The Founding Fathers and Slavery

[GHook93]

Quote by: grandpa If he was a huge supporter of abolition, why would he have had slaves? Grandpa h.

Justice Harlan was a former southern slave owner. I believe the only one in the Supreme Court at the time. However, he was the lone dissenter in the Civil Right Cases of 1880s (note: the majority in the civil right cases shot down the Civil Rights Act of 1875). He was also the only dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson! This was the case that created the highly unjust "separate, but equal" society. In other words, segregation. Harlan exact words in the dissent, "the law is color blind." Separate, but equal plagued the country until Brown v. the Board of eduaction.

It is like why companies hire illegals. Some/Many? don't want to hire illegals, but when all the other companies around you do it you have little choice.

Thomas Jefferson wasn't perfect, but he preached against slavery and that is something the far left can't take away from him!

[rez]

Quote by: The Decider Huh? Many of the Framers owned slaves. What evidence do you have that the US Constitution's writers did not intend to protect an institution they freely participated in and supported? You originally wrote "county." Chris was ridiculing your typo, and even stated the same. But since you won't even acknowledge your own mistake, perhaps it wasn't a mistake.

What is it going to take for you to understand that slavery was a whole seperate issue. The focus was on becoming independent from Britian, not slavery.

All men are created equal would later be used to make slavery illegal.

2 + 2 = 4. Yayy!

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: rez What is it going to take for you to understand that slavery was a whole seperate issue. The focus was on becoming independent from Britian, not slavery. All men are created equal would later be used to make slavery illegal. 2 + 2 = 4. Yayy!

Actually, no it wasn't. A great many of the founding fathers, who employed radical rhetoric, of freedom and liberty, were well aware that their treatment of slaves was highly hypocritical, as observers were to note: -

“That I deny – man never can be well treated who is deprived of his rights. They are well clothed, well fed, well lodged. Feed me with ambrosia, and wash it down with nectar, yet what are these if liberty be wanting? You took arms in defence of the rights of man. Your Negroes are men. – Where then are the rights of your Negroes? They have been injured to slavery, and are not fit for freedom. Thus it was said of the French; but where is the man of unbiased common sense who will assert that the French republicans of the present are not fit for freedom?”

Edward Rushton to George Washington, 1796.

But your claim is that the consitution endorsed slavery.

It did through failure to even mention it. It, in effect, gave those in favour of slavery free reign to do whatever they pleased in terms of slavery. Many of the founding fathers could not be seen to endorse slavery openly, and publically declared it as 'evil', etc, but when it came to actual legality and policy they defended it and slave owners.

See the leftist cause is to slander the founding fathers and put them in a bad light.

Sorry G, but I'm doing a Masters dissertation on this topic, and it is how it is.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: GHook93 Slavery was immoral and NEEDED to be purged from out society. If Lincoln didn't move when he did the South would have gotten even strong and more than likely defeated the North. Along with WW II, War of 1812 and the Revolutionary War, the Civil War was one of the most important and necessary wars in American History! Sometime morals should trump everything else. Also the war power specifically allowed for this war, so I don't want to hear that argument.

Obviously, your argument rests on the premises that 1) slavery is immoral, and 2) that the government has any place in legislating or enforcing moral standards.

You've given no warrants for either.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Actually, no it wasn't. A great many of the founding fathers, who employed radical rhetoric, of freedom and liberty, were well aware that their treatment of slaves was highly hypocritical, as observers were to note: - “That I deny – man never can be well treated who is deprived of his rights. They are well clothed, well fed, well lodged. Feed me with ambrosia, and wash it down with nectar, yet what are these if liberty be wanting? You took arms in defence of the rights of man. Your Negroes are men. – Where then are the rights of your Negroes? They have been injured to slavery, and are not fit for freedom. Thus it was said of the French; but where is the man of unbiased common sense who will assert that the French republicans of the present are not fit for freedom?”

There are hyprocrits throughout history. You do realize though that any Black Slave that fought in the war was granted freedom.

