In 1764, Benjamin Franklin wrote a harsh attack on the Paxton Boys, a group of people who came together to terrorize American Indians. They attacked a tribe, killing a few dozen innocent people.
In A Narrative of the Late Massacres one might say today that Franklin "eviscerated" not only them but conservative Republican ideas in the process.
After naming and sadly describing some of the victims he says:
The Reader will observe, that many of their Names are English. It is common with the Indians that have an Affection for the English, to give themselves, and their Children, the Names of such English Persons as they particularly esteem.
Ouch.
He later launches a blistering attack on racism:
If an Indian injures me, does it follow that I may revenge that Injury on all Indians? It is well known that Indians are of different Tribes, Nations and Languages, as well as the White People.
He continues:
In Europe, if the French, who are White People, should injure the Dutch, are they to revenge it on the English, because they too are White People? The only Crime of these poor Wretches seems to have been, that they had a reddish brown Skin, and black Hair; and some People of that Sort, it seems, had murdered some of our Relations. If it be right to kill Men for such a Reason, then, should any Man, with a freckled Face and red Hair, kill a Wife or Child of mine, it would be right for me to revenge it, by killing all the freckled red-haired Men, Women and Children, I could afterwards any where meet with.
I don't even know what kind of intelligent thought I could add to that. He's exactly right. Believe it or not, it gets even better.
But it seems these People think they have a better Justification; nothing less than the Word of God.
Yes the word of God is used to justify a lot, isn't it?
He then proceeds to list different instances of religion and history where "do not murder" is an accepted rule, and defends followers of Islam.
Thus much for the Sentiments of the ancient Heathens. -- As for the Turks, it is recorded in the Life of Mahomet, the Founder of their Religion, that Khaled, one of his Captains, having divided a Number of Prisoners between himself and those that were with him, he commanded the Hands of his own Prisoners to be tied behind them, and then, in a most cruel and brutal Manner, put them to the Sword; but he could not prevail on his Men to massacre their Captives, because in Fight they had laid down their Arms, submitted, and demanded Protection. Mahomet, when the Account was brought to him, applauded the Men for their Humanity; but said to Khaled, with great Indignation, Oh Khaled, thou Butcher, cease to molest me with thy Wickedness. -- If thou possessedst a Heap of Gold as large as Mount Obod, and shouldst expend it all in God's Cause, thy Merit would not efface the Guilt incurred by the Murder of the meanest of those poor Captives.
He discusses particular customs, saying:
That the same laudable and generous Custom still prevails among the Mahometans, appears from the Account but last Year published of his Travels by Mr. Bell of Antermony, who accompanied the Czar Peter the Great, in his Journey to Derbent through Daggestan. "The Religion of the Daggestans, says he, is generally Mahometan, some following the Sect of Osman, others that of Haly. Their Language for the most Part is Turkish, or rather a Dialect of the Arabic, though many of them speak also the Persian Language. One Article I cannot omit concerning their Laws of Hospitality, which is, if their greatest Enemy comes under their Roof for Protection, the Landlord, of what Condition soever, is obliged to keep him safe, from all Manner of Harm or Violence, during his Abode with him, and even to conduct him safely through his Territories to a Place of Security."
I guess Benjamin Franklin was an America-hating Islamofascist.
He says, for argument's sake, let's assume this one Indian guy was guilty of terrorizing Americans and hurting people, does that justify his not getting a trial?
But if he was, ought he not to have been fairly tried?
He then explains why a person on our soil committing acts against us should receive a fair trial and legal protections:
He lived under our Laws, and was subject to them; he was in our Hands, and might easily have been prosecuted; was it English Justice to condemn and execute him unheard?
[...]
This is done by no civilized Nation in Europe. Do we come to America to learn and practise the Manners of Barbarians? But this, Barbarians as they are, they practise against their Enemies only, not against their Friends.
I worry that Glenn Beck will read this and cry, really.
He suggests perhaps it's not correct for people who treat others this way to call themselves Christian:
They would have been considered as Guests of the Publick, and the Religion of the Country would have operated in their Favour. But our Frontier People call themselves Christians!
He says the victims would've been safer among muslims:
But what is the Example of Turks to Scripture Christians? -- They would have been safer, though they had been taken in actual War against the Saracens, if they had once drank Water with them.
And black people!:
They would even have been safer among the Negroes of Africa, where at least one manly Soul would have been found, with Sense, Spirit and Humanity enough, to stand in their Defence: -- But shall Whitemen and Christians act like a Pagan Negroe? -- In short it appears, that they would have been safe in any Part of the known World, -- except in the Neighbourhood of the CHRISTIAN WHITE SAVAGES of Peckstang and Donegall!
Holyshit, Christian White Savages!
He says what they did is an affront to government, Christianity, and...
Think of the mild and good Government you have so audaciously insulted; the Laws of your King, your Country, and your GOD, that you have broken; the infamous Death that hangs over your Heads: -- For JUSTICE, though slow, will come at last. -- All good People every where detest your Actions.
He explains, in my opinion, the justification for hate crimes laws:
One Hundred and Forty peaceable Indians yet remain in this Government. They have, by Christian Missionaries, been brought over to a Liking, at least, of our Religion; some of them lately left their Nation which is now at War with us, because they did not chuse to join with them in their Depredations; and to shew their Confidence in us, and to give us an equal Confidence in them, they have brought and put into our Hands their Wives and Children. Others have lived long among us in Northampton County, and most of their Children have been born there. These are all now trembling for their Lives.
He calls them out for being unmanly men:
Those whom you have disarmed to satisfy groundless Suspicions, will you leave them exposed to the armed Madmen of your Country? -- Unmanly Men!
I'll close the way he did, with an attack on cowards with guns:
I shall conclude with observing, that Cowards can handle Arms, can strike where they are sure to meet with no Return, can wound, mangle and murder; but it belongs to brave Men to spare, and to protect