight for the queen
So, yes, the crown had legal precendent and plans to abolish slavery as far back as the early 18th century.
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_sla...
The British Crown and the upper classes had no issue at all with African Anerican and Indian slavery in the colonies and were happy to profit from it.
Abolitionism was a fringe view at the time.
Sure, England had a ruling that slavery was illegal in England... but there was no push to interdict slavery elsewhere in the empire (not even Scotland and Ireland, IIRC), especially the colonies. And do recall that some individual Caribbean islands had more slaves than all of British North America.
That's in fact why the British Caribbean didn't revolt during the American Revolution: they were like "what, revolt and risk dealing with a slave revolt without backup from the British Army?"
The comment.
e.g. Washington and his soldiers were promised quite a bit of land in Ohio(?) as a reward for helping fight the french. All of that land ended up being an Indian reserve the Crown decided to establish instead.
> > To be fair they didn’t quite manage to complete it
They had to wait till independence to “complete it”.
When trying to learn more about it I found a Snopes article at https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-price-they-paid/ discussing a letter going around titled "The Price They Paid" making the claim "Five [of the 56] signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died."
Snopes comments that while five of the signers were indeed captured, four appear to have been treated as normal prisoners of war after being captured in battle ("they were not tortured, nor is there evidence that they were treated more harshly than other wartime prisoners who were not also signatories to the Declaration") and the fifth - singled out for signing - was sent to prison.
Wikipedia comments that the fifth, Richard Stockton, was "intentionally starved and subjected to freezing cold weather. After nearly five weeks of brutal treatment, Stockton was released on parole with his health ruined." quoting a 1823 biography.
But was that torture? Reading the biography, at https://archive.org/details/biographyofsign03sand/page/100/m... , the issue appears to be that rich Mr. Stockton, used to living the high life, has been placed in the commoner jail rather than the comfy jail for rich people:
> On his removal to New York, he was ignominiously consigned to the common prison, and without the least regard for his rank, age, and delicate health, for some time treated with unusual severity.
As Congress described it, "that he hath been ignominiously thrown into a common gaol, and there detained".
And the common jail had horrible conditions. Quoting https://www.americanwars.org/american-prisoners-revolution/p... :
> "The New Jail was made a Provost Prison, and here officers and men of note were confined. At one time they were so crowded into this building, that when they lay down upon the floor to sleep all in the row were obliged to turn over at the same time at the call, 'Turn over! Left! Right!'
> "The sufferings of these brave men were largely due to the criminal indifference of Loring, Sproat, Lennox, and other Commissaries of the prisoners.
> "Many of the captives were hanged in the gloom of night without trial and without a semblance of justice.
It doesn't seem like any of the founders were tortured during the war.
Appalling and deplorable, yes. But you said they were tortured.
If appalling conditions = torture, then nearly all of the captured revolutionary troops were tortured, yes?
As well as the captured British POWs held by the Americans?
Which would mean both the US and Britain were systemically and institutionally engaged in wholesale torture of white British subjects (or at least people perceived to be British).
Which would seem to diminish the severity of the term "torture".
Also, Stockton wasn't a POW.
The other four - who were POWs - had much better conditions.
For example, three were held in St. Augustine under parole, with food, a quarter pint of rum daily, and considerable freedom of movement about the town.
This is a far cry from being tortured.
> Was that torture?
Yes, that's quite clearly torture.
He was assigned to the commoner prison, not tortured. That's why he was cold and hungry.
If it was torture, why Congress was so interested in the plight of this one man - enough to send General Washington to investigate the report - and not interested in the plight of everyone else in the prison in the same condition?
Why is it okay to torture common people, but not rich "honorable" people?
It's not. That was his point.
The other 4 Declaration signers who were detained by the British were all rich men of high station - were given good treatment and considerable freedom under parole not given to normal prisoners or POWs. They certainly weren't tortured in any sense of the word.
The description in the biography seems to be that because Richard Stockton was also a rich man of high station, he should have received similar treatment, but he was instead treated like a commoner, and his suffering was all the greater because he was used to the good life.
In the biography were are supposed to sympathize with Stockton because of course rich people deserve to be treated better than plebes. That's the natural order of things. A bizjet traveler should never be forced to fly tourist class.
Congress's interest in the case seems to be much more an apprehension that Stockton was being treated like a common prisoner than a concern that commoners are being horribly mistreated. They wanted Stockton treated like a POW, covered under different laws than a prisoner.