What you are doing in putting the birth of the nation into the context of were America is at now. There was a lot of uncertainty and there were rational fears that the colonies/States would not come together to form one state. The forefathers knew that a conflict between the states would allow Britian to sweep back in and take over. It was too much later that we wooped the Brits in 2nd war. Put it in the context of the time! Not even sure that these fears would have made them illegalize slavery either the timing of this needs to be taken into account.

What you are failing to also recognize is the the Northwest Ordiance passed in 1787 which unlawed slavery in the North. This should not be ignored as a minor move. If I am correct the Brits still had slaves!

Edward Rushton to George Washington, 1796. It did through failure to even mention it. It, in effect, gave those in favour of slavery free reign to do whatever they pleased in terms of slavery. Many of the founding fathers could not be seen to endorse slavery openly, and publically declared it as 'evil', etc, but when it came to actual legality and policy they defended it and slave owners.

Yet they left it out of the constitution, interesting!

Sorry G, but I'm doing a Masters dissertation on this topic, and it is how it is.

If everyone on the topic agreed with me, then there would be little to discuss. Please share what you find out.

[Chris the Chees]

What you are doing in putting the birth of the nation into the context of were America is at now.

Wrong. the context into which I place the founding fathers is there own. I do not judge them, I am simply telling you how it is. Many such as Washington and Jefferson were, at least from a vague ideological standpoint, opponents of slavery. However those sentiments, born of the ideals of liberty, were never put into practise while slavery was still a massive source of profit both for them and the new nation in general. That is why they never did anything about the issue and why they never used the constitution to enforce their ideals of liberty universally. They were against slavery in principal, but they supported it and allowed it to be maintained in practise.

It was too much later that we wooped the Brits in 2nd war.

It seems you are confused about the war of 1812 as well as slavery.

Put it in the context of the time

I have put it into the context of the time, with direct quotes and actual events from the period. I am not attacking the founding fathers with modern criticisms, but contemporary. The simple fact is that the founding fathers knew that their ideals were incompatable with slavery, yet they were unwilling to foot the bill of abolition, on a personal or national level; so they supported slavery in practise and refused to make legal moves against it, even if they denounced it in public.

If I am correct the Brits still had slaves!

And you would be incorrect. Britain outlawed domsetic slavery in the law courts in the 1772 Somerset case. Colonial slavery was, of course, still an on-going issue in both Britain and America for many decades after that.

Yet they left it out of the constitution, interesting!

Leaving out of the constituion provided the slave trade with legal sanction, because despite all postuering about 'rights' the founding fathers deliberately never questioned the legality of slavery in the constitution. In effect they left it upto individual states, in the full knowledge that many would retain slavery.

[Domino]

grandpa:

If he was a huge supporter of abolition, why would he have had slaves?

He couldn't get rid of them. He tried to free them several times, but they wouldn't leave, for they knew that life as a free black could not compare to life as Jefferson's slave. He even took them to France, where they weren't legally bound to him in any way, and all but one chose to return as Jefferson's slaves. That one went to a French chef school, then returned as Jefferson's slave.

Apparently, being Jefferson's slave wasn't that bad, especially compared to being free.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Domino He couldn't get rid of them. He tried to free them several times, but they wouldn't leave, for they knew that life as a free black could not compare to life as Jefferson's slave.

Do you have an answer for this Jeffersonian slur against Phyllis Whately?

"Religion indeed has produced a Phyllis Whately but it could not produce a poet. The compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism. The heroes of the Dunciad are to her, as Hercules to the author of that poem."

Then there is Ignatius Sancho, who "has approached nearer to merit in composition; yet his letters do more honour to the heart than the head...