If what was going on can be called torture, Congress don't seem to care. My question is, why not?
"intentionally" implies intention somehow.
Wikipedia's source for "intentionally starved" is https://archive.org/details/biographyofsign03sand/page/102/m... :
> He was not only deprived of the comforts, but the necessaries, of life, having been left more than twenty-four hours without food, and afterward afforded a very coarse and limited supply. The inhuman treatment which he received, so repugnant to the principles of civilized warfare, and so intolerable to an individual who had been accustomed to all the comforts and delicacies of life, depressed his spirits and seriously affected his health.
Can you tell me if that was "intentionally starved" or "intentionally forced to eat the same rations as commoners"? Was it really a starvation diet, or was it food that a rich man wasn't used to eating and found unpalatable?
In any case, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36875273 I point out the other four imprisoned signatories to the Declaration of Independence were not treated like this.
They certainly were not tortured.
The source your quoting also calls it "inhuman" and "repugnant to the principles of civilized warfare."
It's got nothing to do with how rich he was, only the fact that he was mistreated as a prisoner.
As best as I can tell, Stockton is the only one who might fit that description, and the cited support for Wikipedia"s "five weeks of brutal treatment" doesn't help me understand how that specifically was torture, unless all "brutal treatment" is considered a form of torture.
He lost his wealth, including his library and animals. That's surely an emotional shock that could easily lead to depression. I can understand how someone from privilege, with a lot to lose, may be more affected than a poor person with little to lose. I can also understand how that depression may make it harder to survive wretched circumstances. But I also don't want to give special dispensation to wealthy people just because they are used to a good life.
All of the resources I've found about the event trace back to the biography I've been quoting. The book "His Sacred Honor, Judge Richard Stockton" surely has more, but I can't find a copy online.
I am unable to answer your question about the book. I believe that if "civilized warfare" is a meaningful phrase in a 1770s US context then it's surely influenced by Vattel.
Should the people involved be prosecuted for torture?
To be clear, I think it is a clear violation of their 8th amendment right.
Here's a lawsuit where the jail wasn't providing enough food. https://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Lawsuit-says-jail-s... . The class action lawsuit is settled, at https://dailygazette.com/2020/07/23/montgomery-county-agrees... . The county denies any wrongdoing.
Even if you think it was torture, I wonder if the prisoners did. The complaint at https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/medi... says "A more abusive and inhumane environment is difficult to imagine" but does not use the word torture.
Or, from https://interrogatingjustice.org/prisons/historic-winter-sto... :
> More than 1,000 women in one medical prison endured days without heat. Temperatures inside FMC Carswell the facility dropped to 50 degrees. The prison is the only medical facility for women in the entire country, and it houses prisoners with severe health problems. To make matters worse, staff failed to properly secure water supplies, leading to a water shortage inside the jail. Ahead of the storm, correctional officers did not repair damaged heating systems or secure a generator to make sure essential medical equipment had power. Though the prison never officially lost power, prisoners struggled in the extreme temperatures.
Were they being tortured?
Or, "The Big Chill - I had never been locked up before. No one told me that prison would be so cold." https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/11/29/the-big-chill .
Are those prisoners being tortured? Or is this part of the "pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions" the United Nations Convention Against Torture specifically excludes?
I found https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/1998/feb/15/cold-cell-v... saying "The court noted that "cold temperatures need not imminently threaten inmates' health to violate the eighth amendment. Thus, Dixon's claim that his cell was so cold he could not write a letter or do legal work, was sufficient, without more, for eighth amendment purposes."
This sounds like a cold cell can be a violation of the 8th amendment, even without involving torture or extreme health problems.
That's why I don't want to say that this short description of the events of 1700s is enough to conclude it was likely also torture.
Torture may not be the correct word, but brutal neglect certainly would.
Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton and Thomas Heyward Jr. were all imprisoned at the PoW camp at Fort St. Mark (aka Castillo de San Marcos), St. Augustine. Not a prison ship.
The Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castillo_de_San_Marcos links to https://books.google.com/books?id=eCc8BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA126 which describes their captivity and that of others as:
> They lived in the unfinished statehouse and in private houses in town. Since many were paroled, most of them were given considerable freedom of movement. The prisoners' diet was salt fish, occasionally salt beef, vegetables, and potatoes, and one-quarter pint of rum daily. They were permitted to write home for money to purchase items from local vendors. At the statehouse they slept on mattresses on the floor, and stayed the better part of a year.