...But his imagination is wild and extravagant, escapes incessantly from every restraint of reason and taste, and, in the course of its vagaries, leaves a tract of thought as incoherent and eccentric, as is the course of a meteor through the sky. His subjects should often have led him to a process of sober reasoning: yet we find him always substituting sentiment for demonstration. Upon the whole, though we admit him to the first place among those of his own colour who have presented themselves to the public judgment, yet when we compare him with the writers of the race among whom he lived and particularly with the epistolary class, in which he has taken his own stand, we are compelled to enrol him at the bottom of the column. This criticism supposes the letters published under his name to be genuine, and to have received amendment from no other hand; points which would not be of easy investigation.

Jefferson continues:

The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life.

Thomas Jefferson on Slavery

Ronald Takaki has also discussed this, at least in one book of his.

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Actually, we just claim to think that the original intent was pure, and only pandering to the religious nut cases, and the monied interests to gain their support clouded the noblest of intentions.

And I think Milton fails to understand that the "noblest of intentions" are often blinded to reality by traditional values. It's impossible for him to comprehend that someone saying that "All Men are Created Equal" might - being blinded by 'Traditional Value' - not even consider black slaves as actually being men, or at the very least, conveniently forget the issue for the sake of political rhetoric, as Rushton's letter to Washington suggests.

It's the same dilemma Christians face today regarding the morality of Civil Rights and racial equality. Both the old and new Testaments made it crystal clear that they had no problem at all with the institution of slavery, because 2,000 years ago slavery was a vitally necessary component of any advanced economy. It was a traditional value, the exact opposite of now. So today's Christians, who can't accept the concept of moral relativism within their religious dogma, are left to twist into pretzels trying to rationalize the fact.

Quote by: GHook Decider, I am not delusional to think that Whites at the time saw Blacks as equals. That would ignore history. But your claim is that the constitution endorsed slavery. That is not true. The constitution endorse racial inferiority.

Sorry, wrong again...

Article IV, Section 2: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

What that means is that any slave who escapes to another state must, by law, be returned to their owner. That's is a crystal clear endorsement of slavery by the Constitution.

Quote by: Chris the Cheese It did through failure to even mention it.

As you can see, Chris.. it actually did. Plus here...

Article I, Section 2: -- "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Quote by: GHook See the leftist cause is to slander the founding fathers and put them in a bad light.

As opposed to what?... the libertarian's need to elevate them to infallable deities? Their every utterance the equivilent of Biblical dogma?

Quote by: Milton Bradley I am also not an advocate of Lincolns interference, and I believe we would be better served by letting the Union split at that time.

And then the Southwest could split off from the Southeast... and New England split off from the Midwest.

And the entire experiment of whether a people could govern themselves as a nation through their elected representatives would be shown a miserable failure, and we'd have a continent of warring tribes. Yeah, that works for me.

Quote by: GHook Are you kidding? You can't be serious? I know Ron Paul had a misguided view to suggest that, but I can't believe someone would take the seriously. Spliting of the union would have been a chaotic.

Good for you!

Quote by: Domino Apparently, being Jefferson's slave wasn't that bad, especially compared to being free.

So being a slave was actually better than being a free black in white America. Boy, does that speak volumes.

.

[Chris the Chees]

As you can see, Chris.. it actually did.

Well, I stand corrected.

So being a slave was actually better than being a free black in white America. Boy, does that speak volumes.

To provide a voice from the past on this matter: -

'An Extract of the Late Rev. Dr. Thomas Coke's First Journal to North America'. Friday 13th of May, 1785: -

"At night I lodged at the house of Captain Dillard, a most hospitable man, and as kind to his negroes as if they were white servants. It was quite pleasing to see them so decently and comfortably cloathed. And yet I could not beat into the head of that poor man the evil of keeping them in slavery, although he has read Mr. Wesley's [1] Thoughts on Slavery, (I think he said) three times over: but his good wife is strongly on our side."

[1]. 'Mr. Wesley' is John Wesley, one of the early founders of Methodism.

Trying to excuse the founding fathers for owning slaves, because they treated them well just doesn't wash. It didn't back in the late 18th century and its doesn't now.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Fangrim Obviously, your argument rests on the premises that 1) slavery is immoral, and 2) that the government has any place in legislating or enforcing moral standards. You've given no warrants for either.

Slavery is immoral and a crime against humanity. I believe a government should enforce and legislate against immoral acts, such as murder, rape, fraud etc.

[Domino]

So being a slave was actually better than being a free black in white America. Boy, does that speak volumes.

I don't think it can be generalized quite that much: There were surely many slave-owners in whose service one might wish for freedom.

I think it says far more that it was better to be Jefferson's slave than to be a free black in France, where it wasn't at all bad to be a free black.

Grandpa: I know nothing of Jefferson's slurs. I thought it was interesting, that the last line of the text to which you provided a link expresses Jefferson's hope for "total emancipation".

[grandpa]

Quote by: Domino Grandpa: I know nothing of Jefferson's slurs. I thought it was interesting, that the last line of the text to which you provided a link expresses Jefferson's hope for "total emancipation".

I was referring to comments like this:

The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life, as well as Jefferson's doubts that Ignatius Sancho could write without
"amendment from no other hand."

Grandpa h.

[The Decider]

Quote by: GHook93 Decider, I am not delusional to think that Whites at the time saw Blacks as equals. That would ignore history. But your claim is that the consitution endorsed slavery. That is not true. The constitution endorse racial inferiority. The constitution also embraced the ability to be adjusted, changed and added to, and it was!

GHook, you are simply and completely and undeniably wrong on this issue. Sonart gave the money quote from the US Constitution, and, not surprisingly, you ignored it as if it never existed. Ignore this if you can:

Article I, Section 2: -- "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Quote by: GHook93 See the leftist cause is to slander the founding fathers and put them in a bad light. Rather then see that they were mostly great people, especially for their time, and they created the best country in the world. They started the freedom movement that we enjoy today and the left should stop trying to only point out their bad points rather then to look at their good points!

Total hogwash and irrelevant ranting on your part. I'm debating an historical fact, not passing judgment on the totality of this nation's Forefathers' contributions to government and history. They are simply not the angels of "original intent" that Libertarian types cast them as. Jefferson is a perfect example, but there are others. George Washington established the principle of military conscription, a policy ROUTINELY attacked by libertarians and others as the epitome of big government gone wild. Well, the Forefathers were not enemies of government, nor were they the populist champions for the poor and downtrodden masses (and women...we often forget about humanity's other half and their exclusion from political equality at our nation's dawn).

Quote by: GHook93 Stephen Ambrose! LOLOLOL! I am glad you brought up this hack. He has been discredited as a plagarizer and for not doing his research.

What, do you think that I can't produce a scholar that even you would approve of? What about the historian William Freehling cited by Chris on this thread? Or, I know, what about naming someone of repute that supports YOUR position? You're on weak ground here, but by all means keep standing there.

[The Decider]

Quote by: rez What is it going to take for you to understand that slavery was a whole seperate issue. The focus was on becoming independent from Britian, not slavery. All men are created equal would later be used to make slavery illegal. 2 + 2 = 4. Yayy!

Keep up with the debate, rez. Your defense of "original intent" that includes black men as political and moral equals to whites in early America is simply not supported by the evidence on this thread. But, please, feel free to offer evidence of your own when you're finished showing off your math skills.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Sonart . Sorry, wrong again... Article IV, Section 2: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." What that means is that any slave who escapes to another state must, by law, be returned to their owner. That's is a crystal clear endorsement of slavery by the Constitution.

Aw the old "fugtive slave" clause (although note it doesn't say slave anywhere in the clause). It can be interpretted a few ways. One way, as you see it, that is the constitutions endorsement of slavery. Another way is this clause is the states recognizing the sovernity of neighbor states and respecting the good faith and credit clause. This clause guarantees that States respect the laws and court decisions of other states. That is more of what I believe the intent of this clause, regardless of how misguided or immoral it was.