That is not brutal neglect and certainly not torture.
George Walton, the 5th captured signer, was captured during the Battle of Savannah in 1778. From https://archive.org/details/biographyofsign03sand/page/124/m... :
> Walton received a wound through the thigh, fell from his horse, and was taken prisoner. He was paroled until he recovered from his wound, and then transferred to Sunbury, as a prisoner of war. The high station of colonel Walton as a member of congress, and his signature to the declaration of independence, induced the British government to demand a brigadier general in exchange for him, but the term for which he was elected having expired, he was ultimately exchanged, as a lieutenant colonel, for a captain of the navy, in September, 1779.
Again, not brutal neglect, and not torture.
Just regular good old ancestor / politician worship.
And, yes, the founding fathers (...) were just like any old grandpas. They were men of state at a particular place and time. Just because it happens to be your ancestral place and time, doesn't make it anything more impressive than hundreds of other leaders in history, including near history.
The main reason they get celebrated is because they place they founded got rich, but that was due to factors other than their brilliance.
> And, yes, the founding fathers (...) were just like any old grandpas. They were men of state at a particular place and time. Just because it happens to be your ancestral place and time, doesn't make it anything more impressive than hundreds of other leaders in history, including near history.
This is the definition of edgy contrarianism. They were on the forefront of enacting a new-ish system of thought into a stable and long-lasting democratic republic, the first really liberal and representative version of such. They were exceptional men in a unique time and capitalized on that to the benefit of hundreds of millions or arguably billions of people. They were unique men.
Don’t interrupt that sober-minded Patriotism, now.
Indeed, after deposing the monarchy of your mother country, and setting about to create a republic in the face of thousands of years of bloody noble rivalries over succession to the throne, a tall pint of cider is well in order.
You don't even need to give me positive examples, just examples.
https://benjaminfranklinhouse.org/education/benjamin-frankli...
You almost certainly would not have, had you been born in the same period of time.
Let's not pretend that people in the past were monsters simply because they lived during the period of time they lived. Maybe they were all racist monsters by today's standards, but had they been born today they'd be completely different.
People KNEW slavery was wrong, but those in power did not want to admit it. The same way that we KNOW it's wrong to horde massive wealth while children go hungry and people do not have access to basic medical care.
Those people are your neighbors...unlike the billionaires that people harp on about. Monsters are all around you. Just look to your left and right.
Because child services is critically underfunded and poverty is rampaging through our country. The richest one on earth.
> Your neighbors who assault and beat their kids.
Yes, more monsters, but not on the scale of someone who enslaves children and adults en-masse in foreign countries in order to suppress wages in their own country.
> Those people are your neighbors...unlike the billionaires that people harp on about.
Not unlike each other at all. They are the same narcissists and psychopaths, just with less power.
My point is that it's easy to take our 2023 ethics and apply them to people in the 1700s but all that does is prove you don't have a proper context or frame of reference for history. It lets you conveniently ignore things in the most intellectually lazy way. I mean, look at my comment's parent and GP. In reverse order, a perfectly rational and reasonable point about how the framers drank a lot while writing a document that would found a new country (and perhaps the difference between how it affect those people vs. his family). And the knee-jerk, lazy, boring response of "yeah but SLAVES."
Do you think that this response is innovative and thoughtful? Somebody literally said that the framers of the US constitution were collectively some of the "most functional human beings in history" and they were reminded that those people were vile and violent. If you're a black American, you have a reasonable chance of being one of their descendants because they would buy human beings to rape.
They also accomplished many things, and some of them wrote very interesting things. Jefferson was often very insightful, but he also raped slaves. Lots of drunks have written interesting things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Georgia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Whitefield
Of course people knew slavery was wrong, but profits. We may not have slavery today, but the same kind of people are around, for example against minimum wage increases or for non-compete agreements.
> yeah but SLAVES
It's astounding to me that so many people completely missed the point that these two things are related.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that GP's family probably didn't have an army of black people doing all their chores and generating a healthy income stream to live off, for free, so that they could engage full-time in civics.
I understand wanking off to our founding fathers is a bit of a national religion, but this goes a bit far even for that. All of human history? lol wtf.