If you look at the Northwest Ordinance (which made Slavery Illegal in the north) you will see that it was a compromise. The fugtive slave clause is an extension of it. This is not an endorsement of slavery, rather its an endorsement of the respecting the other states, regardless of how misguided.

The constitution didn't endorse or legalize slavery and this clause is not proof of it. However this might be the closest you might come to it.

Article I, Section 2: -- "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

This clause might has shown ignorance and bigotry, but it also didn't endorse slavery

As opposed to what?... the libertarian's need to elevate them to infallable deities? Their every utterance the equivilent of Biblical dogma?

The libertarians are at one end of the extreme and the leftist who want to do nothing but trampel over the constitution are at the other.

The more I read the constitution the more I think its the best and most well though through document ever constructed!

So being a slave was actually better than being a free black in white America. Boy, does that speak volumes.

If it was true they were obvious the minority!

[Chris the Chees]

The constitution didn't endorse or legalize slavery

I have already explained this issue. The constitution, by not condemning slavery, gave it legal sanction and left slavery to be just any other matter of property; one to be descided upon by individual states. In other words, Milton's glorious founding fathers, in true libertarian spirit, adopted a Laissez faire policy to the whole issue; because they didn't want to do anything about it.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Leaving out of the constituion provided the slave trade with legal sanction, because despite all postuering about 'rights' the founding fathers deliberately never questioned the legality of slavery in the constitution. In effect they left it upto individual states, in the full knowledge that many would retain slavery.

But you have to understand that these men were not dictators, and that part of the beauty of the system they brought us is that there is room for dissent. ( Granted, dissent from popular opinion of this subject is abhorent to me, but alas, this is the price of a freedom, and birthing a free society. )

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart And I think Milton fails to understand that the "noblest of intentions" are often blinded to reality by traditional values. It's impossible for him to comprehend that someone saying that "All Men are Created Equal" might - being blinded by 'Traditional Value' - not even consider black slaves as actually being men, or at the very least, conveniently forget the issue for the sake of political rhetoric, as Rushton's letter to Washington suggests.

I think Sonart fails to recognize that it is what was enshrined in the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the surroundings documents that I defend, and not each man, whom I've never known, personal biases.


The whole point of getting them to sign the Constitution was to find workarounds for the opposing views, and thus, allow room for dissent by not dictating every construct of society to them.

Quote by: Sonart It's the same dilemma Christians face today regarding the morality of Civil Rights and racial equality. Both the old and new Testaments made it crystal clear that they had no problem at all with the institution of slavery, because 2,000 years ago slavery was a vitally necessary component of any advanced economy. It was a traditional value, the exact opposite of now. So today's Christians, who can't accept the concept of moral relativism within their religious dogma, are left to twist into pretzels trying to rationalize the fact.

That seems aimed at me, yet I'm not religious, and I don't think I'm rationalizing away any relevent points made.

Quote by: Sonart As opposed to what?... the libertarian's need to elevate them to infallable deities? Their every utterance the equivilent of Biblical dogma?

Again, that's your perception, but only because you refuse to see the fact that what we really want is for the signers of those documents to live up to their end of the contract. At least if they intend to hold us to ours.

Quote by: Sonart And then the Southwest could split off from the Southeast... and New England split off from the Midwest.

If that better serves the constituents, then so be it. I thought were garunteed the liberty of self determination.


Sounds to me like your not really an advocate of the type of free society you were born into.

Quote by: Sonart And the entire experiment of whether a people could govern themselves as a nation through their elected representatives would be shown a miserable failure, and we'd have a continent of warring tribes. Yeah, that works for me.

Actually, you would be left with two, or more nations inclined to undertake the same experiment again, but with more consensus among the constituents, thus making their success more probable.


Sure, the first experiment failed, but if you can have a peaceful transfer of power, but I contend all parties would be better served by parties who cannot agree splitting up.

Quote by: Sonart Good for you!

Again, you're just lashing out at a false assumption that I desire violence. But then, painting us as monsters is a major component of your anti-gun message, so I guess I can't expect you to realize that "mistake".